OP/ED: Impeach Bush Now!

BN,

THAT is a trick question. Do i think a Democrat can do the job? :shk:
Do i think a Republican can do the job? Perhaps.

Like i said before, i'll take a good Republican anytime. I'll settle for a good Democrat anytime also.

Are there any? hmmm.... I will tell you that any change, as long as its not the current band of thugs, would be an improvement.

Originally posted by dgtempe
BN,

THAT is a trick question. Do i think a Democrat can do the job? :shk:
Do i think a Republican can do the job? Perhaps.

Like i said before, i'll take a good Republican anytime. I'll settle for a good Democrat anytime also.

Are there any? hmmm.... I will tell you that any change, as long as its not the current band of thugs, would be an improvement.

so basically we're stuck ...lol... theres noone really "COMPETENT" to replace him. And i also believe that having all this "impecahemnt" rumours all over the Media isnt helping in Iraq or with the situation in Iran. If anything its only pumpping the fanatical nuts even more.

well there wasssss but he died in a mysterious plane crash *cough*wellstone*cough*

but anyway, mostly all politicans are just business men looking to score some money and such. Lobbyists and all are a great way to really get into it all

Originally posted by Boatphone
[
The U.N. is my first guess.

-- Boat

The US is the UN to the extent the UN does anything. The UN does virtually nothing without the US stamp of approval. The UN is the right's bogeyman now that Clinton is working hand in hand with papa Bush.

Please make an effort to support your weak allegations with some authority, however meaningless. You could even use FOX News for your source if you wish. Speaking of which, I understand one of the FOX talking heads has been selected as the new mouthpiece of Sauron (Bush) the Evil One. What a suprise. Well, considering those guys are already on the payroll it makes sense to bring them under the same roof.

ceci, I had a chance to look up some stuff.

We will stick to the two citations you quoted, namely 1) the willful destruction of cultural artifacts; and 2) the protection of women in a war zone.

1) You cited that the Geneva convention states:
4. Special protection of certain property

Cultural property(1) is entitled to special protection. Historical monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples must not be the objects of any acts of hostility, nor be used in support of the military effort.[P. I, 53]
Ok, I read this and am now looking up intrepretations of this passage. I would define the above as stating that said objects 'must not be the objects of any acts of hostility, nor be used in support of the military effort', ie coalition forces would be in violation if such objects were deliberately targeted, or used them in support of the war (such as basing attacks out of a historical mosque.) Has there been over the course of the war destruction of cultural artifacts? Of course. Were such objects targeted specifically by coalition forces? Your one citation that implies that (the Pravda one) does not of course explain as to why the 'museum' was targeted, but did admit that it used to be a palace used by Saddam. (Funnily enough, the very same article admits a whopping 5 civilian casualites arose out of hundreds of targets hit. Not perfect, but a definite improvement on collateral damage numbers then would have been historical.) the rest of the links point to the looting that transpired after Iraqi forces were decimated. Should/could the coalition forces have stopped this? Sure, they could have stepped up the violence another notch, and provided more ammo to the people decrying the war in the first place. However, back on point, is not preventing the looting a violation of the Geneva Convention? Not that I read it. It sounds fairly restrictive in my intrepretation, but I will look up articles about that specific topic and see if I can come up with something more. Is there a Bush memo or some such stating that this is coalition policy? Not that I could find.

2) c) Protection of women

Women shall be the object of special respect and must be protected against any form of indecent assault.

First off, I cannot find that exact citation in the fourth convention. No problem, I understand it and there are ones that basically state that.
On that I can only say this. Women (or any protected person, for to be afforded special protection, one must not have been involved in the conflict in the first place, so a female taking part is distinctly not given extra consideration, as a female coalition soldier would not either) should be treated with respect, and the Geneva Conventions are not required to tell me that. Anyone who mistreats an innocent out of malice should be duly punished. That being said, I read through your citations, but then I remembered this:
usinfo.state.gov...
which dispells at least two of those links as pure propaganda. Of course you can say that considering my source it is biased, but then who can we believe? We have two contradictory points of view. The only way we can move past this to the truth is to find actual documentary evidence untainted by possible fraud. Lastly, to throw the President back in the mix, is there some sort of directive from him requiring the abuse of women? Again, not that I know of. Even absent, is the abuse so widespread to point to higher direction? Your own sources do not say that, but point to a small number of deviants in coalition forces. Those people should be punished.

Neither of these two examples point to a requirement to impeach the President. Should the perpetrators be punished? Heck yes! Should any wrongdoing by a common soldier mean the President's ouster? I don't think so.

dperry,

If you looked closer at the looting reports of the museum, the U.S. Marines were supposed to protect the museum. People in Iraq implored the marines to guard the museum from being looted. But the Marines did not do anything. Not only that, but archaeologists and historians begged for the museums not to be looted.

If Mr. Bush truly cared about preserving the cultral history of Iraq (more or less "occupying" some of the Presidential palaces [one of which is being used for the new embassy]), then he would by executive order command that the Marines do their jobs. But I think that he was willingly complicit in demoralising the enemy--so much that the willful destruction of cultural artifacts demonstrate the lack of remorse or respect on foreign soil. Mr. Bush in his response has lacked any repentance for the loss of precious items. Nor, has he ever made any reparations. That to me signifies neglect and willful violation of cultural property.

2) About the violation of women, the reports from the Guardian specifically indicate that the female prisoners were raped by the U.S. soldiers acting as guards. Several of the women ended up pregnant. Here too, Mr. Bush, as commander-in-chief, could have issued a "cease and desist" order against the troops to stop this kind of behavior. But knowing Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Gonzales' support of torture in not only Abu Ghrahib as well as Guantanamo Bay, he is just as complicit in the torture as the regular soldiers, let alone the rape of women within Iraq.

In my eyes, he has violated the Geneva conventions. Not only the fourth convention. But the third, fifth and seventh.

Even with the pictures that came out Abu Ghrahib can you not deny that war crimes have taken place? Not only that, Mr. Bush has been complicit with that abuse because he did not punish the top brass in the chain of command. In fact, they were let off with a slap on the wrist. In fact, I don't think that he even commented on the abuses that went on the prison.

It's not propaganda when there are pictures that display the abuse in those prisons in general. And with the women, when U.S. soldiers are complicit in that abuse, they recieve the orders from the chain of command. And the top of that chain of command is Mr. Bush.







[edit on 25-4-2006 by ceci2006]

ceci,
That Iraqi people implored the Marines to stop the looting does not incur upon them the responsibility to stop the looting. It is unfortunate, and it may not seem right, but that is the way it is. That the military establishment didn't have the foresight to provide orders beforehand to authorize force to prevent the people of Iraq from looting their own museums, that frankly doesn't shock me. Also, that still does not change the fact that the citation you quoted from the Geneva Con. was simply not violated. The objects were not targeted by coalition forces.

I think the paucity of collateral damage and the restraint in targeting sacred buildings, even when used by insurgent forces, shows a tremendous amount of respect on foreign soil. I am sorry we disagree.

True, the reports from the Guardian makes those claims. However, those claims were traced back to a specific website known for its use of unvalidated propaganda. Also, the woman has never been found that supposedly wrote said letter, in fact by coincidence she was killed the same day. Seems just a little too convenient to me. In the Army report on Abu Graib:
www.msnbc.msn.com...
there was a single report of what would be called rape. Does this point to a wide-spread use of rape as a tool of terror or subjugation? Not in the slightest. Should that one soldier that had sex with an inmate be punished? Without question. There is no such thing as consensual sex in a prison. Should Bush have issued a cease and desist as you say? To what purpose? The crime commited is already against the Uniform Code of Military Justice. An Exec Order would simply repeat the directive and be legally useless, so why? Do you think that by not doing so this somehow condones rape? That makes no sense to me since it was already illegal, and people who commit crimes are punished, at least in my (limited) experience.
The pics out of Abu Graib are reprehensible. I am glad that those who performed those acts were/are being punished. However, unless one can prove that orders (or tacit approval) came from above, one cannot hold those above superior.

Listen, I come from an atmosphere from where the man in charge (I will call him the CO) is held responsible when something bad happens in his command. I deal with that on a daily basis. But every act of malfeasance does not reflect on said CO. If a sailor commits a crime, the CO is not held personally responsible, regardless of how much the crime incites emotional response.

Taking this as a source:
en.wikipedia.org...
personnel up to the Brig General in charge were punished. The people actively involved got prison time. The people that didn't do their job well enough to have prevented these sick actions were punished by having their careers/lives ruined. If every illegal act required punishment up the entire chain of command, no organization could operate. Simple fact.

ceci, I have to roll for now. Later. Of course I don't want this to be just one line, so I will add a bit... and maybe I will get there eventually...

dperry

[edit on 25-4-2006 by dperry4930]

[edit on 25-4-2006 by dperry4930]

What you said is fair. But how would you explain the My Lai massacre? I would think that the CO in that situation was very complicit in gunning down an entire village. Not only that, the behavior of his soldiers reflected badly upon him. In fact, the soldier who tried to stop the hostilities recently died and was considered a hero despite disobeying the commands of his CO. But I guess, Vietnam and Iraq are two different situations.

I will also add more. I am going to continue to look for reports that aren't "propaganda" in your eyes and see if there is another way to explain Mr. Bush's violations of the Geneva Conventions.


In fact, why don't you supply a list of why Mr. Bush does not deserve to be impeached? If you are so sure that he is "pure as the driven snow", give me at least five reasons with proof that makes him so worthy.

Ceci








[edit on 26-4-2006 by ceci2006]

I'm sorry for not listing the right section about the women. I have re-read the Fourth section in its full text. I have found out that it is Part III, Section I., article 27 that includes the stipulation about women:

Full Text of the Fourth Convention
Part III. Status and Treatment of Protected Persons

Section I. Provisions common to the territories of the parties to the conflict and to occupied territories

Art. 27. Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity.

Women shall be especially protected against any attack on their honour, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault.

Without prejudice to the provisions relating to their state of health, age and sex, all protected persons shall be treated with the same consideration by the Party to the conflict in whose power they are, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, religion or political opinion.

However, the Parties to the conflict may take such measures of control and security in regard to protected persons as may be necessary as a result of the war.

Collateral Damage? Hardly. Here are some articles that discuss that very thing--pointing to GWB's violation of the Fourth Convention.

Here is Wayne Madsen's take on the Looting of cultural artifacts in Iraq. However, for dperry, this also might serve as "propaganda":
Was Saddam Right?

Wayne Sandholz's article in The Columbia Journal of Transnational Law also discusses the "willful destruction of cultural property":
The Iraqi National Museum and International Law: A Duty to Protect

Anita Ramasatstry's article talks about the "violation of cultural properties". She goes step by step explaining the grounds of cultural property and the Fourth Geneva Convention:
Toppling Saddam, Not His Statues

Gaby Rado explains what is legitimate and what is not legitimate in terms of military targets:
Legitimate Military Targets

Joanne Mariner also discusses the looting in Iraq and its consequences:
Liberations and Looting in Iraq

Human Rights News also talks about the violation of cultural properties and civilians:
Coalition Forces Must Stop Iraqi Looting


Notice: All of these people are associated with the law, except for the views endorsed by the Human Rights News and Wayne Madsen. But Madsen is no slouch. He was in the Navy.






















[edit on 26-4-2006 by ceci2006]

dperry, since you believe that Mr. Bush is not liable in his violations of Part III, Sec. I, art. 27 of the Geneva Convention, I am going about to find new evidence to prove my point that something indeed is afoot in the treatment of not only women, but all detainees in Iraq. I have not found new items about the rapes. But, I am continuing to look. Until then, I will supply you with legal opinions about whether the U.S. has violated the Fourth Geneva protocol.

Women's issues and the Fourth Geneva Convention:

( this is a work in progress. I am continuing to research new material about the rape of women in Iraq.)

Human Rights Abuses of Detainees in Iraq:

Joanne Mariner talks about violence and abuse of detainees:
Sex, Violence and Military Justice

She also talks about Mr. Rumsfeld's role in Abu Ghraib scandal and how he should be investigated:
Rumsfeld and Abu Ghraib

Leila Nadya Sadat also discusses the violation of the Geneva Convention by the U.S. in terms of their treatment of detainees. She especially discusses the Taguba Report, the one that you uncovered on MSNBC:
International Legal Issues Surrounding the Mistreatment of Iraqi Detainees by American Forces

Human Rights News talks about more reports coming out about the abuse and torture of detainees in Iraq:
New Accounts of Torture by U.S. Troops, Soldiers Say Failures by Command Led to Abuse







[edit on 26-4-2006 by ceci2006]

[edit on 26-4-2006 by ceci2006]

I would rather we didnt impeach him, he hasn't done anything too extreme since his re-election really to warrant such a thing. We all voted him in, and if you didnt vote dont come complaining to me it wasnt my job to escort you to the polls 2 years ago. I believe that the main reason Bush was re-elected was so that he could finish what he had started in Iraq. I figure we should give him the rest of his time in office and who knows, maybe he will suprise us. I doubt it but I would rather let Bush finish it that impeach him and have the next president pull the troops too fast and risk what might come of it.

Source

At a book signing on Friday at Columbia University, a number of journalists told me they worried that Bush, Rove and Cheney, if they thought they were going to lose the House in November and face serious investigations into their crimes and deceits, would do something treasonous, like launching a war against Iran, or perhaps allowing another major terrorist attack against a U.S. target, so that they could then clamp down further on domestic freedom and ramp up jingoistic support among their wavering base.

And my opinion is this is exactly what will happen. I hope i am wrong. I have been known to be.

Just a word for those who are worried about Cheney or someone else stepping into office, who do you think is really running the show now? Do you really think Bush is keeping Cheney from doing whatever he wants?

There is a "PLAN" and it will be carried out regardless who is sitting in the throne. They could put a chimp in the oval office and the country would never notice.

The point of impeachment is for the people to take back the country, STARTING with Bush. Nothing would change as far as who holds the reigns, but we'd have made the first step at reclaiming our country. Impeachment of Bush is just the first step.

And for those who think we can wait out 3 years and it will all be over, WAKE UP! Do you think they're going to just hand it over to the next in line? The front man might change but the reigns will still be held by the same people.

We have to Impeach this government and the first stop is the 'top'. Bush/Cheney.

I'm sorry... I have to say it. Bush is an idiot. In my view thats reason enough to impeach him. There is proof out there of his idiocy..... lots of it.


Weapons of mass destruction? Where? He assured the american public and the congress that they were there. The buck stops at his desk. He made the ultimate decision so the burden of proof lands at his feet.

Lives have been lost, America's reputation has been ruined throughout the world because of what happened in the prisons.... is he not the commander of the US armed forces ? Does he not have to shoulder some of blame for what happens under his command? How many people in his administration and freinds of his family have profited from the government contracts he doled out during this war? Who authorized the planes full of BinLadins family members to leave this country within hours of 911? And get this chit.... I'm not even knowledgable on what all he has done I just know that it was wrong.


If he was the CEO of a company who made this many blunders and idiotic decisions would he still be the CEO? No wait !!! He was in charge of how many companies that he ran into the ground ?

Its better for America if we cut our loses now before he gets another opportunity to screw up again and maybe this time it will be your child who gets killed as a result. Think about it........


You want to know my own personal theroy of why we're in Iraq ? I think he was packen a hard on for Suddam to finish the job his father mucked up when he was president. And wanna know why I think we charged into Desert Storm? I mean the US had a hands off policy when Sadam invaded Kuwait... oh no we're not gonna get involved. Then wonder of wonders a Bush sibling got nailed in a savings and loan investigation and omg we gotta go help Kuwait... What ever happened to the savings and loan investigation anyways? The news on that just dried up overnight after the war started. Think about it.....

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Just a word for those who are worried about Cheney or someone else stepping into office, who do you think is really running the show now? Do you really think Bush is keeping Cheney from doing whatever he wants?

Yes, President Bush and Vice President Cheney work as a team. This should not suprise you, i mean, that's how our government works.

There is a "PLAN" and it will be carried out regardless who is sitting in the throne. They could put a chimp in the oval office and the country would never notice.

And what is this strange "plan", is it something that you just make up in your head? Also, I'm 100% sure that if somehow a chimp was placed in the office of the President all Americans would be informed.

The point of impeachment is for the people to take back the country, STARTING with Bush. Nothing would change as far as who holds the reigns, but we'd have made the first step at reclaiming our country. Impeachment of Bush is just the first step.

I hope you realize that a majority of Americans voted for the President, so you would really be taking over the nation, and forcing values that most people would oppose.

And for those who think we can wait out 3 years and it will all be over, WAKE UP! Do you think they're going to just hand it over to the next in line? The front man might change but the reigns will still be held by the same people.

You see every four years the nation votes for a President...

We have to Impeach this government and the first stop is the 'top'. Bush/Cheney.

Sorry, but impeachment isn't even on the table, keep dreaming...

-- Boat

where do i stand on the issue???

impeach him...

that's my stand all right...

i hope flamming doesn't start...

because giving false information out on purpose with programs like psyops and such, thats not like forcing ideology on anyone. its guided decision making, to ensure a victory of the man who was backed by texas oil and enron. to me these sound like pretty similar things. Theres not much difference between forcing an ideology on some one and lying to them deliberately to get them behind you, just one they realize it and the other they dont.

Originally posted by Boatphone
You see every four years the nation votes for a President...

What are you talking about? The next president takes office Jan 20, 2009. That's 3 years from now. What's your beef with what I said?

I hope you realize that a majority of Americans voted for the President, so you would really be taking over the nation, and forcing values that most people would oppose.

Come join us in the present!

I don't know if you've heard, but LOTS of those people who voted for Bush have changed their minds (awakened). He couldn't even win Texas these days!

His approval rating is below 50% in all but 4 scarcely-populated states! And he's barely over 50% in those! Check it out.

On November 2, 2004, Bush received a 50 percent or more vote of confidence in 31 of 50 states --30 states if you believe he did not legitimately win Ohio. How many states give him that same vote just a year and a half later, based on April 2006 approval polls? Four.
...
* Idaho 53%
* Nebraska 51%
* Utah 55%
* Wyoming 54%

Keep in mind also, that these four states collectively make up barely two percent of the 296.5 million people in the United States based on a July 2005 Census Bureau estimate, so in sheer numbers, it's not quite the same as if people in New York, California or Texas still like him.

Sorry, but impeachment isn't even on the table...

Don't be so sure about that. California and Illinois are initiating impeachment in their states' legislature, with Vermont and Connecticut right behind.

Oh, look, Vermont is number 3!

[edit on 26-4-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]