1,000 Try To Serve Citizens Arrest On Bush

i know what you meant.

But for some reason, you think that guns are the only physical weapon in existence.

How many guns were used in 9/11?

0. Just a box, a couple of knives and a plane ticket.

Its not that hard to fight without guns, to the contrary when you dont fight on their terms they dont know how to fight back.

reply to post by Octavius Maximus


Had the people had knives themselves or knew how to fend off such an attack without weapons, then things may have ended differently, but we also aren't taking into account the traditional hijacking situation that was pounded into everyones skulls growing up, bad guys take plane and make demands, The demands are met and the people are released
Had those people known what was going to happen they may have acted differently, like those on Flight 93.


This still doesn't change the fact that, the reason the right to bear arms is highly protected here is because, its a balance, the people were always intended to run the government, it wasn't meant to rule us like a monarch, but for us to come together for a common cause, the protection of our freedom, but power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, the founders knew this, its been proven through out history, that when any from of government begins to consolidate power the people loose its hold, and its rights, the second amendment was protect because its a last resort tool, if this gets really bad, then we have the means to fight back back and actually have a chance of winning.

if you've ever seen videes of protesters who simply use free speech, they are no match for riot squads, and swat teams with bullet proof vests, shields, machine guns, gas, armored vehicles, and high powered water hoses.

This is the most disgusting thread I have read on ATS.

Page after page of putrid filth spewed by vile people, despite several warnings to stay on topic.

Enough of my ranting now, these protestors in NYC should be praised for taking a stand for what they believe in. I only wish more people were like this, the world would be a better place.

Whilst the attempt to arrest President Bush was inevitably futile, the spin on the protest undoubtedly created more publicity for their cause.

The people of the USA are blessed with the best constitution in the world, which they are rightly proud of.

The people that label these protestors an embarrassment should be ashamed of themselves, and should think about what their founding fathers would do in today’s climate. I am sure the dumping of the tea in the harbour would be embarrassing for them as well?

That’s me done, I hope I don’t get banned for this

How much do you wanna bet those 1000 people will just happen to have mysterious or bad things happen to them as a result of this?

First I'd like to say to dznetworks, if what you say is true...

Then, in my opinion American freedom isn't real. We don't have freedom of speech, etc. Then, all of us as Americans should keep our mouths shut and just be glad we aren't living in Iraq or some other third world country. And if that would be the case, and these are all my words not yours or anyone elses, we are all just puppets at the hands of our government just an Orwellian society.

---------------------------

NOTE:

Does anyone believe that these impeachment articles could also pertain to President George W. Bush?

I edited this from the Impeachment proceedings of Richard M. Nixon which I obtained from the Website: The History Place

Articles of Impeachment:

RESOLVED, That ________________, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment to be exhibited to the Senate:

ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE NAME OF ITSELF AND OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AGAINST _______________, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IN MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF ITS IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HIM FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANOURS.

Article 1: Obstruction of Justice.

In his conduct of the office of the President of the United States, ________________, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice.

(1) Making or causing to be made false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes of the United States.

In all of this, ___________________, has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore ______________, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

Article 2: Abuse of Power.

Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, _______________, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, imparting the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposes of these agencies.

This conduct has included one or more of the following:

(1) He has, acting personally and through his subordinated and agents, endeavored to obtain from Telecommunication Industry and Electronic Monitoring of Internet Websites, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained for purposes not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens.

(2) He misused the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, and other executive personnel, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, by directing or authorizing such agencies or personnel to conduct or continue electronic surveillance or other investigations for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; he did direct, authorize, or permit the use of information obtained thereby for purposes unrelated to national security.

Rubyteacup

I applaud the "1,000!!!!!"

I don't believe it was just a publicity stunt. I feel that these individuals are disgusted by what is happening in the United State of America. It is very difficult to get that many people to cooperate towards the same goal, but they achieved what they needed to do......Bring awareness to the American People!!!!!!!!!

Rubyteacup

Of course it was a publicity stunt. There was no way any citizen or citizens could put the President of the United States under arrest. In fact, it's doubtful that any federal law enforcement officer could do so either. It is the sole power of the House of Representatives to indict him and the power of the Senate to remove him from office. Only after that could any normal criminal proceeding go forward.

Ya know the hard right likes to accuse us liberals of being full of hate.

All you have to do is read this thread to know where it actually is.

With all of the threads floating around with people asking "What will you do when it's TIME" to do something..
These people ARE your words. They are trying to make that time NOW.
They are what you ask for whether you agree to the method or not.

Instead of being cheered on, they are called "dupes" "imbeciles" and a host of other derogatory concepts that just baffles me.. They woke up and DID something.

Go ahead and give all sorts of other ideas that would have worked better or been more effective because they will stay just that.. ideas and blank text in a forum with no fruition.

b

reply to post by grover

I can attest to this as I used to be one of them... I was about as far right as they came.
I mean just looking at some of my posts from a year ago makes me ill, amazing what taking the time to read the founding documents and understanding history can do to ones mindset and beliefs.

There is a knee jerk kind of patriotism almost spasmodic in nature that some indulge in. But if you really look into the founding ideals that made this country you will find that a rabid conservatism is not one of them. The ideals that built this country and are still pretty much unrealized were/are at their essence profoundly liberal.

It's also worth remembering that what was Liberal then is not what Neo-Liberalism has become.

The original Liberal movement was about The People.
Neo-Liberalism is about The Corporation.

We're suffering the same problem up here in Canada.
The Conservatives are about Big Business. The Liberals are about... ah, Big Business. The only real nationalistic party we have is the NDP (New Democratic Party) and there's very little hope they will get into office. At least we don't have the 2 party system and the NDP can continue to be a strong voice of opposition.

Most folks don't understand how badly the US political system has been abused by Private Interest Lobbyists. They're running the show and elections are just a way to make people think they have a choice.

Again, it's only slightly better in Canada right now... the same game is being played, but since we don't have a 2 party system, the lobbyists have a much harder time controlling the show.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Of course it was a publicity stunt. There was no way any citizen or citizens could put the President of the United States under arrest. In fact, it's doubtful that any federal law enforcement officer could do so either. It is the sole power of the House of Representatives to indict him and the power of the Senate to remove him from office. Only after that could any normal criminal proceeding go forward.

It would be absurd to think of this incident in any other way. Come on! This was about as likely to succeed as that senator's lawsuit against God.

What bothers me about this action is the sheer hypocrisy of it. If another nation's president, say in the Middle East had committed the same acts (accused another country of possessing weapons of mass destruction that they did not have, killed their leader and innocent civilians and hundreds of thousands of soldiers for a reason that didn't exist) we would've brought them to "justice". But no, America's the world sheriff, so we can't be indicted of crimes that were clearly committed.

Under the principles of the Nuremburg Trials at the end of World War Two, Bush would be indictable for all four counts established back then:

1. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of crime against peace;

2. Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace;

3. War crimes;

4. Crimes against humanity.

reply to post by BitRaiser


Really there is very little difference between neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism... they are both variants of predatory capitalism.

reply to post by DeepCoverUK


You must be joking. The vitriol that the left has thrown at Bush is simply unconscionable. The irony is that Bush is a good neocon, meaning that his domestic policies are liberal democrat to the core. He believes in big government and big government solutions to our social problems. Remember a neocon is simply a liberal who adds to whose core beliefs the idea of American military hegemony. Spread liberalism to the world by force if necessary.

What I never see from the hate Bush crowd is an examination of the stone cold human rights abusers who are Bush's enemies. People like Al Qaeda, N. Korea, Iran etc. etc. Why don't the arrest Bush crowd, decry human rights violations in Muslim countries? Why don't they protest Al Qaeda's bombing of innocent women and children, both here and in Iraq? Where are they when Muslim warlords rape and enslave christians in the Sudan? Why is their nary a peep when the dictator of N. Korea entertains himself by watching christians being crushed alive by steam rollers?

Even more ridiculous is the fact that there is no evidence and no credible charge they can pin on Bush. What will you impeach him for, making bad laws? Congress is doing that 24/7. How about short sighted foreign policy or politicizing the war effort? If so then why didn't they impeach Roosevelt?

At least in president Clinton's case they actually had evidence of lying. Of course they also had evidence that he was receiving campaign money from China in exchange for ballistic missile technology, but of course that was just too dangerous a road to go down.

Originally posted by SevenThunders
You must be joking. The vitriol that the left has thrown at Bush is simply unconscionable. The irony is that Bush is a good neocon, meaning that his domestic policies are liberal democrat to the core. He believes in big government and big government solutions to our social problems. Remember a neocon is simply a liberal who adds to whose core beliefs the idea of American military hegemony. Spread liberalism to the world by force if necessary.

You're perty on the mark here. The difference between Neo-Liberals and Neo-Conservatives basically boils down to their names. The system is there only to present apparent choice to the public while the real show is being run by Private Interests. It's little wonder Bush has crying fits... he's a puppet with no power who's simply there to take the abuse while the real controllers run rampant over a system that I suspect he once believed in.

It's important to remember that the majority of the time when someone says "Bush" what they really mean is "The Administration of the Country, both visible and invisible", but that's quite a mouthful.

What I never see from the hate Bush crowd is an examination of the stone cold human rights abusers who are Bush's enemies. People like Al Qaeda, N. Korea, Iran etc. etc. Why don't the arrest Bush crowd, decry human rights violations in Muslim countries? Why don't they protest Al Qaeda's bombing of innocent women and children, both here and in Iraq? Where are they when Muslim warlords rape and enslave christians in the Sudan? Why is their nary a peep when the dictator of N. Korea entertains himself by watching christians being crushed alive by steam rollers?

This argument will never hold water.
Just because you're not as bad as someone else doesn't mean you aren't a criminal. It's like saying that since in some countries the military randomly kills people for no good reason, that it should be OK for the western military to beat up random citizens. After all, they aren't killing them, right? Things could be worse!

The Western Administration should be held accountable to Western Standards. Period.

Even more ridiculous is the fact that there is no evidence and no credible charge they can pin on Bush. What will you impeach him for, making bad laws? Congress is doing that 24/7. How about short sighted foreign policy or politicizing the war effort? If so then why didn't they impeach Roosevelt?

Proof?
"Saddam Hussein has weapons of Mass Destruction".
Done deal. He lied to the public to justify an illegal war.

At least in president Clinton's case they actually had evidence of lying. Of course they also had evidence that he was receiving campaign money from China in exchange for ballistic missile technology, but of course that was just too dangerous a road to go down.

It's laughable that Clinton was impeached for attempting to keep this personal life private and demonized for something which isn't a crime under the law (adultery). Much worse things have been done by various presidents who escaped unscathed. Example: Reagen and proven state sponsored terror organization, the Contras.

Remember who's running the show. Clinton was guilty of not following his master's orders by making the welfare of the American People a higher priority than the feeding of Private Interest. I'm not going to say the man was perfect, but his general policy was much more moral than the current one in place.

That is why he had to go.

reply to post by SevenThunders


Unpardonable huh? And I suppose the crap the right threw at Clinton was?

Originally posted by DaleGribble
if bush is such an idiot how and why did he get ellected twice. i would join the secret service and would fight off anyone who tried this wether the pres was democrat of republican. because he is our president right or wrong the majority of the people wanted him there so that is where he is.

um....

was he really elected twice, or did he hijack it?

On topic: I believe those 1000 people acted honourably. It raises awareness, and that is needed to foment change.

Note to all: just because we disagree doesn't mean we should lose civility.

reply to post by AotearoaSon


i forgot i posted that, its been a few days. my point was regardless of what our personal opp is of our president we as americans have a duty to stand behind him or her, outside of some hurndas act, and i know you want to despute that so let me clear it up. to me it means more than a war but a direct attack on our nation im behind that person one hundred % outside of hillary clinton i stand by that.

reply to post by DaleGribble


No we as American have a duty and responsibility to ensure Liberty and Freedom Stand, The President takes an oath when he is elected, this oath is a promise to Protect the Constitution of the United States from all enemies foreign and domestic.

If he breaks this oath then he is the very enemy he swore to protect the constitution from.

Our obligation is to the protection of the constitution, because the constitution is the foundation of protection of our unalienable rights, its whole purpose is to protect the people, all positions of government within this documents purpose is to protect it, to protect the peoples rights.