It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Impeach Bush?!

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 08:11 PM
I was doing some research for a paper im doing and i came across this site that list some acts that justify his impeachment.After reading some of this,im kinda on the fence as what to think.If these are accurate,then he should be impeached.And why hasnt he been already? I offer this discussion to you guys,would love to hear your thoughts on this matter.

(Opednews)-The case for impeachment just grew much stronger, with the US Supreme Court's powerful decision in Hamdan v Rumsfeld. In that decision, the justices didn't simply say that the President was wrong and in violation of U.S. and the international law in arbitrarily claiming that the Guantanamo detainees were not subject to the Geneva Convention on Treatment of Prisoners of War. The five-justice majority, which included conservative Anthony Kennedy, declared the President's bogus claim to have "special powers" as commander in chief in "time of war" to be just that--bogus.

Here s a link to this website as well as another that supports as well as lists these acts in this claim.

And im not looking for a discussion based on party lines,just on the facts being presented to you.

[edit on 4-10-2006 by Black_Fox]

posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 08:23 PM
out of interest..
what happens if we succesfully impeach?

does VC Chenney take over?

or is a whole new admin sworn in ?

posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 08:29 PM
Cheney take over, and it's gonna be worse than Bush. So if you are to impeach someone, impeach all of them. But now, with the new law, if you try to impeach them, you're an enemy combattant, so it's ``impossible``.

posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 08:35 PM
Yep, impeaching bush isnt going to do JACK, accept bring about new laws and constraints.

The problem is people within the admin.
Bush is nothing but a figurepiece.

He's as thick as two sticks, minus the wood.
There's no way he's complicit it anything since sept10.

You remove bush, the only problem you give ' them ' is whom to have as the patsy in front of the camera's.

Boy I wish George would wise up n see that he's being forced to play a dud hand here.... one that will cost this country its high achieving abilities.
Then again, it is always difficult to look at your own father suspicously isnt it.

[edit on 4-10-2006 by Agit8dChop]

posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 09:10 PM
Also under the new bill approved last week, the President and the rest of his government are retroactively immune from being charged with ANY war crimes committed since September 11, 2001. They should be tried at the Hague anyway. Though it has been documented time and again how his administration lied us into war on false pretenses and phony evidence, alas they were never under oath like in Clinton's circumstance. For these reasons, the case for impeachment is much more difficult. The Democrats would need to control both houses of Congress AND gain some spine for it to happen.

What is the text of Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution?

[edit on 10/6/2006 by Majic]

posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 09:30 PM
The democrats! HAHAHAHA. They are as bad as the republicans and here's another proof...

Dans un commentaire sinistre, Gingrich déclarait que la Loi sur les commissions militaires n’était que le début. « Dans les quatre ou cinq ans qui viennent, nous allons nous retrouver à examiner des lois impliquant des droits civils dont nous n’aurions jamais rêvé parce que notre ennemi ne nous laissera pas le choix », a-t-il déclaré. Sa contrepartie démocrate ne s’est pas opposé ni n’a repris ses propos.

I'll try to translate it...

In a sinister commentary, Newt Gingrich declared that the new Military Commission law was only the beginning. `` In the next 4 to 5 years to come, we're gonna examine new laws about civil rights that we wouldn't thought of before because our enemy let us no choice. (YEAH RIGHT)`` His democrat counterpart didn't oppose to this commentary.

So the democrats are as bad as the republicans, it's just that they do everything in ``secret`` look at the wars of Clinton, ect... Don't forget also that Hilary Clinton is from Bilderberg and voted against the south fence, so she's for the American Union. Ect... ect... ect... Those who believe democrats will save this country will have a big wake up call in 2008...

/Hope I'm wrong.

posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 09:40 PM
Sure, for the most part the Democrats were complicit in the madness of this war, among other things, yet there is no other choice for the investigations and eventually, impeachments to take place. The fence is just a pacifier and they threw the proposal together and pushed it through in time for the elections to please some of the constituents. Everybody knows the aliens will keep coming until the economic situation improves down south; there is no fence or wall that can't come down.

posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 01:48 PM

The new law in the US does not prevent Bush et al from being tried for war crimes under the Geneva Convention.

The law does not trump the Constitution of the US therefore there is no immunity.



top topics


log in