Resolutions Against The "Way Forward"

Re: Resolutions Against The "Way Forward"

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Why are the Congress and Senate... both repub and dem... bothering with these resolutions? The arrogance twins have already made it clear they're going to do what they want and don't care who says what so what's the point? At what point do we drop the charade?

We do not require symbolic action.... we require real action.

I think it's time to impeach, arrest, get some sane people behind the wheel.

I agree. These "resolutions" further the disfunction of the US Govt and the World sees it as weakness. If the Democratic controlled Congress had any balls, they would stop funding the thing and force withdrawal.

I agree, GW has committed offenses that could be viewed as impeachable and would support such actions. However, considering the current disfunctional unit called the US Govt, this action at this time will only further embarrass this great country.

0 Replies

Quote:

However, considering the current disfunctional unit called the US Govt, this action at this time will only further embarrass this great country.

I think that could be said almost anytime a prez. is doing badly. Sometimes it's better to cut your losses while you can....

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Re: Resolutions Against The "Way Forward"

woiyo wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Why are the Congress and Senate... both repub and dem... bothering with these resolutions? The arrogance twins have already made it clear they're going to do what they want and don't care who says what so what's the point? At what point do we drop the charade?

We do not require symbolic action.... we require real action.

I think it's time to impeach, arrest, get some sane people behind the wheel.

I agree. These "resolutions" further the disfunction of the US Govt and the World sees it as weakness. If the Democratic controlled Congress had any balls, they would stop funding the thing and force withdrawal.

I agree, GW has committed offenses that could be viewed as impeachable and would support such actions. However, considering the current disfunctional unit called the US Govt, this action at this time will only further embarrass this great country.

I would be interested to hear under what grounds this president could be impeached according to the section of the Constitution that deals with impeachment, and even more interested to hear under what grounds he could be arrested. Presumably, he couldn't be arrested until after he had been impeached and convicted. I am pretty sure that a sitting president cannot be arrested by the police.

The subject of impeachment has come up here before several times. I do not think the Founders intended presidents to be impeached for legal but unpopular policies, nor do I believe that any reasonable interpretation of the Constitution permits this. My own interpretation of the Constitution is that a president cannot be impeached who cannot be shown to have violated a written law.

0 Replies

The "Way Forward". Great name for Bushie's Crusade. It reminds of when Kadima was formed in Israel. A huge event with many members of Likud and Labor leaving their parties to form a new party, Kadima, which means Forward. And they made history by winning the election big time. Rather than becoming a force for moderation they've taken things to the extreme in Gaza and Lebanon. Now Bushie is saying Forward as threats against Iran become more blatant. As Cheney said yesterday, "It won't stop us,'' and as Bushie reminded us again today, he is the decider. War with Iran and Syria is next on the PNAC blueprint and who is going to stop it?

0 Replies

Re: Resolutions Against The "Way Forward"

Brandon9000 wrote:

woiyo wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Why are the Congress and Senate... both repub and dem... bothering with these resolutions? The arrogance twins have already made it clear they're going to do what they want and don't care who says what so what's the point? At what point do we drop the charade?

We do not require symbolic action.... we require real action.

I think it's time to impeach, arrest, get some sane people behind the wheel.

I agree. These "resolutions" further the disfunction of the US Govt and the World sees it as weakness. If the Democratic controlled Congress had any balls, they would stop funding the thing and force withdrawal.

I agree, GW has committed offenses that could be viewed as impeachable and would support such actions. However, considering the current disfunctional unit called the US Govt, this action at this time will only further embarrass this great country.

I would be interested to hear under what grounds this president could be impeached according to the section of the Constitution that deals with impeachment, and even more interested to hear under what grounds he could be arrested. Presumably, he couldn't be arrested until after he had been impeached and convicted. I am pretty sure that a sitting president cannot be arrested by the police.

The subject of impeachment has come up here before several times. I do not think the Founders intended presidents to be impeached for legal but unpopular policies, nor do I believe that any reasonable interpretation of the Constitution permits this. My own interpretation of the Constitution is that a president cannot be impeached who cannot be shown to have violated a written law.

I don't know about arrest, but the President has been violating FISA for years. That's reason enough to impeach if the Congress decides.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Here's a roundup of lies and ways the admin. has tried to conceal their manipulation of pre-war intelligence:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/1/26/124110/550

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Here's a roundup of lies and ways the admin. has tried to conceal their manipulation of pre-war intelligence:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/1/26/124110/550

Cycloptichorn

FISA could be grounds. I admit that I haven't done any detailed research on that question. As for the lies, assuming they are lies, how many of them constitute violations of the law? In general, lying, no matter how immoral, is not illegal.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Here's a roundup of lies and ways the admin. has tried to conceal their manipulation of pre-war intelligence:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/1/26/124110/550

Cycloptichorn

FISA could be grounds. I admit that I haven't done any detailed research on that question. As for the lies, assuming they are lies, how many of them constitute violations of the law? In general, lying, no matter how immoral, is not illegal.

That depends. It is still illegal to lie to Congress even if you aren't under oath.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It is still illegal to lie to Congress even if you aren't under oath.

If that were true (as stated) every Congressman/Senator we have would be out on their ear.

The only law on the matter is Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 47 Section 1001 and that specifically limits lying to congress as a crime only if it concerns administrative matters (like submitting a false expense voucher for payment) and testimony given in the course of a committee investigation or review. I can't find any record of Bush testifying before any Congressional committee.

0 Replies

fishin wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
It is still illegal to lie to Congress even if you aren't under oath.

If that were true (as stated) every Congressman/Senator we have would be out on their ear.

The only law on the matter is Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 47 Section 1001 and that specifically limits lying to congress as a crime only if it concerns administrative matters (like submitting a false expense voucher for payment) and testimony given in the course of a committee investigation or review. I can't find any record of Bush testifying before any Congressional committee.

I believe that he did testify before the 9/11 commission on April 29th of 2003. However, I'm not sure if this qualifies as a Congressional Committee or not; I am inclined to believe that it wouldn't, but not sure.

I will try to hunt up some of the recent testimony by Alberto Gonzales, who claimed in front of the judiciary committee that it is still a crime to lie to congress even if you aren't under oath; he didn't specify the law or that it was limited to committee testimony. I have no reason to believe that you are wrong, however.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Bushie told a whopper in the SOTU the other day. "Bush Speech Terror Claim Debunked A Year Ago"
Just one of many State of the Union lies, following in the tradition of the 2003 yellowcake fraud, Bush commits an impeachable offense by knowingly lying to the American people

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Wednesday, January 24, 2007

A claim made by President Bush in his State of the Union speech last night, that an attack on an L.A. skyscraper had been averted, was universally debunked as a hoax by Mayors, CIA, FBI and NSA personnel and counter-terror experts nearly a year ago when it first surfaced. By regurgitating this fraud, Bush has committed an impeachable offense by knowingly lying to the American people.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/240107terrorclaim.htm

0 Replies

blueflame1 wrote:

Bushie told a whopper in the SOTU the other day. "Bush Speech Terror Claim Debunked A Year Ago"
Just one of many State of the Union lies, following in the tradition of the 2003 yellowcake fraud, Bush commits an impeachable offense by knowingly lying to the American people

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Wednesday, January 24, 2007

A claim made by President Bush in his State of the Union speech last night, that an attack on an L.A. skyscraper had been averted, was universally debunked as a hoax by Mayors, CIA, FBI and NSA personnel and counter-terror experts nearly a year ago when it first surfaced. By regurgitating this fraud, Bush has committed an impeachable offense by knowingly lying to the American people.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/240107terrorclaim.htm

The possible grounds for impeachment, according to the Constitution, is "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." Assuming, for a moment, that you are correct about lying to the American people, which of these categories is it? Remember, it must satisfy the legal definition of one of those terms.

0 Replies

The point is political.

Democrats and Blue State Republicans want to distance themselves from an unpopular war without accepting any accountability for it's conduct or it's outcome.

It's hard to reconcile a clear conviction that the President's "Surge Strategy" is counter to the interests of the country and a needless waste of the lives of our soldiers, with a non-binding resolution.

Irrespective of what one might feel about the War in Iraq, it's pretty difficult to understand how anyone might believe that the so-called Loyal Opposition has acquitted themselves well in its regard.

If Democrats initially supported the War because they believed the same intelligence the President had, then their criticism of Bush when the reality about WMDs became clear is venal.

If Democrats initially supported the War while disbelieving the same intelligence the President had, then their actions were venal.

If the Surge Strategy is a clear mistake then, clearly, the proper response is to use the power of Congress to stop it.

These symbolic gestures are doubly damned.

They cannot stop anything, but they can undermine everything.

It is disgusting, and all too typical.

It is almost as disgusting as the fact that far too many Democrats are hoping that the Surge Strategy does not work.

0 Replies

You left out the , they cooked the intellegance and lied to congress because Bush and Cheney wanted to go to war. One must realize that Bush and his boys control the flow of intellegance. Congress was lied to.

0 Replies

Quote:

If Democrats initially supported the War because they believed the same intelligence the President had

I highlighted the error in your position, Finn. There has been no evidence presented that would support this assumption of yours.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

rabel22 wrote:

You left out the , they cooked the intellegance and lied to congress because Bush and Cheney wanted to go to war. One must realize that Bush and his boys control the flow of intellegance. Congress was lied to.

I left it out in the same way I would leave out the contention that the Jews were behind 9/11 in any reasonable discussion of that topic.

Did "Bush and his boys" control the the flow of intelligence to the rest of the world?

If "Bush and his boys" control the flow of intelligence why then has the most recent NIE been relied upon by their critics?

Yours is a ridiculous argument born of passion, not reason.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

If Democrats initially supported the War because they believed the same intelligence the President had

I highlighted the error in your position, Finn. There has been no evidence presented that would support this assumption of yours.

Cycloptichorn

What?

You need a sharper highlighter.

0 Replies

Re: Resolutions Against The "Way Forward"

Brandon9000 wrote:

I would be interested to hear under what grounds this president could be impeached according to the section of the Constitution that deals with impeachment, and even more interested to hear under what grounds he could be arrested. Presumably, he couldn't be arrested until after he had been impeached and convicted. I am pretty sure that a sitting president cannot be arrested by the police.

I am also pretty sure that a sitting president can't be arrested, although he can be the subject of a civil lawsuit (until the supreme court overturns its precedent, set during the Clinton administration, in favor of a Republican chief executive). But the laws of the United States do not constrain the police forces of other nations, and there is sufficient cause for other nations to apprehend and prosecute Bush should he enter their jurisdictions.

International law holds that nations may not wage "aggressive war." Not only is this a principle of the jus cogens (generally accepted international law), but it is also embodied in treaties that have been entered into by the United States, including the Kellogg-Briand Pact and the Charter of the United Nations. This principle of international law received its sanction in the Nuremberg Tribunals, which held that the "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances" constitutes a "crime against peace."

Jurisdiction to prosecute anyone guilty of a crime against peace lies in any nation -- i.e. there is worldwide jurisdiction for these crimes. Thus, someone who is responsible for the planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of a war of aggression in the United States can be arrested and prosecuted anywhere in the world (just as Serbian and Rwandan war criminals can be prosecuted in the Netherlands).

As such, if George W. Bush has committed a crime against peace by planning, preparing, initiating, and waging the war in Iraq (and, I would argue, he has), then any nation could arrest him and prosecute him. Now, practically speaking, most nations will not arrest any government leader during his term of office, but that is a policy decision, not a legal constraint. Slobodan Milosevic, remember, was indicted by the Hague war crimes tribunal while he was still president of the Yugoslav Republic. So there is no legal obstacle if a nation wanted to arrest, prosecute, and convict Bush and other members of his administration for crimes against peace.

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

If Democrats initially supported the War because they believed the same intelligence the President had

I highlighted the error in your position, Finn. There has been no evidence presented that would support this assumption of yours.

Cycloptichorn

What?

You need a sharper highlighter.

You don't have any actual, tangible evidence that the Democrats received the same intelligence that the president did. There does exist evidence that they were not given certain information.

If you do have evidence that all the intelligence was passed on for the Dems to make the same objective decision the WH did, present it.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Resolutions Against The "Way Forward"

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know