PDA

View Full Version : Bush finally bought up for war crimes?




electronicmaji
06-08-2008, 10:41 PM
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/33957

House Democrats sent a letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey Friday requesting that he appoint a special prosecutor to investigate whether White House officials, including President Bush, violated the War Crimes Act when they allowed interrogators to use brutal interrogation methods against detainees suspected of ties to terrorist organizations.




Knowing Democrats they will probably drop the ball on this; but if Obama is elected he might push it along.

Kludge
06-08-2008, 10:44 PM
Obama has never called for the impeachment or imprisonment of Bush...

Danke
06-08-2008, 10:45 PM
Knowing Democrats they will probably drop the ball on this; but if Obama is elected he might push it along.

I was thinking the same thing. He is, after all, for Change...and Hope.

I really think he has the audacity to do it!

electronicmaji
06-08-2008, 10:57 PM
Obama has never called for the impeachment or imprisonment of Bush...

No he hasn't but then most politicians who vlaue their careers haven't.

Kludge
06-08-2008, 10:59 PM
No he hasn't but then most politicians who vlaue their careers haven't.

Oh... I was being programmed to believe Obama had the audacity to change.

electronicmaji
06-08-2008, 11:02 PM
Oh... I was being programmed to believe Obama had the audacity to change.

Has Ron Paul called for Bush's impeachment?

Kludge
06-08-2008, 11:09 PM
Has Ron Paul called for Bush's impeachment?

Yes, thank you for asking ;)

Rep. Congressman: Bush and Congress Violated The US Constitution (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2006/100706impeachbush.htm)

"I would have trouble arguing that he's been a Constitutional President and once you violate the Constitution and be proven to do that I think these people should be removed from office."

^Dr. Paul said that 2 years ago.

Danke
06-08-2008, 11:16 PM
Has Ron Paul called for Bush's impeachment?

Rep. Congressman: Bush and Congress Violated The US Constitution
War In Iraq without a Congressional declaration of war is a prime violation

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | July 10 2006

Republican Congressman Ron Paul says President Bush has presided over a system wide doctrine of violating the Constitution at every turn and that he should be impeached - but that likely Democratic efforts to do so will be in the interests of playing politics and not the health of the nation.

During an interview with Alex Jones on the GCN Radio network, Paul outlined the likely scenario as to how impeachment proceedings would unfold.

"I'd be surprised if they win both - I think they're going to win one body and if they win the House right now they do not say they would have an impeachment but I think the way that place operates I think they probably will make every effort," said Paul.

"If they happened to have a ten or fifteen vote margin that would be a political thing - it would be payback time."

Paul said that Bush should be impeached not under the umbrella of partisan vengeance but for ceaselessly breaking the laws of the land.

"I would have trouble arguing that he's been a Constitutional President and once you violate the Constitution and be proven to do that I think these people should be removed from office."

Opining that the US had entered a period of "soft fascism," Paul noted that the legacy of the Bush administration has been the total abandonment of Constitutional principles.

"Congress has generously ignored the Constitution while the President flaunts it, the courts have ignored it and they get in the business of legislating so there's no respect for the rule of law." said Paul.

"When the Presidents signs all these bills and then adds statements after saying I have no intention of following it - he's in a way signing it and vetoing - so in his mind he's vetoing a lot of bills, in our mind under the rule of law he hasn't vetoed a thing."

Asked what the ultimate agenda was behind the American Union and the push on behalf of the Bush administration to homogenize the US with Mexico and Canada, Paul was clear in his response.

"I think the goal is one world government - we have not only the U.N. - we have the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank, then we have all the subsidiaries like NAFTA and hemispheric governments, highways coming in."

"I just hope and pray that we can wake up enough people," said Paul, noting that Texans in his own backyard were more aware of Bush selling out the country for an American Union than anyone in Washington.

Danke
06-08-2008, 11:18 PM
Impeach George W. Bush over North American Union agenda says Republican Presidential candidate

AgoraCosmopolitan | March 30, 2007
Ron Paul / Compiled by Iain Mackenzie

Republican Congressman and Presidential candidate Ron Paul.

Republican Congressman and Presidential candidate Ron Paul says U.S. President Bush has presided over a system wide doctrine of violating the Constitution, from the Iraq War in the "War on Terrorism" and pursuing a North American Union agenda, without legally required Congressional oversight. Such oversight is legally prescribed by the U.S. Constitution.

During an interview with Alex Jones on the GCN Radio network, Paul had outlined the likely scenario as to how impeachment proceedings would unfold.

"I'd be surprised if they win both - I think they're going to win one body and if they win the House right now they do not say they would have an impeachment but I think the way that place operates I think they probably will make every effort," said Paul.

"If they happened to have a ten or fifteen vote margin that would be a political thing - it would be payback time."

Paul said that Bush should be impeached not under the umbrella of partisan vengeance but for ceaselessly breaking the laws of the land.

"I would have trouble arguing that he's been a Constitutional President and once you violate the Constitution and be proven to do that I think these people should be removed from office."

Opining that the U.S. had entered a period of "soft fascism," Paul noted that the legacy of the Bush administration has been the total abandonment of Constitutional principles.

"Congress has generously ignored the Constitution while the President flaunts it, the courts have ignored it and they get in the business of legislating so there's no respect for the rule of law." said Paul.

"When the President signs all these bills and then adds statements after saying I have no intention of following it - he's in a way signing it and vetoing - so in his mind he's vetoing a lot of bills, in our mind under the rule of law he hasn't vetoed a thing."

North American Union agenda toward an anti-democratic "New World Order"

Asked what the ultimate agenda was behind the American Union and the push on behalf of the Bush administration to homogenize the US with Mexico and Canada, Paul was clear in his response.

"I think the goal is one world government... we have the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank, then we have all the subsidiaries like NAFTA and hemispheric governments, highways coming in."

"I just hope and pray that we can wake up enough people," said Paul, noting that Texans in his own backyard were more aware of Bush selling out the country for an North American Union than anyone in Washington.

Ron Paul further says, "Globalists and one-world promoters never seem to tire of coming up with ways to undermine the sovereignty of the United States. The most recent attempt comes in the form of the misnamed Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America (SPP). In reality, this new "partnership" will likely make us far less secure and certainly less prosperous."

According to the U.S. government website dedicated to the project, the SPP is neither a treaty nor a formal agreement. Rather, it is a "dialogue" launched by the heads of government of Canada, Mexico, and the United States at a summit in Waco, Texas in March, 2005.

Republican Presidential candidate Paul then remarks, "What is a dialogue? We don't know. What we do know, however, is that Congressional oversight of what might be one of the most significant developments in recent history is non-existent. Congress has had no role at all in a "dialogue" that many see as a plan for a North American union."

Ron Paul elaborates on a prospective anti-democratic NAU "shadow government" which effectively destroys Canada and the U.S. as democracies:

"According to the SPP website, this dialogue will create new supra-national organizations to "coordinate" border security, health policy, economic and trade policy, and energy policy between the governments of Mexico, Canada, and the United States. As such, it is but an extension of NAFTA- and CAFTA-like agreements that have far less to do with the free movement of goods and services than they do with government coordination and management of international trade."

"Critics of NAFTA and CAFTA warned at the time that the agreements were actually a move toward more government control over international trade and an eventual merging of North America into a border-free area. Proponents of these agreements dismissed this as preposterous and conspiratorial. Now we see that the criticisms appear to be justified."

Mr. Paul further enquires "Let's examine just a couple of the many troubling statements on the SPP's US government website...".

"We affirm our commitment to strengthen regulatory cooperation...and to have our central regulatory agencies complete a trilateral regulatory cooperation framework by 2007."

Though the U.S. administration insists that the SPP does not undermine U.S. sovereignty, how else can one take statements like this? How can establishing a "trilateral regulatory cooperation" not undermine our national sovereignty?

Mr. Paul then indicates that the cited website also states SPP's goal to "[i]mprove the health of our indigenous people through targeted bilateral and/or trilateral activities, including in health promotion, health education, disease prevention, and research." Who can read this and not see massive foreign aid transferred from the U.S. taxpayer to foreign governments and well-connected private companies?

Also alarming says Mr. Paul, are SPP pledges to "work towards the identification and adoption of best practices relating to the registration of medicinal products." That sounds like the much-criticized Codex Alimentarius, which seeks to radically limit Americans' health freedom.

Even more troubling are reports that under this new "partnership," a massive highway is being planned to stretch from Canada into Mexico, through the state of Texas. This is likely to cost the U.S. taxpayer untold billions of dollars, will require eminent domain takings on an almost unimaginable scale, and will make the U.S. more vulnerable to those who seek to enter our country to do us harm.

This all adds up to not only more and bigger government, but to the establishment of an unelected mega-government. As the SPP website itself admits, "The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America represents a broad and ambitious agenda." I hope my colleagues in Congress and American citizens will join me in opposing any "broad and ambitious" effort to undermine the security and sovereignty of the United States.

pinkmandy
06-08-2008, 11:24 PM
No he hasn't but then most politicians who vlaue their careers haven't.


Politicians who value their careers over doing what's right that is. Unfortunately that's most politicians, isn't it? And it seems Obama is no exception. Exactly what has he done as a Senator to end the war? The assault on our civil liberties? The out of control budgets? He does realize he doesn't have to be President to get the change thing rolling, right?

electronicmaji
06-08-2008, 11:32 PM
Politicians who value their careers over doing what's right that is. Unfortunately that's most politicians, isn't it? And it seems Obama is no exception. Exactly what has he done as a Senator to end the war? The assault on our civil liberties? The out of control budgets? He does realize he doesn't have to be President to get the change thing rolling, right?

Eh, those are my words not his.



He said that Impeachment wasn't a solution for the immediate problem and that he wanted to work with Republicans and Bush to fix their errors. :confused:

Kludge
06-08-2008, 11:34 PM
Eh, those are my words not his.



He said that Impeachment wasn't a solution for the immediate problem and that he wanted to work with Republicans and Bush to fix their errors. :confused:

Cute.

Indy4Chng
06-08-2008, 11:51 PM
What good would impeachment do? Then Cheney would take office. Then he would select a new vice-president, who you would also have to impeach. And if you can do a 2-1 impeachment then Pelosi would take over, who is a huge champion of liberty. Note the massive sarcasim.

BTW according to the logic of violating the constitution who was the last president not to do so? I think that last quote is most accurate is that they should work to fix the errors (you know practical solutions). I would say anyone who calls for impeachment without solid evidence of blantant wrong doing (such as the case in Nixon) is an utter waste of taxholder money, which the republicans are definetely guilty of in the case of Clinton.

Danke
06-09-2008, 12:09 AM
What good would impeachment do? Then Cheney would take office. Then he would select a new vice-president, who you would also have to impeach. And if you can do a 2-1 impeachment then Pelosi would take over, who is a huge champion of liberty. Note the massive sarcasim.

BTW according to the logic of violating the constitution who was the last president not to do so? I think that last quote is most accurate is that they should work to fix the errors (you know practical solutions). I would say anyone who calls for impeachment without solid evidence of blantant wrong doing (such as the case in Nixon) is an utter waste of taxholder money, which the republicans are definetely guilty of in the case of Clinton.

Yeah, fuck principle. We are too sophisticated to fall into that trap.

raiha
06-09-2008, 02:04 AM
Never mind impeachment. War crimes charges would get rid of a few neo-cons. Not to mention crimes against humanity. State sponsored terrorism...you could dredge up quite a few charges if you were brave enough.