George McGovern 'Urges' Bush Impeachment

[Jiggz]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: eskimospy
You guys are missing his point. From a political standpoint impeachment would be retarded, yes. From a health of the country standpoint it might be a good thing though. I mean it's important to show future executives that they can't get away with this level of lawlessness without consequences.

That is almost the exact same thing the Republicans were saying about Bill Clinton...

So are you saying Bush should be impeached?

NO! He needs to get a blow job first (mind you it has to be at the West Wing) and then announce on national TV it's not sex! Then we can impeach him!

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

All of this has been done without the declaration of war from Congress that the Constitution clearly requires

Umm, the SCOTUS had addressed this issue and concluded Congress DID declare war. This has been made abundantly clear, and is clear to all but the most rabid partisan hacks.

Another shocking perversion has been the shipping of prisoners scooped off the streets of Afghanistan to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and other countries without benefit of our time-tested laws of habeas corpus.

Basically same as above. I.e., SCOTUS agreeing with the Constutionality of the practice. It should also be noted it and other actions are in accord with AUMJ act passed by Congress.

I could go on, but his uninformed partisan drivel is too annoying.

Fern

Uhmm Fern the Supreme Court has actually ruled against the Bush administration 3 times on their treatment of detainees at Guantanamo. They have specifically said that what they are doing does not pass constitutional muster... three times. From all appearances they are about to lose for an amazing FOURTH time on this issue in the upcoming session. The fact that the terms of detention are unconstitutional is why they keep trying to come up with military commissions, etc. (and keep continuing to lose in court with them) and the AUMF defense was tried and it failed miserably.

Also, the argument that waterboarding is not torture under US law requires a reading of the law so twisted and convoluted as to render it unrecognizable. I have heard no reasonable person outside of the Bush administration attempt to make the argument that waterboarding is not torture.

 

[JD50]

Harvey, you didn't even address my quote...

"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. They not only have weapons of mass destruction, they used weapons of mass destruction...That's why I say Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
George W. Bush, 1/3/03

You did NOT show that George Bush knew, on or before that date, that Iraq did NOT have WMDs. You claim that Bush lied, because he chose to believe what the CIA was telling him about WMDs in Iraq over what the State Department was telling him?

So is this your proof of GWB lying about WMDs in Iraq, that he believed what the CIA told him? Thats pretty weak. Now, if you want to go all nuts about the fact that they were not 100 percent certain that Iraq had WMDs then fine, make a fool of yourself. There is hardly ever a time in the world of Intel where something is 100 percent certain.

What if Iraq did have WMDs but Bush chose to believe what the state department told him? Then you'd be going nuts over Bush not listening to the CIA. You also showed that Powell was not to sure about Iraq having WMDs, so what? I asked you to show me something proving that GWB knew, for a fact, that Iraq did not have WMDs on or before 1/3/03, and you failed.

If you were the President and the CIA told you that they thought that a brutal dictator, that had used WMDs on his own people, still possessed those WMDs, wouldn't you believe them?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
To allow a President to stay in office who either allowed or failed to prevent the torture of people by our government demands impeachment and conviction, in my opinion.

Yes, you've made your opinion clear.

But it seems odd to me that in this country we are going to try and convict someone of a crime under the circumstance where that person merely failed to prevent something that they didn't even know was going to occur in the first place.

^ Re: Your opinion that if GWB didn't know about it he should still be impeached if it occurred.

The "sacrifical lamb" under this circumstance whould more appropiately be the head of the (CIA) agency. But he's already left, and BTW endorsed the usefulness of waterboarding.

Fern

Usefulness is irrelevant. The atmosphere within the government should be set by the President that torture is absolutely forbidden and that torturers will be tried and convicted of treason.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: GrGr
Seriously it isn't just about Iraq and that mess. There are so many angles to impeaching Bush, all the anti constitutional actions he has taken and the laws he has broken. It is time to put him under oath and start grilling him.

I find it amusing that you people, who do not take people like me seriously, fail to see how badly Bush's actions have undermined the US and what the US stands for. Everybody around the globe are laughing their arses off at the US. Bush always was, is and remains a useful idiot, and other nations have figured out how to play him for their own purposes. The US should dump this administration out of self protection, but the plan seems to be to kill the rest of the world from laughter.

The main reason the Dems do not impeach Bush is that the US will have to live with the disgrace of the administration for decades, in the same way Nixon remained an embarrassing ghost as long as he lived. Only the Bush administration has been extremely consequential in choosing the path of the US. To impeach Bush is to admit to the rot that destroyed large parts of the US system, so the wounds can be cleaned out with antiseptic and the healing process begin. To not impeach Bush and Cheney is to allow festering maggots to eat away even more of the US core.

Go ahead and list the actions Bush has done that are unconstitutional as ruled by the SCOTUS. Go ahead. Unless, of course, you think you are more of an authority on Constitutionality than SCOTUS.

I think you'll need a notepad the size of a pin head for that list. Thanks for playing.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Does anybody believe that two Al Qaeda members could have been tortured by the CIA without Presidential approval?

My understanding is that many were briefed on the methods used, including Dem Congresspersons who now feign outrage.

Your phrasing presupposes that waterboarding and other methods are "torture" under US law. A fact I do not believe to have been established.


If members of Al Qaeda were tortured by the CIA and the President didn't know about it, shouldn't such a President be impeached?

I don't see why. A President is neither omnicient or omnipresent. I have to believe that many things occur within the CIA, or are done by their operatives, without knowlegde of their superiors.

Fern

There is no doubt at all that water boarding is torture. No doubt at all. I also have no doubt that many things occur within the CIA without knowledge of superiors. I believe that when one of them is torture the President should be impeached. His desk is where the responsibility lies and where the buck stops. So your two pronged refutation of my argument is wrong on two counts, in my opinion.

Says who? Says you? Guess what sparky. It doesnt matter if Patton himself said its torture. Until it's ruled illegal in USSC it isnt. Move the fuck on.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
In a sense Hayabusca Rider is correct that evidence is needed. But logically the events could not happen without a crime, and that is the catch 22 we all now hang on.

And this tells us what the forte of GWB&co. is which is erecting barriers against finding the evidence. And to some extent, the dems wasted too much of 2007 to now use the traditional investigative tools of catching the small rats who fink out on the middle sized rats who finally fink out on the king rats.
Which now means we must get lucky and find a whistle blower who has saved the evidence or wait until they are out of office at which point the barriers will fade.

Or we could grow a backbone and overwhelm the barriers by refusing to play their game. But we the people are too gutless.

Proof? Ah. Didnt think so.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Go ahead and list the actions Bush has done that are unconstitutional as ruled by the SCOTUS. Go ahead. Unless, of course, you think you are more of an authority on Constitutionality than SCOTUS.

I think you'll need a notepad the size of a pin head for that list. Thanks for playing.

:thumbsup: :laugh: :thumbsup:

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Go ahead and list the actions Bush has done that are unconstitutional as ruled by the SCOTUS. Go ahead. Unless, of course, you think you are more of an authority on Constitutionality than SCOTUS.

I think you'll need a notepad the size of a pin head for that list. Thanks for playing.

That wasn't hard. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld was action that Bush undertook that was unconstitutional... ie. indefinitely holding a US citizen without trial.

You really walked right into that one.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Go ahead and list the actions Bush has done that are unconstitutional as ruled by the SCOTUS. Go ahead. Unless, of course, you think you are more of an authority on Constitutionality than SCOTUS.

I think you'll need a notepad the size of a pin head for that list. Thanks for playing.

:thumbsup: :laugh: :thumbsup:

Awesome, you jumped in right in time to get owned along with him.

 

[SSSnail]

You can't just impeach Bush, you'd have to build another White House, and Senate, and Capitol... On second thought, too costly, just keep it the way it is.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Says who? Says you? Guess what sparky. It doesnt matter if Patton himself said its torture. Until it's ruled illegal in USSC it isnt. Move the fuck on.

Your understanding of the law leaves a lot to be desired. The Supreme Court does not need to rule something illegal for it to be illegal. That's what all those other courts are for, you know? Waterboarding is already illegal and a war crime through established US legal precedent in the conviction of Yukio Asano. This has been covered on here many times.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Awesome, you jumped in right in time to get owned along with him.

LOL :laugh:

Is that all you can come up with? I thought Bush was guilty of a plethora of violations. In fact, he's accused of it on a daily basis here. So let's see some rulings.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: JD50
Harvey, you didn't even address my quote...

"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. They not only have weapons of mass destruction, they used weapons of mass destruction...That's why I say Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
George W. Bush, 1/3/03

You did NOT show that George Bush knew, on or before that date, that Iraq did NOT have WMDs. You claim that Bush lied, because he chose to believe what the CIA was telling him about WMDs in Iraq over what the State Department was telling him?

So is this your proof of GWB lying about WMDs in Iraq, that he believed what the CIA told him? Thats pretty weak. Now, if you want to go all nuts about the fact that they were not 100 percent certain that Iraq had WMDs then fine, make a fool of yourself. There is hardly ever a time in the world of Intel where something is 100 percent certain.

What if Iraq did have WMDs but Bush chose to believe what the state department told him? Then you'd be going nuts over Bush not listening to the CIA. You also showed that Powell was not to sure about Iraq having WMDs, so what? I asked you to show me something proving that GWB knew, for a fact, that Iraq did not have WMDs on or before 1/3/03, and you failed.

If you were the President and the CIA told you that they thought that a brutal dictator, that had used WMDs on his own people, still possessed those WMDs, wouldn't you believe them?

The Bush administration cherry picked the CIA intelligence that suited it's agenda, and had a special office in the Pentagon (led by Douglas Feith) produce propaganda material to suit it's talking points.

The CIA is corrupt and incompetent yes, but the Bush administration twisted the CIA's arm to come up with the goods it wanted. The CIA also produced intelligence that conflicted with what the Bush administration wanted and consequently that was ignored by the administration.

We know that the intelligence was chosen, and manipulated, to fit the agenda to invade Iraq. When something is that screwed up you blame the bosses, not the middle men. But it was the bosses in the White House that demanded twisted intelligence.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Awesome, you jumped in right in time to get owned along with him.

LOL :laugh:

Is that all you can come up with? I thought Bush was guilty of a plethora of violations. In fact, he's accused of it on a daily basis here. So let's see some rulings.

I just linked one you idiot. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld ruled that the Bush administration holding a US citizen indefinitely without trial violated the constitution's grant of habeas corpus.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Awesome, you jumped in right in time to get owned along with him.

LOL :laugh:

Is that all you can come up with? I thought Bush was guilty of a plethora of violations. In fact, he's accused of it on a daily basis here. So let's see some rulings.

Well to be fair, eskimospy is right. That was unconstitutional and a horrible thing to do. Even though he was caught on a foreign battlefield, he is still a US citizen and should be accorded ALL the rights that come with being a citizen.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I just linked one you idiot. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld ruled that the Bush administration holding a US citizen indefinitely without trial violated the constitution's grant of habeas corpus.

Please, continue.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I just linked one you idiot. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld ruled that the Bush administration holding a US citizen indefinitely without trial violated the constitution's grant of habeas corpus.

Please, continue.

Hahahaha, so now that I've already owned you... you think that I need to own you some more? It's very telling when you try and brush off the executive's dismissal of habeas corpus... the cornerstone of all western law... as "all I can come up with".

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld is another good one. In this case Bush's actions were ruled illegal by the Supreme Court because they violated not only the law (the UCMJ) but also violated international treaties to which we are signatory.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: JD50
Harvey, you didn't even address my quote...

"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. They not only have weapons of mass destruction, they used weapons of mass destruction...That's why I say Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
George W. Bush, 1/3/03

You did NOT show that George Bush knew, on or before that date, that Iraq did NOT have WMDs. You claim that Bush lied, because he chose to believe what the CIA was telling him about WMDs in Iraq over what the State Department was telling him?

So is this your proof of GWB lying about WMDs in Iraq, that he believed what the CIA told him? Thats pretty weak. Now, if you want to go all nuts about the fact that they were not 100 percent certain that Iraq had WMDs then fine, make a fool of yourself. There is hardly ever a time in the world of Intel where something is 100 percent certain.

What if Iraq did have WMDs but Bush chose to believe what the state department told him? Then you'd be going nuts over Bush not listening to the CIA. You also showed that Powell was not to sure about Iraq having WMDs, so what? I asked you to show me something proving that GWB knew, for a fact, that Iraq did not have WMDs on or before 1/3/03, and you failed.

If you were the President and the CIA told you that they thought that a brutal dictator, that had used WMDs on his own people, still possessed those WMDs, wouldn't you believe them?

OK. I've got the picture. You ARE one of the lying, murdering traitors. Thanks for clearing that up. :thumbsup:

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I just linked one you idiot. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld ruled that the Bush administration holding a US citizen indefinitely without trial violated the constitution's grant of habeas corpus.

Please, continue.

Hahahaha, so now that I've already owned you... you think that I need to own you some more? It's very telling when you try and brush off the executive's dismissal of habeas corpus... the cornerstone of all western law... as "all I can come up with".

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld is another good one. In this case Bush's actions were ruled illegal by the Supreme Court because they violated not only the law (the UCMJ) but also violated international treaties to which we are signatory.

Just out of curiosity, and not to take away from the dumb stuff that Bush has done, how many other Presidents have had the SCOTUS rule against something that they have done?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: JD50
Harvey, you didn't even address my quote...

"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. They not only have weapons of mass destruction, they used weapons of mass destruction...That's why I say Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
George W. Bush, 1/3/03

You did NOT show that George Bush knew, on or before that date, that Iraq did NOT have WMDs. You claim that Bush lied, because he chose to believe what the CIA was telling him about WMDs in Iraq over what the State Department was telling him?

So is this your proof of GWB lying about WMDs in Iraq, that he believed what the CIA told him? Thats pretty weak. Now, if you want to go all nuts about the fact that they were not 100 percent certain that Iraq had WMDs then fine, make a fool of yourself. There is hardly ever a time in the world of Intel where something is 100 percent certain.

What if Iraq did have WMDs but Bush chose to believe what the state department told him? Then you'd be going nuts over Bush not listening to the CIA. You also showed that Powell was not to sure about Iraq having WMDs, so what? I asked you to show me something proving that GWB knew, for a fact, that Iraq did not have WMDs on or before 1/3/03, and you failed.

If you were the President and the CIA told you that they thought that a brutal dictator, that had used WMDs on his own people, still possessed those WMDs, wouldn't you believe them?

OK. I've got the picture. You ARE one of the lying, murdering traitors. Thanks for clearing that up. :thumbsup:

So your proof that Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq is that he believed what the CIA told him. Thanks for clearing that up. :thumbsup:

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: JD50
Just out of curiosity, and not to take away from the dumb stuff that Bush has done, how many other Presidents have had the SCOTUS rule against something that they have done?

I wouldn't be particularly surprised if every single one has. I was just responding to blackangst's challenge to name things that Bush has done that were illegal as he was trying to imply somehow that all these things people were pissed about were just figments of our imagination or something.

No matter what other presidents have done though, trying to hold US citizens indefinitely without trial is one of the worst betrayals of the president's duty to the American people that I can think of.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JD50
Just out of curiosity, and not to take away from the dumb stuff that Bush has done, how many other Presidents have had the SCOTUS rule against something that they have done?

I wouldn't be particularly surprised if every single one has. I was just responding to blackangst's challenge to name things that Bush has done that were illegal as he was trying to imply somehow that all these things people were pissed about were just figments of our imagination or something.

No matter what other presidents have done though, trying to hold US citizens indefinitely without trial is one of the worst betrayals of the president's duty to the American people that I can think of.

I agree.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Does anybody believe that two Al Qaeda members could have been tortured by the CIA without Presidential approval?

My understanding is that many were briefed on the methods used, including Dem Congresspersons who now feign outrage.

Your phrasing presupposes that waterboarding and other methods are "torture" under US law. A fact I do not believe to have been established.


If members of Al Qaeda were tortured by the CIA and the President didn't know about it, shouldn't such a President be impeached?

I don't see why. A President is neither omnicient or omnipresent. I have to believe that many things occur within the CIA, or are done by their operatives, without knowlegde of their superiors.

Fern

There is no doubt at all that water boarding is torture. No doubt at all. I also have no doubt that many things occur within the CIA without knowledge of superiors. I believe that when one of them is torture the President should be impeached. His desk is where the responsibility lies and where the buck stops. So your two pronged refutation of my argument is wrong on two counts, in my opinion.

Says who? Says you? Guess what sparky. It doesnt matter if Patton himself said its torture. Until it's ruled illegal in USSC it isnt. Move the fuck on.

It doesn't matter what Patton or the Supreme Court says, it is torture and if I could get you on a waterboard I could have you admit it in about a minute, you over-intellecutualized pin-head.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Does anybody believe that two Al Qaeda members could have been tortured by the CIA without Presidential approval?

My understanding is that many were briefed on the methods used, including Dem Congresspersons who now feign outrage.

Your phrasing presupposes that waterboarding and other methods are "torture" under US law. A fact I do not believe to have been established.


If members of Al Qaeda were tortured by the CIA and the President didn't know about it, shouldn't such a President be impeached?

I don't see why. A President is neither omnicient or omnipresent. I have to believe that many things occur within the CIA, or are done by their operatives, without knowlegde of their superiors.

Fern

There is no doubt at all that water boarding is torture. No doubt at all. I also have no doubt that many things occur within the CIA without knowledge of superiors. I believe that when one of them is torture the President should be impeached. His desk is where the responsibility lies and where the buck stops. So your two pronged refutation of my argument is wrong on two counts, in my opinion.

Says who? Says you? Guess what sparky. It doesnt matter if Patton himself said its torture. Until it's ruled illegal in USSC it isnt. Move the fuck on.

It doesn't matter what Patton or the Supreme Court says, it is torture and if I could get you on a waterboard I could have you admit it in about a minute, you over-intellecutualized pin-head.

I thought torture wasn't an effective and accurate form of interrogation....