• Welcome to our new home!

    Please share any thoughts or issues here.


MSNBC Poll: Should President Bush Be Impeached? (89% Yes!)

F

FrankRep

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2007
Messages
28,885
MSNBC poll: Should President Bush Be Impeached?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/


Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment? * 661935 responses

Yes - 89%


DIGG!

==========

Dennis Kucinich introduces 35 Articles of Impeachment against George W. Bush

Click here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=142132




1. Article I
Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign to Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq

2. Article II
Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression

3. Article III
Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War

4. Article IV
Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Posed an Imminent Threat to the United States

5. Article V
Illegally Misspending Funds to Secretly Begin a War of Aggression

6. Article VI
Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of HJRes114

7. Article VII
Invading Iraq Absent a Declaration of War

8. Article VIII
Invading Iraq, A Sovereign Nation, in Violation of the UN Charter

9. Article IX
Failing to Provide Troops With Body Armor and Vehicle Armor

10. Article X
Falsifying Accounts of US Troop Deaths and Injuries for Political Purposes

11. Article XI
Establishment of Permanent U.S. Military Bases in Iraq

12. Article XII
Initiating a War Against Iraq for Control of That Nation’s Natural Resources

13. Article XIIII
Creating a Secret Task Force to Develop Energy and Military Policies With
Respect to Iraq and Other Countries

14. Article XIV
Misprision of a Felony, Misuse and Exposure of Classified Information And Obstruction of Justice in the Matter of Valerie Plame Wilson, Clandestine Agent of the Central Intelligence Agency

15. Article XV
Providing Immunity from Prosecution for Criminal Contractors in Iraq

16. Article XVI
Reckless Misspending and Waste of U.S. Tax Dollars in Connection With Iraq and US Contractors

17. Article XVII
Illegal Detention: Detaining Indefinitely And Without Charge Persons Both U.S. Citizens and Foreign Captives

18. Article XVIII
Torture: Secretly Authorizing, and Encouraging the Use of Torture Against Captives in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Other Places, as a Matter of Official Policy

19. Article XIX
Rendition: Kidnapping People and Taking Them Against Their Will to “Black Sites” Located in Other Nations, Including Nations Known to Practice Torture

20. Article XX
Imprisoning Children

21. Article XXI
Misleading Congress and the American People About Threats from Iran, and Supporting Terrorist Organizations Within Iran, With the Goal of Overthrowing the Iranian Government

22. Article XXII
Creating Secret Laws

23. Article XXIII
Violation of the Posse Comitatus Act

24. Article XXIV
Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment

25. Article XXV
Directing Telecommunications Companies to Create an Illegal and Unconstitutional Database of the Private Telephone Numbers and Emails of American Citizens

26. Article XXVI
Announcing the Intent to Violate Laws with Signing Statements

27. Article XXVII
Failing to Comply with Congressional Subpoenas and Instructing Former Employees Not to Comply

28. Article XXVIII
Tampering with Free and Fair Elections, Corruption of the Administration of Justice

29. Article XXIX
Conspiracy to Violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965

30. Article XXX
Misleading Congress and the American People in an Attempt to Destroy Medicare

31. Article XXXI
Katrina: Failure to Plan for the Predicted Disaster of Hurricane Katrina, Failure to Respond to a Civil Emergency

32. Article XXXII
Misleading Congress and the American People, Systematically Undermining Efforts to Address Global Climate Change

33. Article XXXIII
Repeatedly Ignored and Failed to Respond to High Level Intelligence Warnings of Planned Terrorist Attacks in the US, Prior to 9/11

34. Article XXXIV
Obstruction of the Investigation into the Attacks of September 11, 2001

35. Article XXXV
Endangering the Health of 9/11 First Responders
 
SnappleLlama said:
Imprisoning children? Yikes!
Click to expand...

Bush Advisor Says President Has Legal Power to Torture Children

By Philip Watts

01/08/06 "revcom.us" -- -- John Yoo publicly argued there is no law that could prevent the President from ordering the torture of a child of a suspect in custody – including by crushing that child’s testicles.

This came out in response to a question in a December 1st debate in Chicago with Notre Dame professor and international human rights scholar Doug Cassel.

What is particularly chilling and revealing about this is that John Yoo was a key architect post-9/11 Bush Administration legal policy. As a deputy assistant to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, John Yoo authored a number of legal memos arguing for unlimited presidential powers to order torture of captive suspects, and to declare war anytime, any where, and on anyone the President deemed a threat.

It has now come out Yoo also had a hand in providing legal reasoning for the President to conduct unauthorized wiretaps of U.S. citizens. Georgetown Law Professor David Cole wrote, "Few lawyers have had more influence on President Bush’s legal policies in the 'war on terror’ than John Yoo."

This part of the exchange during the debate with Doug Cassel, reveals the logic of Yoo’s theories, adopted by the Administration as bedrock principles, in the real world.

Cassel: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: No treaty.
Cassel: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.
Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.

The audio of this exchange is available online at revcom.us

Yoo argues presidential powers on Constitutional grounds, but where in the Constitution does it say the President can order the torture of children ? As David Cole puts it, "Yoo reasoned that because the Constitution makes the President the 'Commander-in-Chief,’ no law can restrict the actions he may take in pursuit of war. On this reasoning, the President would be entitled by the Constitution to resort to genocide if he wished."

What is the position of the Bush Administration on the torture of children, since one of its most influential legal architects is advocating the President’s right to order the crushing of a child’s testicles?

This fascist logic has nothing to do with "getting information" as Yoo has argued. The legal theory developed by Yoo and a few others and adopted by the Administration has resulted in thousands being abducted from their homes in Afghanistan, Iraq or other parts of the world, mostly at random. People have been raped, electrocuted, nearly drowned and tortured literally to death in U.S.-run torture centers in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantánamo Bay. And there is much still to come out. What about the secret centers in Europe or the many still-suppressed photos from Abu Ghraib? What can explain this sadistic, indiscriminate, barbaric brutality except a need to instill widespread fear among people all over the world?

It is ironic that just prior to arguing the President's legal right to torture children, John Yoo was defensive about the Bush administration policies, based on his legal memo’s, being equated to those during Nazi Germany.

Yoo said, "If you are trying to draw a moral equivalence between the Nazis and what the United States is trying to do in defending themselves against Al Qauueda and the 9/11 attacks, I fully reject that. Second, if you’re trying to equate the Bush Administration to Nazi officials who committed atrocities in the holocaust, I completely reject that too…I think to equate Nazi Germany to the Bush Administration is irresponsible."

If open promotion of unmitigated executive power, including the right to order the torture of innocent children, isn’t sufficient basis for drawing such a "moral equivalence," then I don’t know what is. What would be irresponsible is to sit by and allow the Bush regime to radically remake society in a fascist way, with repercussions for generations to come. We must act now because the future is in the balance. The world cannot wait. While Bush gives his State of the Union on January 31st, I’ll find myself along with many thousands across the country declaring "Bush Step Down And take your program with you."
 
Danke said:
This came out in response to a question in a December 1st debate in Chicago with Notre Dame professor and international human rights scholar Doug Cassel.
Click to expand...

Professor Cassel was one of my mentors in school.
 
IMPEACH or bust!

Guys, use http://www.votesmart.org/search.php to search by zipcode and call your House Representative and your two worthless Senators and say IMPEACH. It only takes 2 minute per call and you'll feel a lot better. Bush JUST admitted in UK to being "anxious to start war" and "regrets his legacy" . The spring has come out of the sofa folks. Tell you family and friends. Don't sit around at a moment like this.

See the article here: http://tinyurl.com/66eemm
 
zzzzuo7.jpg
 
damania said:
Guys, use http://www.votesmart.org/search.php to search by zipcode and call your House Representative and your two worthless Senators and say IMPEACH. It only takes 2 minute per call and you'll feel a lot better. Bush JUST admitted in UK to being "anxious to start war" and "regrets his legacy" . The spring has come out of the sofa folks. Tell you family and friends. Don't sit around at a moment like this.

See the article here: http://tinyurl.com/66eemm
Click to expand...
*Crosses fingers for a Bush suicide*
 
Regarding that impressive vote count: They'll say it's only ONE Ron Paul Internet supporter spamming the entire poll...
from his mother's basement.

+++

Crush a child's testicles? Geesh, couldn't they have just threaten to take away his popsicle instead?
 
Danke said:
Bush Advisor Says President Has Legal Power to Torture Children

By Philip Watts

01/08/06 "revcom.us" -- -- John Yoo publicly argued there is no law that could prevent the President from ordering the torture of a child of a suspect in custody – including by crushing that child’s testicles.

This came out in response to a question in a December 1st debate in Chicago with Notre Dame professor and international human rights scholar Doug Cassel.

What is particularly chilling and revealing about this is that John Yoo was a key architect post-9/11 Bush Administration legal policy. As a deputy assistant to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, John Yoo authored a number of legal memos arguing for unlimited presidential powers to order torture of captive suspects, and to declare war anytime, any where, and on anyone the President deemed a threat.

It has now come out Yoo also had a hand in providing legal reasoning for the President to conduct unauthorized wiretaps of U.S. citizens. Georgetown Law Professor David Cole wrote, "Few lawyers have had more influence on President Bush’s legal policies in the 'war on terror’ than John Yoo."

This part of the exchange during the debate with Doug Cassel, reveals the logic of Yoo’s theories, adopted by the Administration as bedrock principles, in the real world.

Cassel: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: No treaty.
Cassel: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.
Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.

The audio of this exchange is available online at revcom.us

Yoo argues presidential powers on Constitutional grounds, but where in the Constitution does it say the President can order the torture of children ? As David Cole puts it, "Yoo reasoned that because the Constitution makes the President the 'Commander-in-Chief,’ no law can restrict the actions he may take in pursuit of war. On this reasoning, the President would be entitled by the Constitution to resort to genocide if he wished."

What is the position of the Bush Administration on the torture of children, since one of its most influential legal architects is advocating the President’s right to order the crushing of a child’s testicles?

This fascist logic has nothing to do with "getting information" as Yoo has argued. The legal theory developed by Yoo and a few others and adopted by the Administration has resulted in thousands being abducted from their homes in Afghanistan, Iraq or other parts of the world, mostly at random. People have been raped, electrocuted, nearly drowned and tortured literally to death in U.S.-run torture centers in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantánamo Bay. And there is much still to come out. What about the secret centers in Europe or the many still-suppressed photos from Abu Ghraib? What can explain this sadistic, indiscriminate, barbaric brutality except a need to instill widespread fear among people all over the world?

It is ironic that just prior to arguing the President's legal right to torture children, John Yoo was defensive about the Bush administration policies, based on his legal memo’s, being equated to those during Nazi Germany.

Yoo said, "If you are trying to draw a moral equivalence between the Nazis and what the United States is trying to do in defending themselves against Al Qauueda and the 9/11 attacks, I fully reject that. Second, if you’re trying to equate the Bush Administration to Nazi officials who committed atrocities in the holocaust, I completely reject that too…I think to equate Nazi Germany to the Bush Administration is irresponsible."

If open promotion of unmitigated executive power, including the right to order the torture of innocent children, isn’t sufficient basis for drawing such a "moral equivalence," then I don’t know what is. What would be irresponsible is to sit by and allow the Bush regime to radically remake society in a fascist way, with repercussions for generations to come. We must act now because the future is in the balance. The world cannot wait. While Bush gives his State of the Union on January 31st, I’ll find myself along with many thousands across the country declaring "Bush Step Down And take your program with you."
Click to expand...

Link to source?
 
 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Swordsmyth
El Salvador to accept deportees from the US of all nationalities and US violent criminals
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
Swordsmyth
Swordsmyth
J
Bill Gates Funded Gain-of-Function Research on H5N1 Bird Flu Viruses. Gates Opposing RFK Jr.
Replies
1
Views
111
unknown
unknown
PAF
Crypto Industry Pushes For Policy Sea Change After Trump Victory
Replies
1
Views
317
Mordan
Mordan
jmdrake
David Duke endorses....Jill Stein?
Replies
5
Views
1K
Anti Globalist
Anti Globalist
W
Mike Johnson is committed to advancing Ukraine aid. But it will be a difficult task
Replies
6
Views
697
acptulsa
acptulsa
Back
Top