By tortureing americans on US soil, by using psyschological warfare and illegal weapons, by causing great harm to a man and his family
through the use of US military planes, staff and military secret used
againist said citizen, is this not "terrorism" and punishable by death
under the laws of the United States of America and the United Nations Charters.
2006-10-25 13:10:29 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Give us ONE name of an American tortured on US Soil.
You sound like an uneducated Terrorist or Sympathizer.
2006-10-25 13:16:29 · answer #1 · answered by Sentinel 5 · 6⤊ 2⤋
WHO has been tortured on US soil?? What American has been tortured or had illegal weapons used on them?? You need to get off the drugs and seek professional help. You have the strangest and, I must say, stupidest theories there are. What crime has the President committed?? Trust me, if Bush was guilty of anything, the impeachment process would have already started. Hillary and her cronies would be screaming the loudest. However, they saw the same documents the President and agreed to invade Iraq. Nothing illegal going on there or here in the US. Move past your hallucinations and get educated. You only prove yourself to be quite ignorant.
2006-10-26 08:00:22 · answer #2 · answered by HEartstrinGs 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you mean "subversion", as I suspect, the answer is still 'no'. Could he be impeached by Congress is next month's election seriously changes the makeup of the House and Senate? Sure. To be impeached is to be charged. Pres. Clinton was impeached by the House (in exactly the manner you seem to be proposing for Pres. Bush... as a matter of partisan politics). Arguably there are more reasons for the impeachment of Bush (the statements about WMDs and support of Al Quaeda, both proved false, being the reasons for us to go into Iraq. However, whatever the House does, the Senate is not going to force him out in the next two years-- even if there was the political will-- there's not-- there wouldn't be time.
Your question has to do with US politics (and your own opinion), but hardly with the topic at hand: the military.
2006-10-25 13:24:12 · answer #3 · answered by The Padre 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
First, you ought to examine the form on account which you for sure have not. Treason is defined interior the form and it would not incorporate a contravention of the 4th replace. in fact it extremely is the sole crime defined interior the form. in case you will misuse one area of the form to objective to guard yet another your credibility is questionable. 2d, the NSA did no longer hack the cyber web service vendors, they asked for get entry to and have been granted permission via the vendors. additionally they weren't interpreting he emails, they only won a log of who sent the digital mail and to whom. whilst they did examine an digital mail, they won a secret warrant from the FISA courtroom. The FISA courtroom is a secret courtroom usual below the The distant places Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and reinforced interior the Patriot Act. so which you notice, the acts weren't unlawful and Congress handed the guidelines making them felony. it would be as much as the ideally suited courtroom to declare the guidelines unconstitutional or for the Congress to alter the guidelines.
2016-11-25 20:48:08 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No.
Your on legal jello, not steady ground. He 's not tortured anybody. There has been no use of "illegal " weapons. And what actions he has done have been backed by the courts & Congress.
2006-10-25 13:55:35 · answer #5 · answered by lana_sands 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Why dont you explain exactly why every Country has a Military.... Im just curious as to what you think they are for..
And NO, President Bush has not commited any crimes that would get him impeached!!!
2006-10-25 13:14:39 · answer #6 · answered by ~*LILY*~ 2 · 6⤊ 0⤋
No, because impeachment wouldn't solve anything. Clinton was impeached but many think he was the greatest president of all time and oh yeah, he stayed in office anyway.
2006-10-25 13:20:07 · answer #7 · answered by ? 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No.... because there is no such thing a "suversion" and secondly none of that ever happened.
Go be hypothetical elsewhere. I hear that they have an opening in "wacky liberal land".
And by the way Phil S... I'm a military officer and proudly support the president as commander in chief. I also support and defend the constitution, including protecting the right of idiots like you to say and do as you please without threat of retribution.
However, only a truly ignorant person makes asinine claims like "can't critically think" (p), especially when he has no clue about what he is saying.
So instead of making ignorant comments about people you know nothing about, a simple "thank you for your service" will suffice.
2006-10-25 13:12:58 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 4⤋
For everyone who wants to know what "suversion" means, it means this guy is attending, or has attended a public school, and doesn't have a grasp of grammar, vocabulary, syntax, or spelling.
2006-10-25 13:20:57 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, this is a fundamental fault w. US government, the president has far too much power and is really the spokesman/puppet of the people who are really in power behind the scenes. The constitution is really like the contract you get from work, when it comes down to it no help when you need it but useful for them to enforce 'responsibilities.'
2006-10-25 13:17:32 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋