Please provide the law. Saying "he lied" firstly has no proof he lied, nor does it provide any law. If he is to be impeached, he has to have broken a law. I'll give an example:
Why should Clinton be impeached?
Perjury, a felony
See, not too hard. Now, what crimes has Bush broken, eh?
2006-11-20 09:55:39 · 26 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Attacking another country is not an impeachable offense because it is not illegal
2006-11-20 10:00:07 · update #1
First amendment does not guarantee absolut protection. Fire in a movie theater, good example. Now, warrentless wiretaps does not mean illegal wiretaps
2006-11-20 10:00:51 · update #2
NONE!! he may have followed bad information provided to him by the Democrats in the previous administration , but he never violated any laws, as in your most apt profile of the Felon who was president before him.
2006-11-20 10:43:32 · answer #1 · answered by daydoom 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
1: The FISA Act, Bush has admitted to wiretapping American citizens without a warrant.
2: Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, The US Supreme Court ruled that Bush was in violation of this. This is a war crime.
3: Invading a Sovereign nation, Bush invaded Iraq in violation of UN Resolution 1440. It was later amended to make the invasion legal.
4: Being AWOL from the military during a time of war. That is considered treason by military law.
2006-11-20 11:32:34 · answer #2 · answered by ggarsk 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Bush was busted for DUI in either the late 60's or early 70's, not sure. After that, not sure anyone can come up with a domestic or international law that he's broken. Although, I'm sure there are some fanatical islamic types and conspiracy theorists that would disagree with me.
My take on Clinton: He shouldn't have been put in the position to have to defend his personal actions. That was something Hillary should have dealt with. Ethics are important but, I don't think there is a man on earth that would tell the truth the first time, if asked, did you have sex with that woman.
By the way, Clinton was impeached, December 1998!
2006-11-20 10:07:51 · answer #3 · answered by ggraves1724 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Actually the Bar Association can only give an opinion on the wiretap issue.
Another problem they have is that there is no evidence whatsoever that any specific person's rights were violated.
In fact I am amazed that people have a problem with the US listening in to telephone conversations made to or from know Al Quaeda phone numbers.
2006-11-20 10:33:03 · answer #4 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Democrats don't know the meaning of impeachment. They seem to think they can impeach a president because they don't like them.
Clinton deserved to be impeached. He was lucky to stay in office. The man can never practice law again but he was able to run a country. That was a pathetic president.
2006-11-20 10:56:53 · answer #5 · answered by TRUE PATRIOT 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No actually, I think Bush has through the Patriot Act, sidestepped his ignorance of the Constitutional laws placed on him.
Why should Bush be impeached?
War crimes-felony
Blatant disregard of the Constitution of the United States of America-treason-felony
Ignoring the laws of the Geneva Convention-felony
Murder-either directly or indirectly-felony
2006-11-20 18:40:42 · answer #6 · answered by Schona 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
specific the patriot act is it self a criminal offense against freedom, his lies approximately wmds and invadeing iraq, the denial of hardship-unfastened rights to gitmo prisoners, like get right of entry to to a criminal expert and a few have been freed yet they have been tortured. His use of cord faucets without warrants, the allowing suspects (bin ladden family members) to fly out after 911 while something of the U. S. exchange into grounded.
2016-10-22 10:53:10 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
it always amazes me how people here KNOW there is something he has done illegally but yet their so called leaders cant come up with anything to atleast bring it to the House. Dems on YA are smarter than their leaders. How amazing
2006-11-20 10:31:39 · answer #8 · answered by CaptainObvious 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's not just Bush, it's his entire administration first of all.
Okay-Torture in Iraq and Cuba is against the Geneva Conventions to which we are a signatory
The Patriot Act is counter to the right of Due Process with the sneak and peak provisions, and the law against librarians.
The Military Commissions Act is against Habeas Corpus, which means that now the government can convict you with out showing the evidence against you.
The NSA Surveillance program is also illegal because of Unreasonable Searches and Seizures because the government used At&T Customer records without getting prior approval from a judge. they were not looking for anything specifically just taking in everything.
2006-11-20 10:10:07 · answer #9 · answered by drecarter04 2 · 2⤊ 5⤋
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act -- (FISA)
eh. By his own admission.
EDT: American Bar Association and other experts have determined Bush violated FISA -- in the Case of FISA -- no warrant is violation. Alex as usual has no idea what he's talking about.
EDIT 2: Bush also lied on national television saying "anytime we talk about wiretap, we are talking about getting a warrant".
EDIT 3 I second ideogate's last paragraph!
2006-11-20 10:00:43 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 6⤋