Why doesn't one get impeached as the President?

Question

When this individual:
Planned to invade Iraq - even conquer the Middle East - without a Congressional Declaration of War as required by the Constitution, in violation of the UN charter
Allowed September 11 terrorist attack to succeed by ignoring numerous warnings and failing to take precautions against hijackings

He also declared he is a "war President"?
Then said he will "smoke bin Laden out of his cave" and later declared "I don't know where Bin Laden is and frankly I don't really think about him or care". And let Bin Laden run free.

Answer 1

Bush has misled this nation for too long. His aggressive foreign policies and corporate give-aways threaten the well-being of all Americans and of other people around the globe. Those who love America cannot allow the damage from a Bush Presidency to continue any further. His actions are blatantly illegal under International Law and our own Constitution. Now is the time, therefore, to impeach George Bush and high ranking officers in his cabinet.
Grounds for Impeachment
There are many reasons for impeaching George Bush. The ones below are the most compelling and most easily prosecuted. (For a more complete list see "Bush should be impeached.")
Lying about the Rationale for the Iraq War
Bush and his team deliberately misled Congress and the American public about the rationale for invading Iraq. Bush convinced a majority of Americans that Iraq was involved with Al-Qaeda and responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Yet the evidence shows that Iraq was not involved. Bush said in his State of the Union Address that "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" to build nuclear weapons. But he had already been told by the CIA that the evidence was forged. Bush claimed to have hard evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But the UN investigators could not verify any of these claims and searches of Iraq revealed no such weapons. The real reason we invaded Iraq may have more to do with the fact that Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world, and sits strategically in the center of the Middle East. Read More...

Illegal Wiretapping of American Citizens
George Bush authorized the NSA to conduct illegal wiretaps on American citizens. Bush claimed that these were justified on the basis of national security. But there is a legal mechanism for conducting emergency wiretaps followed by court approval within 72 hours. Bush ignored that mechanism and exceeded his executive authority. Bush claims he has authority to wiretap anyone he wishes but a federal judge ruled that his actions are unconstitutional. Bush has admitted to authorizing the NSA, a secretive spy agency, to conduct warrantless wire taps on American citizens. The spying even extends to postal mail. The NSA has also been collecting phone records in an attempt to build a database of every phone call that is made.

Latest News: 8/18/06 - In response to a lawsuit filed by the ACLU, US District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled that the wiretaps are unconstitutional.

The Bush wiretaps violated US law because he was required to get approval from FISA. He can start a wiretap of a suspected terrorist at any time but must then seek approval to continue within 72 hours.
Attorney General Gonzales claims HJR114 gave Bush authority to conduct the wiretaps. But HJR114 only grants use of the "Armed Forces". HJR114 does not explicitly suspend the Constitution. Also HJR114 requires "The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3". Congress was not notified of these wiretaps. [HJR114]
Bush may have bypassed FISA because he wanted to listen to and analyze all international signals, not just those of suspected terrorists. He knew this was blatantly illegal so he hid it. Bush says "We use FISA still. But FISAs is for long-term monitoring. What is needed in order to protect the American people is the ability to move quickly to detect." Then later "There is a difference between detecting, so we can prevent, and monitoring. And it's important to note the distinction between the two." The distinction is that "detecting" requires listening to lots of calls with a computer to see if someone says certain keywords like "bomb" in Arabic, or maybe even "impeach Bush" in English. Monitoring is listening to a specific suspected terrorist. The problem with detection is that you have to listen to all calls, including yours and mine. [This NY Times article confirms this interpretation. Also CNN.]
More evidence that Bush wants to listen to all signals is in Bob Woodward's book "Bush at War," on page 303. " Bush summarized his strategy: 'Listen to every phone call and close them down and protect the innocents.'" [WaPost]
Investigators may have found that Bush applied for an expansion of wiretap capability from FISA, was rejected, and then went ahead and did it anyway. [FindLaw] [FAS]
Bush claims going through FISA is too slow but legal emergency wiretaps helped capture terrorist Mosquera.
According to a report in USA Today, the NSA is collecting the phone records of tens of millions of Americans - most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. The agency's goal is "to create a database of every call ever made" within the nation's borders. The stated goal is to be able to identify who is involved in a network of terrorists. But this same technique can be used to determine who is involved in a network of political activists who might, for example, oppose the Bush administration. Under Section 222 of the Communications Act, first passed in 1934, telephone companies are prohibited from giving out information regarding their customers' calling habits. All of the major telecommunications companies cooperated with this program except for Qwest. Joe Nacchio, CEO of Qwest, was troubled by the fact that there was no FISA approval and that the program was so pervasive.
8/18/06 - In response to a lawsuit filed by the ACLU, US District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled that the wiretaps are unconstitutional.



Torture of Prisoners
Bush and his team have set us a system of prisons around the world where prisoners can be tortured. They have transported prisoners from the United States, Europe and elsewhere to other countries for the purpose of having them tortured. They have fought hard to build a legal case for torture but the fact remains that torture is highly illegal. It is also considered an ineffective means of getting reliable information from a prisoner. Bush is guilty of violating of the Federal Torture Act, the UN Torture Convention and the Geneva Convention.On 6/22/04 Bush said "We do not condone torture. I have never ordered torture. I will never order torture. The values of this country are such that torture is not a part of our soul and our being." Is that true?

The evidence below shows that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Gonzales are guilty of violating "Federal Torture Act" Title 18 United States Code, Section 113C, the UN Torture Convention and the Geneva Convention by ordering and condoning the use of torture.

1/25/02 - White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales wrote a memo advising the President of "the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act," a federal statute, for torturing prisoners. He advised Bush to invent a legal technicality --declaring detainees in the "war on terror" to be outside the Geneva Conventions --which, he said, "substantially reduces" the chance of prosecution. Gonzales was later promoted to US Attorney General. [Nation]
2/7/02 - Bush took Gonzales' advice and signed an order declaring that members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban are not covered by the Geneva Convention. This gave the green light for torture and illegal detainment of prisoners.
Bush moves prisoners to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba and holds them for years without charges, trials, or access to lawyers. This is ruled illegal by a Federal Judge on Jan 31, 2005.
Bush sets up secret prisons run by the CIA in foreign countries to escape US laws against torture. Rice claims European countries supported this plan. [WashingtonPost] [CNN] [FindLaw]
9/26/02 - Canadian Maher Arar was arrested at JFK airport and sent to secret prison in Syria for torture under "extraordinary rendition" program. He was released a year later without charges. He sued the US government but the suit was dismissed by a federal judge David Trager on 2/17/06 citing the need for secrecy. He wrote, "One need not have much imagination to contemplate the negative effect on our relations with Canada if discovery were to proceed in this case and were it to turn out that certain high Canadian officials had, despite public denials, acquiesced in Arar's removal to Syria." Thus the reason for the secrecy is not for national security but simply to avoid embarassing guilty parties in government. This sets a dangerous precedent that may allow Bush to kidnap and torture anyone he pleases. (Search CNN for news of this case and find nothing!) [Wikipedia]
Dec '02 - Alberto J. Mora, the general counsel of the United States Navy, tried to halt what he saw as a disastrous and unlawful policy of authorizing cruelty toward terror suspects. His 2004 memo details his unsuccessful struggle with the White House to stop the torture. [NewYorker]
12/31/03 - German national Khaled al-Masri says he was abducted by the CIA arrested in Macedonia and flown to Afghanistan. He was then tortured for five months and released. CIA has admitted making a mistake in this case.
April 2004, photos of prisoners being tortured at Abu Ghraib prison make headlines around the world. Low ranking soldiers are convicted of torture charges, falling on their swords for the White House. [Wikipedia] [NewYorker]
October 2005, Senator McCain adds an amendment to a defense bill that would outlaw torture by the United States. Bush and Cheney fight this tooth and nail to block this amendment but eventually give in after the McCain amendment is weakened by the Graham-Levin amendment. When Bush signs the bill he adds a signing statement that basically says he can ignore the prohibition against torture under his powers as "unitary executive" and "Commander in Chief ".
6/29/06 - Supreme Court rules in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that the Geneva Convention applies to prisoners at Guantanamo

Violation of International Law
According to our Constitution, International Treaties are part of the "supreme Law of the Land". They are not something that can be ignored when they are inconvenient. Bush's violations of the UN Charter and the Nuremberg Charter are, therefore, impeachable offenses.
Synopsis: Bush attacked Iraq, against the decisions of the United Nations, and thus violated the UN Charter. Planning and committing a war of aggression is a violation of the Nuremberg Charter. According to the US Constitution these international treaties are part of the "supreme Law of the Land". Bush has violated the Nuremberg Charter and the UN Charter and is, therefore, subject to impeachment.

UN & Nuremberg Charters part of "the supreme Law of the Land"
Article VI of the US Constitution states that:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;"
Because Bush violated International Laws that we agreed to by treaty, then he is also violating the supreme Law of the Land which is an impeachable offense. Note that it says "or which shall be made" so treaties signed after the Constitution was adopted are still covered.
Violation of The United Nations Charter
Chapter 1, Article 2 of the UN Charter states:
3.All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4.All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Bush lied to the UN and to Congress about the seriousness of the threat from Iraq, and invaded Iraq in defiance of a vote from the UN Security Council. His actions inflamed the Arab world and set a dangerous precedent for any other country that wants to defy the UN and start their own war.

Violation of the Nuremberg Charter
Principle Vl of the Nuremberg Charter states:
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under; international law:
a. Crimes against peace:
i. Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or
a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
ii .Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment
of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
Bush's invaded a sovereign country that had not threatened the United States and had no ability to do so. Bush had been making plans to invade Iraq even before 9/11.

Answer 2

Bush had congressional authorization. The last Pres to actually get a declaration of war was FDR.
The warnings were extremely vague. Nothing actionable. The attacks certainly took years to plan. What was Clinton doing while this was going on?

Answer 3

We are being lied to. Iraq is not about oil or a war on terror. It is really all about the winning of THIS secret "prize"!...
http://www.strayreality.com/Lanis_Strayreality/iraq.htm

Answer 4

You have to violate the law and the constitution to be tried for impeachment. Impeachments don't occur because you disagree with their agenda.

Answer 5

Listen his handlers learned well from Nixon. Bush has done nothing impeachable. He has committed no impeachable offense, I find this horrifying myself given all he has done, but it will not happen.

Answer 6

The total lack of wit or knowledge associated with this question rates 5 thumbs down. Does it hurt being a idiot covered in koolaid?

Answer 7

He does not need to be impeached.