2007-02-23 19:54:41 · 16 answers · asked by reeftanksforall.com 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfield and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales have committed violations and subversions of the Constitution of the United States of America in an attempt to carry out with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes and deprivations of the civil rights of the people of the United States and other nations, by assuming powers of an imperial executive unaccountable to law and usurping powers of the Congress, the Judiciary and those reserved to the people of the United States, by the following acts:
1) Seizing power to wage wars of aggression in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Charter and the rule of law; carrying out a massive assault on and occupation of Iraq, a country that was not threatening the United States, resulting in the death and maiming of hundereds of thousands of Iraqis, and thousands of U.S. G.I.s.
2) Lying to the people of the U.S., to Congress, and to the U.N., providing false and deceptive rationales for war.
3) Authorizing, ordering and condoning direct attacks on civilians, civilian facilities and locations where civilian casualties were unavoidable.
4) Instituting a secret and illegal wiretapping and spying operation against the people of the United States through the National Security Agency.
5) Threatening the independence and sovereignty of Iraq by belligerently changing its government by force and assaulting Iraq in a war of aggression.
6) Authorizing, ordering and condoning assassinations, summary executions, kidnaping, secret and other illegal detentions of individuals, torture and physical and psychological coercion of prisoners to obtain false statements concerning acts and intentions on governments and individuals and violating within the United States, and by authorizing U.S. forces and agents elsewhere, the rights of individuals under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
7) Making, ordering and condoning false statements and propaganda about the conduct of foreign governments and individuals and acts by U.S. government personnel; manipulating the media and foreign governments with false information; concealing information vital to public discussion and informed judgment concerning acts, intentions and possession, or efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction in order to falsely create a climate of fear and destroy opposition to U.S. wars of aggression and first strike attacks.
8) Violations and subversions of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, both a part of the "Supreme Law of the land" under Article VI, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, in an attempt to commit with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes in wars and threats of aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq and others and usurping powers of the United Nations and the peoples of its nations by bribery, coercion and other corrupt acts and by rejecting treaties, committing treaty violations, and frustrating compliance with treaties in order to destroy any means by which international law and institutions can prevent, affect, or adjudicate the exercise of U.S. military and economic power against the international community.
9) Acting to strip United States citizens of their constitutional and human rights, ordering indefinite detention of citizens, without access to counsel, without charge, and without opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the Executive of a citizen as an "enemy combatant."
10) Ordering indefinite detention of non-citizens in the United States and elsewhere, and without charge, at the discretionary designation of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Defense.
11) Ordering and authorizing the Attorney General to override judicial orders of release of detainees under INS jurisdiction, even where the judicial officer after full hearing determines a detainee is wrongfully held by the government.
12) Authorizing secret military tribunals and summary execution of persons who are not citizens who are designated solely at the discretion of the Executive who acts as indicting official, prosecutor and as the only avenue of appellate relief.
13) Refusing to provide public disclosure of the identities and locations of persons who have been arrested, detained and imprisoned by the U.S. government in the United States, including in response to Congressional inquiry.
14) Use of secret arrests of persons within the United States and elsewhere and denial of the right to public trials.
15) Authorizing the monitoring of confidential attorney-client privileged communications by the government, even in the absence of a court order and even where an incarcerated person has not been charged with a crime.
16) Ordering and authorizing the seizure of assets of persons in the United States, prior to hearing or trial, for lawful or innocent association with any entity that at the discretionary designation of the Executive has been deemed "terrorist."
17) Engaging in criminal neglect in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, depriving thousands of people in Louisiana, Mississippi and other Gulf States of urgently needed support, causing mass suffering and unnecessary loss of life.
18) Institutionalization of racial and religious profiling and authorization of domestic spying by federal law enforcement on persons based on their engagement in noncriminal religious and political activity.
19) Refusal to provide information and records necessary and appropriate for the constitutional right of legislative oversight of executive functions.
20) Rejecting treaties protective of peace and human rights and abrogation of the obligations of the United States under, and withdrawal from, international treaties and obligations without consent of the legislative branch, and including termination of the ABM treaty between the United States and Russia, and rescission of the authorizing signature from the Treaty of Rome which served as the basis for the International Criminal Court.
2007-02-23 19:56:58 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 4⤋
He's prohibited by the Constitution from running for a third term. Federal law says that somebody can only serve a maximum of 8 years in office.
2016-03-28 21:47:23 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends on who would be running against him.
I'd vote for Jeffrey Dahlmer before voting for Hillary.
Put up Obamma and I would have to think about it... (and read up more about Obamma. I do have over a year to learn more about him.)
The known less than ideal is sometimes better than the unknown or the positively unacceptable.
BTW.. I voted for Bush. If Gore had been on the Dem ticket instead of Kerry I would have voted Gore because Gore's just stupid... Kerry is a stupid liar.
As far as Senators/Congressmen... Vote anti-incumbent. If they've been there 2 yrs they are part of the problem.
2007-02-23 20:06:14 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Nancy I'm going to tell you why most of your points are either wrong or something that other presidents have done in the past without any of the fanfare or complaints that bush deals with.
1. The following US wars were ones of aggression as you call them.
Mexican War, Spanish-American War, and Vietnam War. Saying that people died in war is foolish, its a given. To somehow say thats something extraordinary is naive. Also "rule of law" is a bogus term you added. It has nothing to do with war at all. Also what the U.N thinks is garbage seeing as they announce Sudan is having a genocide in Darfur while having that same country seated on the Human Rights Commission.
2. This is based on the assumption that they did so purposely. That is a matter of debate. Wonder if that happened to start off Vietnam, the Mexican war, or Spanish-american war? Yup on all accounts. Still doesn't make it right but its not without precedent.
3. Try Dresden at the end of WW2 for purposely killing civilians. Also there is no reason a foreign government has to avoid killing the people of the country they're invading. Its a kindness that should be looked on positively rather than expected. In addition, killing non-soldiers is now a common practice in modern war due to their part in supplying, supporting, and fueling the war effort of that country.
4. I agree.
5. Kinda like the Philippines in 1900? We aren't obliged to recognize the sovereignity of nations if we don't want to. The arab states due so to Israel and i doubt you're complaining about their actions.
6. Unfortunately, the US constitution only applies to US citizens and not to every human on the Earth. Only possible issue is our breaking the Geneva convention which really should only apply when two countries at war both signed it. Also you have no proof all statements are false. It is likely some were true.
7. ...So we're supposed to not drum up support for our actions? And at the same time, work to undermine ourselves? Give me a break lady, do you seriously believe that?
8. There is no such thing as international law. Law can only be established by a people's elected officals (preferably) or their ruling government. Seeing as there is NO international body like that, it doesn't exist. There are international treaties and agreements between large groups of nations but there is no international law. Its a lie made up so people who oppose a certain country's actions can say their breaking the law and as such are bad people. Crimes against peace? You mean any military action not taken in total self-defense? Good job on making up an imaginary crime by a government. Last time I checked, we use bribery every year in the form of foreign aid. Coercion implies that we used force which is a lie. You show a complete lack of international politics with this segment of your post. The end is just ad-hominem (even if a country isn't a person) attacks on the United States.
9. The loss of habeas corpus is something that the government has the right to do. Lincoln did so against a Congressman even. It is unsavory and not smart to use it now but techinally it is legal by the Constitution.
10. Inhumane but once again not illegal by any laws I know of in the US.
11. I don't know enough about this to answer.
12. Assumption of executions, I have seen no proof of this and I'm guessing you're running on the same CNN, FOX, NYT, and a few internet sources as I am. Seeing as it was brought up to the Supreme Court about the use of military tribunals its not a secret. I forgot what the final decision was, but its something that was already decided on a few years back by our Supreme Court.
13. Dont really care about and I can see why the government would take such actions against enemies though I do not agree with the practice.
14. Haven't heard of this and seeing your record so far I'm very skeptical over the validity of this claim.
15. Dont know enough about to answer.
16. Something which is the correct action. When people are using the US banking system to send money to Hamas, Hezallboh (sp?), and other groups that commit actions to murder civilians for the sake of murdering them and disrupting law and order where they are established, they should have their assets frozen. Supporting the financial funding of groups that cause the same type of civilian death that you attack the US government about is hypocritical.
17. The national government is not responsible to aid individuals in duress. It is the state and local governments' responsibility to do so with the appropriate aid from the national government. This highlighted one of the flaws with a federalist system of democracy due to the state bearing the responsible to take care of this but lacking the finances and manpower to do so. As such the national government should just aid and strengthen the state and local government. Bush's government is as much to blame for this as every single state and local government is to blame for the failures to promptly and effectively control the situation and begin rebuilding.
18. Yawn. Its called spying on those mostly likely to be the enemy. Think the Japanese in WW2 weren't placed in internment camps for the same reason (that was bad). Or the Germans were closely watched in both ww1 and ww2. Or the communists during the whole length of the cold war? Its a matter of practicality and if you sincerely believe that we shouldn't factor in what factions and religions our enemies are from, then you are a fool.
19. The legislature is not there to oversee the executive branch. They are equals and only when the legislature believes the president is acting in a way that warrants his removal from office due they have the right to interfere by WAY OF THE JUDICIAL BRANCH.
20. They're allowed to withdraw from treaties and the ABM was by now pointless. If nuclear war breaks out, it will not be between Russia and America. Belonging to a treaty that has no purpose but to restrict your actions with no benefit is nonsense.
That said, I probably wouldn't vote for Bush for a 3rd term if he was allowed to run as he has done a poor job in his 2nd term. Also I believe he's drifting too far towards Big government and deficit spending not to mention abetting illegal immigrants.
2007-02-23 20:44:19 · answer #4 · answered by doctor slernon 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
YES YES YES
Think about it would you rather had a democrat leading this war on terror.
I Think Not?
2007-02-23 20:34:25 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
2 terms is more than enough for any president no matter who it is.
I'm sure alot of people would love to see Clinton in office longer.
2007-02-23 20:03:05 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
No. I haven't voted for him yet and he certainly hasn't done anything to get my vote if he could run again.
2007-02-23 19:57:25 · answer #7 · answered by mrlebowski99 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Yes,just to piss the Dem's off since they want to do nothing except complain, they have no solutions to anything.
2007-02-23 20:02:00 · answer #8 · answered by jason s 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
No way! You have to ask why? Where have you been the last six years?
2007-02-23 20:17:37 · answer #9 · answered by MathBioMajor 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
No hes the worst president ever. the only reason hes president is because of the christians
2007-02-23 19:57:03 · answer #10 · answered by flonkas 3 · 1⤊ 4⤋
worst president in a looong time
2007-02-23 20:01:32 · answer #11 · answered by mandy r 1 · 1⤊ 2⤋