Why do people keep mentioning impeachment with Bush?

Question

At least when Clinton was impeached we had an actual law he broke (lying under oath = perjury). Can anyone name the law that Bush et all broke?

Answer 1

I do not know if you heard it or not but I sensed all of the impeachment advocates scurrying for cover, so I doubt that you will get ANY honest answers to this question. If you DO get one of them to answer honestly, they will have to ADMIT that there is NOTHING they can impeach GW for. They are just throwing the nasty stuff against the wall to see if anything will stick.

Answer 2

The low Congressional polling numbers are depending on the actual undeniable actuality that Congress has finished no longer something in any respect on condition that being seated. Couple this with the actual undeniable actuality that the initiatives they have undertaken were very unpopular, like attempting to ram a nasty immigration bill down our throats. those in Congress comprehend that in the course of order to question first you require data, and 2d, you require a 2 thirds majority interior the Senate. They own neither and totally comprehend what an unpopular flow this may be. now to not indicate a gigantic waste of time and funds. As for Republicans utilizing the numbers to their income that in simple terms politics mainly and a flow that Democrats use to their income each and each and every time plausible also. If Democrats don't love the low numbers, or the way they are portrayed then perchance that is time they conflict project some meaning tries at law which will income the folk of this united states of america, extremely than continually attempting to widen the divide with law that possesses 0 possibility of passage.

Answer 3

If you do as I did, and type

"case for impeachment"

into your favorite search engine, you'll get a bunch o' hits (though some will be about Blair, not Bush); many sites with comprehensive lists of impeachable offences commited by Bush.

According to that peskly little document, the Constitution of the United States of America, treaties have the force of law.

Therefore, by ordering the invasion of Iraq, Bush violated international law. (You can't just invade any country you want.)

Also, in carrying out that war, he ordered actions that caused undo civilian deaths (dropping cluster bombs on residential areas, for example), which is also prohibited by international law.

Long before that, he ordered the illegal detention and torture of, what's probably by now tens of thousands of people, which violates a number of international agreements prohibiting torture.

BTW, I looked up the Geneva Conventions once, and read and skimmed it (it's not the most recent, but is still binding -- there are other treaties we've signed agreeing to never use torture).

The final article says that there's no such thing as holding someone outside all bounds of law (which Bush claimed he was doing).

You're either holding a citizen, in which case your laws and constitution apply, or a citizen of another country, in which case your extradition treaties apply, or a POW, in which case the GC applies, and I forget the other category, but there ain't no such thing as holding someone beyond all law and treaty.

These are the crimes that weigh most with me.

There are others, for which I send you to web sites, at least one book, and other writings.

The difference isn't that Bush didn't violate any laws; the difference is that Clinton lied about his sex life.

Bush's crimes are Crimes Against Humanity, which are much worse crimes than not being willing to keep your "thang" in your trousers.

I, myself, wouldn't be satisfied with mere impeachment of Bush; I want to see the entire administration stand trial for Crimes Against Humanity.

Answer 4

Officials can be impeached for: "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
1. Murder 100,000 Iraqis dead because Bush acted on
trumped up falisified report on weapons of Mass destruction. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with "malice aforethought." The element of malice aforethought can be satisfied by an intentional killing, which is considered express malice. Malice can also be implied: deaths that occur by extreme recklessness or during certain serious crimes are considered to be express malice murders. Bush can't say that he acted on erronious information just like if I murder my wife because my friend says she's cheating.
2. Malfeasance in office, or official misconduct, is the commission of an unlawful act, done in an official capacity, which affects the performance of official duties. Malfeasance in office is often grounds for a for cause removal of an elected official by statute or recall election. Many courts will find malfeasance in office where there is "ignorance, inattention, or malice", which implies no intent or knowledge is required.
3. Voilating the Geneva conventions on War The outsourcing of torture to other countries is a devilishly clever legalistic fiction that allows the Bush Administration to systematically violate basic human rights of terror suspects while claiming it does not condone or practice torture.
4. Violating the FISA Act A report from the American Bar Association calls on the President to abide by constitutional checks and balances, and to end electronic surveillance inside the United States that does not comply with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The Association overwhelmingly supported the report, which also urged the Congress to undertake comprehensive investigations.
5. Leaking Valire Plame's identity because her husband wouldn't support the yellow cake in niger being sought by Iraq and the false yellow cake story itself.

I don'tunderstand why there is no serious debate and why no action has been taken

Answer 5

This gives a pretty good overview of the issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush

But the main points are:
NSA warrantless surveillance
2003 invasion of Iraq (Constitutionality of invasion)
Geneva Conventions controversy
Leaking of classified information
Politicization of the United States attorney offices

Edit: Why do I get a thumbs down for providing the information that was asked for? I didn't give any political stance weather I agree with the impeachment or not. I just gave some information as to help answer the question. I guess if I'm not name calling in this forum, then you get a thumbs down.

Answer 6

Thanks for the information, although I don't really trust Wiki I used it for my arguments in this case.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSA warrantless surveillance controversy

Seeing that the topic's legality is in dispute makes it impossible to levy a charge. Since it is unclear whether wiretapping was illegal or not makes it unconstitutional to charge Bush on this subject since any decision made in the future occured after the wiretapping occured. Only if a definative legal decision was reached which declared the process unconstitutional occured AND Bush continued to order the tapping would this make a viable case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Constitutionality of invasion

The case challening the lagality of this was rejected twice, which means judges feel there isn't enough precedence or grounds for such a challenge. US presidents have used military forces in offensive action numerous times in the past which makes this argument an odd one. Vietnam, Panama, Grenada anyone?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justification for invasion

This seems tobe the strongest argument until you realize that there is a terrible lack of evidence to prove the adminstration falsified data. Distorting data isn't neccessarily criminal, it happens all the time, just watch T.V. commercials. The admistration likely wanted war with Iraq, and used available information which confirmed their beliefs. Not illegal, just foolish if contrary infromation was in fact ignored.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.N. Charter

The admistration apparently said US aircraft were shot at by Iraqi ground forces which would constitute and act of war against the US perpetrated by Iraq making the war defensive and within the bounds of the UN charter.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unlawful combatant status

Once again a debate over the legal status and meaning of things saves the Bush administration. Anything the Bush administration did to Al Quaida operatives prior to 2006 wasn't in violation of the Geneva convention, because the legal status of the terrorists was in debate. Only since 2006 has it been decided that Al Quida operatives fall under the Geneva convention instead of remaining outside it as criminals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extraordinary rendition

Once again the slow wheels of the legal system saves the Bush administration. No legally backed decision was made by any legitamate governing body until May 2006.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treatment of detainees

Since the treatment of prisoners didn't meet the revised definition of torture under US law it wasn't illegal. The U.N. never even condemned the treatment as torture during its 2006 statements. The US Supreme court never offically declared Al Quaida operatives to be under the Geneva convention until 2006.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Possible involvement in the CIA leak

Once again, lack of proof prevents this from being a viable option. Neither Bush nor Cheney could be implicated in it, and are therefore legally free. You can't use unproovable things to start a impeachment process.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Declassifying for political purposes

The president controls what is and isn't classified information, which makes this the weakest argument I've heard so far.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Politicization of the United States attorney offices

Politicizing an arena of government isn't illegal. It has been performed by numerous presidents in history, including Clinton who cleaned house in preparation for his appointments. The president controls the appointment process and as such this isn't illegal, just shrewed political movements.

His actions are even supported by legal precedents including Myers vrs. USA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
signing statments

Since these aren't explicitly condemend or approved in the Constitution is up to the courts to decide the elgality of these measures.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hurricane Katrina

You can't be impeached for bungling something. That would set a precendent, which most wouln't want to cross. The response to Katrina was massive, and nearly unprecendented in its size; New Orleans was simply to large for any response. The Frederal government can't even act constitutionally unless a local area asks for help.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abuse of power

Answer 7

Bush and Cheney should be impeached for war crimes...pretty sure that's against the law.

Answer 8

They like to strut around acting like they're an expert on how to be a president.
Or they're so BS'up by the Dems they know no other way of thinking.

Answer 9

You know it's common for SOME people to want what they can't have or in this case do.

Answer 10

Clinton apparently perjured himself when he claimed that oral sex isn't sex.

What is and is not legal is not as concrete as you might think--part of it is legal-wrangling over the meaning or words, and part of it is politics.