Is it possible to build a legitimate and respected, inclusive, grassroots movement to Impeach Bush and Cheney?

Question

I mean this as a serious question, I don't say impeachment lightly. I believe, as many other Americans do as well, that Bush and Cheney are guilty of criminal acts. As this is not meant to be a rant, I only name a few. The illegal rounding up of thousands of law abiding Americans after September 11th. Illegal wire taps placed on Americans in violation of the fourth amendment. Violation of Jose Padilla's sixth amendment rights. So called 'illegal combatants' held in violation of the Geneva Conventions. There are many more. I have, again, not lightly, come to the conclusion that their crimes require full testimony to the American people. My question is this: Is it possible to build a respected movement, one that is main stream (think TODAY show) and made up of Americans on both side of the political spectrum, whose goal is to get both the House and Senate to impeach Bush and Cheney for these and other crimes? Why or why not? Please, no rants. This is meant as a serious question. Thanks.

Wow...Many, if not most, Americans that were rounded up after 9/11 were leagl residents who had committed no crime.

The Patriot Act, which was printed at 3:45 AM by the Bush admin the day before the vote. It's over 300 pages long. The senate had broad, bi partisian support for a similar bill that they had worked very hard on in committee. That bill was replaced with the so called Patriot Act on the eve of it's vote. It is full of Unconstitutional acts and many many communites all over the country have passed ordinaces stating that local law enforcement may not engage in enforcing those parts of the Patriot Act that are unconstitutional.

It's shocking to me that so many, both liberal and conservative, are willing to give up their civil liberties. To give up the heart of what this nation stands for. The loss of civil rights is both unprecedented and illegal.

Answer 1

Actually, only one provision of the Patriot Act was found unconstitutional -- and that was already kicked out in 2004. The other bits may be intrusive and obnoxious, but they are not unconstitutional.

As to impeachment, a grass roots amendment won't work. Only the House has constitutional authority to initiate impeachment proceedings.

And there weren't thousands of Americans rounded up. Only four US citizens have have been illegally detained in violation of 6th Amendment rights. I say "only" four in the same way I'd say "only" 3600 US soldiers have died in Iraq -- not to make light of the number, but just as a comparison to other numbers.

Yes, Bush has willfully violated numerous federal laws, as even he and his lawyers admit. 18 USC 2501 (federal war crimes), 18 USC 2441 (illegal wiretapping), 18 USC 1001 (obstruction of congress), 2 USC 192 (contempt of congress) -- those are confirmed violations that no objective person can argue with. The fact that some people flatly deny Bush has broken any laws -- despite his own admission and despite Supreme Court rulings confirming it -- just shows their level of delusion and denial.

And even if Bush claims some legal right to violate that law, that's an affirmative defense that would have to be raised at trial -- like any other affirmative defense, it doesn't mean he didn't commit the crimes, just that (if proven) he might have been legally entitled to do so. But until there's a trial, the affirmative defense means nothing as a matter of law.

All that having been said, a grassroots drive will not itself do anything. Even a Bill of Impeachment filed in the House won't do anything. Because there is no way in this political climate that 2/3 of the Senate will vote to convict. It doesn't matter how clear the law is on the issue -- the vote will be political, not legal.

Answer 2

No it is not possible.
The impeachment of a president is huge. The majority of senators would like to someday run for president and would not want to me impeached themselves for these type of acts. They won't want to set a pressident.
As for yoyr sited illegal acts:
The rounding up of anyone and everyone with a questionable visa stutus seemed pretty valid at the time. The president has very broad war powers for a good reason. After Pearl Harbor all the Japanese Americans were literally put into concentration camps. Most of them lost their homes and businesses. We did better this time and will do better in the future. This was not a "high crime".
Illegal wire taps huh? Are you actually familiar with the technology in question? The idea is that a computer will scan various forms of comunication from cellular to pnone to email and will flag any trigger words like "bomb" or "Jihad" and then record a snippet of the conversation so an analyst can review it to see if a warrant should be obtained. They had some extended leeway to go back and listen for a while to make sure it wasn't just some guy on a rant. Additionally the system can "hop" to follow a targeted user who changes phones and uses multiple communication devices. Traditional warrants don't provide for keeping up with the technology available. A warrant will cover one phone at a time. Congress was fully informed the whole time, just not all of them cause those idiots can't keep secrets.
Jose Padilla might have a case to sue the federal government for a billion dolars but its not one for impeaching the president. Again, broad war powers.
"Illegal Combatants", I love this one. Do you know what the geneva convention was designed to do? To be covered under the Geneva convention you MUST be a) in uniform b) under the command of a suprior officer c) fighting on behalf of a country that has signed the conventions. The idea is to prevent mobs of soldiers terrorizing the population. If you meet those conditions you are promissed good treatment per the conventions. Otherwise you may be shot on site, hanged, or otherwise dealt with as a looter or criminal. Spies are specifically not covered as prisoners of war under the geneva convention. The Taliban might have a case for Geneva convention protections if they had signed the conventions and had uniforms. Al-qieda is not covered. Oh and Walker should have been shot for treason long ago.

In general half of Americans will agrre with what I said. 35% will think it was not that out of line and 15% will be like you. That is not mainstream. That is political wacos going off at the mouth and will be viewed as such if it shows up on the today show.

Answer 3

No because most of America is conservative in nature and they are not as ignorant as you would have to have them be to impeach Bush. In order for an impeachment to take place, there has to be a legitimate reason. Some will say the war or immigration. Neither of which are impeachable offenses. The war is not since many senators, Hillary and Kerry for example, voted to go to war. Immigration is not since there is no real direct indication that Bush has not done anything to address the issue. Other will say it is because the administration is corrupt. Well the only ones who are saying that are the liberals, the democrats and the media. Fact is that there is very little corruption compared to the Clinton administration. Those are the facts why no grassroots movement to impeach would be successful.

As for the issues you mentioned above, most of those issues were with the consent of Congress and/or are exact consequences of being at war. Therefore, none of them are considered criminal under the law or violations of the Geneva convention and thus not impeachable offenses.

Sorry to state the facts, but there they are. When you do your investigations for "criminal" activities by the Bush administration, you really need to look at why the actions were allowed to take place. You will find that virtually all of them were authorized by the Congress, are normal policy of any administration, and/or totally misrepresented by the media.

Answer 4

I think it is ridiculous mudslinging. I also think it will fail because if you impeach Bush and Cheney for their part, you can't stop there! This is a democracy and like it or not, Bush got Congressional approval before liberating Iraq from Saddam, and this includes a good many Democrats. We going to impeach them too as accessories? They read the same intelligence reports Bush and Cheney did and came to the same conclusion that action was required. The last I checked, having your supporters flip-flop in a state of wishy-washiness is not an impeachable offense! Thanks for asking.

Answer 5

While there are plenty of reasons to impeach Bush and Cheney and a grass roots campaign could be possible by the time everything is in place there wouldn't be time to do it.

Just like previous impeachments it would be a waste of money and time. There are too many Republicans in Congress to block any conviction to make it worthwhile. The more screw ups and corruption that are revealed the better for the Democrats in 2008 election. This could mean a Democratic landslide like the 1964 win of Lyndon Johnson over Barry Goldwater and in Congress too.

Answer 6

Every President has illegally tapped potential threats to National Security, I wouldn't have it any other way. If there was a legitimate crime, Bush would already have been impeached. Do you think the Bush hating libtards would give him a break, they would have impeached him long ago if they could have.

Answer 7

Not without wackos in abundance, no. And by definition, those people would not be respected - or shouldn't be.

And that IS a serious answer.

Also, the information you present is grossly inaccurate.

Answer 8

Your serious question is so boring. The grassroots bunch are mostly conservatives who actually back the president up.

Answer 9

I think there is definitely a case for impeachment. If Clinton can get impeached over a BJ (and lying about it) then Bush definitely deserves it. I think the problem at this point would be time. Bush's reign is coming to an end next year, and I don't know if it would be possible to gain enough momentum and support and get the legal wheels turning in that time frame. Presidents have been held accountable for a lot less in the past. It boggles my mind that more hasn't been done sooner about Bush.

Answer 10

It'll never happen because the house does not have enough votes to come close to impeachment.