I personally will never rest until the regime is removed. Impeachment!

[RaulVB]

Today, the OFFICIAL report about "Iraq's WMDs is public."

SADDAM HUSSEIN NEVER HAD WMDs OR THE CAPABILITIES TO PRODUCE THEM.

This is, again, the OFFICIAL WH report on the subject.

Therefore, the regime has illegally started a war of aggression against a country that was not a direct threat to its national security.

By the Nuremeberg Tribunal standards and all known rules of International Law, the political and military leaders behind this war of aggression must be put on trial before the Internationa Tribunals.

The leader of the operation, politically responsible for it, must be impeached.

That's the only acceptable outcome. If that doesn't happen, this country has officially become a rogue nation.

IMPEACHMENT!

Talk to your elected representatives.

I did it 30 minutes ago. They will receive information.

[musette_sf]

1. Me too, Raul

I can't stand it and it's completely un-American. They HAVE TO GO. We took Nixon down and we can take this one down too.

[Alisa]

2. I'm with you

that's the goal. We have to keep hammering them - get issues into the media and affect the countries opinions, set the table so to speak - so we can make the next move.

[sabra]

3. First Blackwell, then *

it will happen!

Atleast I hope so...

[Pirate Smile]

4. If you want it to happen I'd say the 2006 election is your main target.

The Democrats have to take back control of one of part of Congress - probably the Senate. I'd love to have the House and Senate, of course.

[RaulVB]

8. No. You don't understand.

These are war criminals.

Game over. Regime change or rogue nation.

Those are the options for the US under international Law.

[Pirate Smile]

14. Impeachment goes through Congress and it won't go through this

Congress - that is all I am saying.

[googly]

77. You are a sane and rational and logical thinker my man

[RaulVB]

86. Greetings from Abu-Graib (n/t)

[Pirate Smile]

109. Woman, and thank you. Some people seem to find those traits irritating

but I still think they are a plus.:)

[googly]

134. There is nothing more intoxicating than a woman who is

intelligent (logical, rational, clear thinker) and good
looking.

[cyberpj]

12. Yep. Changing congress is the new goal. But I'm still writing

to anyone and everyone about impeachment over the lies.

(Too bad he didn't just get a blow job, huh?)

[googly]

76. Not a chance whatsoever to remove shrub from office UNLESS>..

we take back either the senate or house. Partisanship is the
rule of the day in DC. It was much different during Nixon.
The repugs will not vote to impeach shrub, no way, no how.
We can dream till our pants are wet, but count on the repugs
to protect the emporer.

[imenja]

5. okay, so you impeach Bush

Cheney becomes president. No change. Assume Cheney is also forced out of office. Hastert becomes president and Delay pulls all the strings.
Wouldn't it be more productive to work on election reform for upcoming elections?

[RaulVB]

7. All the leaders of the regime are subject to the trials.

Nuremberg Tribunal's standards.

[imenja]

9. in this country we use the US Constitution

have a read. It tells you how the whole thing works.

[RaulVB]

10. War criminals need to be put on trial

All the leaders of the regime responsible for the war of aggresion must be put on trial.

Your country set the standards at Nuremberg.

[imenja]

21. They have also refused to sign on to the World Criminal Court

War criminals should be put on trial, but if they are American they will not be. Bush has made sure of that.
No definition of war criminal--in a legal rather than moral sense--includes those who vote to authorize war. It only includes those who personally commit or order war crimes. House members would not be included, even if the US were a signatory to the World Criminal Court.
The central question is do you want to do something that will actually make a difference or simply express anger?

For those who want to work on election reform, sign up here:http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=262387&mesg_id=262387

[RaulVB]

22. The game of "legalistic reform" is over. Democrats can't play it anymore.

This is the point where the only thing to do is talk with International Law experts about grounds for the trial.

Anger?

None.

Cold, legal analysis? Yes.

Quite different.

[imenja]

28. I'm sorry

I was hopeful you'd agree to work to change things.

[RaulVB]

29. I agree on change

I just have a different opinion and how to make it happen.

[imenja]

55. I wish you luck

I wish I believed it were possible, but I would be absolutely thrilled to be proved wrong on this.

[euler]

35. Cold, legal analysis

Where ?

[rinsd]

37. That would include a quite a few Democrats....

In fact that would include anyone who voted for the authorization irregardless of later explanation.

And if you're contacting your rep, isn't it your country too?

[RaulVB]

41. Yes. Your, mine fellow Americans

I hope your focus goes beyond that, though.

I really hope so...

[fearnobush]

128. Unfortunately, that document no longer exists.

The GOP stole it when they ended freedom in 2001. We must empower those who are willing to impeach him first.

[Salomonity]

70. nuremberg also said hate speach was a hanging offense

We executed Julius Streicher because we didn't like what he said in his magazine--this would be utterly unconscienable in any American court; it's simply unconstitutional.

This merely shows that quite different standards apply to the United States, and to a defeated, crushed, and occupied hostile nation.

Nuremberg isn't an applicable precident.

[cyberpj]

11. I'd still rather have the satisfaction of impeaching him

so the world and history will record properly how wrong he was.

Even if any of the others take over -- there's not much they could accomplish, based on the fact that they were all together in this mess.

It would also help to get big changes in CONGRESS.

[imenja]

30. you need to work for a Democratic landslide in 2006

Before that can have a hope of progressing. The Republican party is not going to impeach or convict Bush. You'll also need to calculate how many senate seats are up that year to see if it is possible to secure a conviction.

[RaulVB]

31. Impossible within a system that facilitates fraud

System that WILL NOT BE CHANGED by the regime, as you know.

[imenja]

54. so how will you secure impeachment and conviction?

Your initial post indicates that is your goal.

[euler]

59. Seems like a good question to me.

He said in his original post:

The leader of the operation, politically responsible for it, must be impeached.

That's the only acceptable outcome. If that doesn't happen, this country has officially become a rogue nation.

IMPEACHMENT!

Then he says in a reply to you:

Impeachment is Impossible within a system that facilitates fraud

To be fair, I think he has a dozen or so threads to juggle.

[Der Blaue Engel]

64. NO...he said a Democratic landslide was impossible under current election

system. But to be fair, you have a dozen or so threads to juggle too. :hi:

[adigal]

17. I just called Sweeney, Clinton and Schumer

And Sweeney's office got dismissive with me saying, "OK, I'll pass it on." I snapped, "Don't OK me - I'm a constituent and 48% of us supported Kerry before all of this WMD and paying pundits came out, so you had better not blow me off." Got a different tone then.

I told them I believe if Republicans can impeach for oral sex, then surely we can impeach for have a complete and total lack of judgement and involving us in an illegal war.

I know, a waste of time, but I had to do it.

Thanks,

[RaulVB]

23. Good for you!

I hope your fellow Americans posting here will do the same today.

Thanks.

[Der Blaue Engel]

69. Here's a silly thought:

Why can't we work on both of these things? Or in fact, three things:

1) Holding the current regime responsible for their crimes, through whatever legal means available and necessary

2) Demanding election reform to prevent this kind of coup taking place again

3) Mobilizing for 2006 election

I don't see these goals as mutually exclusive, but there seems to be a lot of either/or, all or nothing mentality around here lately.

Whatever I can do, no matter how seemingly impossible, to chip away at this sick, perverted regime from all sides, sign me up. I'll try ANYTHING*.

(*anything nonviolent that is, Agent Mike)

[elizm]

80. I had the same silly thought!

:)

[imenja]

91. of course you could

but 1) I don't see any possible scenario where it would actually happen and 2) if it did it would improve anything. The list of characters one the line of succession are horrible, some worse than Bush.

[Der Blaue Engel]

95. I don't think #2 is a valid reason not to

They're horrible, period. They've committed crimes. They should be called on it. You can't really think Bush acts as a thinking individual?

I think a good compromise scenario would be what happened with Clinton's impeachment. House (or was it Senate?) impeaches. Smears president horribly, hobbling him six ways to Sunday. Other branch doesn't. Damage still done.

[imenja]

99. ok

but how do you imagine achieving that with a Republican controlled House and Senate?
My view is that we all have limited time, so that I personally prefer to work on something that will effect a long term change. For me, the first priority is election reform.

[Der Blaue Engel]

101. And I totally respect that

:)

Exposing fraud is my first priority. But I like all three goals, and I hope someone works on each of them.

[RaulVB]

104. Could you explain to the crowd how the people (Rethugs) that like this...

Electoral system is going to cooperate with your "reform push"?

A Democratic LANDSLIDE IN 2006 will not take place, as you know.

Thanks

[imenja]

106. they don't have to cooperate with it

I plan on working on a state constitutional amendment that requires a verifiable paper trail. The Republicans wouldn't support an increase in the minimum wage, so we passed one via a state constitutional amendment. It passed overwhelmingly. Put it in the hands of the people, and the Republicans don't have a choice.
If you read some of the posts on that link I provided, you'll find that there are lots of different options to work on.

[RaulVB]

108. You think that the machines counting the votes to REMOVE MACHINE COUNT...

Without paper trail are going to give you the results you're looking for?

How?

[imenja]

111. hand counts are also corruptible

Nadler discussed it before the Conyers commission. He says corruption in hand counts is much higher than machine counts. I don't subscribe to the idea that removing a machine count solves the problem. Having a paper trail is a crucial step forward because there can be a hand recount if necessary.

[RaulVB]

114. Simply wrong.

Nowhere near the system in place here.

Americans should be better counting votes manually than thirld world countries , right?

Canadians can.

No fraud there.

[imenja]

116. evidence?

To me it makes sense that people hand counting can make errors, deliberate or accidental. What makes you assume that is not the case?
Remember Tammany Hall? If you don't have enough votes, keep counting.

[RaulVB]

118. I'm not going to quote dozens of studies for your amusement, sorry

In countries where democracy is traditionally strong, hand count and paper ballots avoid fraud.

The American system promotes fraud.

Answer the question of machines without paper trail counting votes to remove themselves.

How?

Why are you trying to convince people that such a fantasy will take place?

[imenja]

121. okay, you have none

no system is perfect. To imagine hand counts are impossible to corrupt is fantastical and ignores historical precedent. The idea is to make as systematic and verifiable of a system as possible. If you want to work for all hand counts in your state, go for it.
It beats waiting for the Second Coming of John Kerry.

[RaulVB]

122. "Fantasy land" calling!

Time for you to go back there.

People here is smart and can tell about those "lurking around" trying to shift atention from the real issues.

"Good luck"...

[imenja]

127. fraud

Would fantasy be the election of 1960? The city machines of the nineteenth century like Tammany Hall? The Daley family and Chicago politics well beyond 1960? Texas politics and the many elections of LBJ? The examples of fraudulent US elections based on hand counts are many.
Before you accuse me of engaging in fantasy, I suggest you examine some of the history of elections in this country.
What I hope for is positive change in the country. Yet you say that is distracting from the real issue? What would that issue be?

[cyberpj]

123. What if parents of military kids who died sued for wrongful death?

Since we went to war for WMD and there were none, isn't that an option now that an official report says there really were none?

If I were a parent of someone killed for this stupid excuse to raid the oil fields I'd consider suing.

[Wabbajack]

112. Yes

Election reform is the ONLY way we can get rid of these people. The ONLY way.

[understandinglife]

6. As I've said: "Bush Owns It: Let's Purge It" -- No rest until ...

....mission accomplished.

Peace.

"God to Bush: Hey dude, stop slandering and misrepresenting my Son."

[cyberpj]

13. do you have a link for the document? eom.

[okieinpain]

15. hhahahahahahahahahahaha. you have a little of the Don Quixote

complex I see.

[RaulVB]

20. Better than having a war criminal as my "President" (n/t)

[okieinpain]

24. sorry, but like the repugs had to deal with clinton. so will you with

*. hey a little vaseoline helps a lot.

[RaulVB]

26. Glad you find it "hilarious" to live in a rogue nation.

Many of your countrymen don't.

[shraby]

46. I'm with you Raul

They not only started an illegal war of aggression, but toss in the Geneva Convention violations..linked directly to Bush according to the documents the ACLU got through the Freedom of Information Act.

It's possible that it's not necessary to join the ICC in order to prosecute the torture through the ICC as there were penalties for torture before the ICC was formed.

We have a rogue administration and it needs to be prosecuted.

There is also the matter of Fallujah which was an illegal act during war. Generals may order, but they get the okay from above.

edited to add.

[okieinpain]

60. oh the hiliarity has yet to begin. hey if it makes you feel better, I'm

in the same boat with you. I get physically ill when I see *'s fucking face. but like it or not he is doing shit in our name. :~)

[RaulVB]

65. Not on my name

In the name of those who remain silent, sure.

[okieinpain]

73. oh yeah, you're name, and mine.

[wrate]

113. forget the name part, * is doing it with your MONEY! If it wasn't tragic,

it would be funny. The irony of it all, I mean.

[okieinpain]

131. no shit. tell me about it. I work and he spends it to do shit I don't

like, and also to fuck me over. beautiful isn't it.

[woodsprite]

34. Vaseline is a petrol. product. * probably gets a kickback n/t

[melnjones]

25. Then by both of those standards, you would have both.

(Quixote syndrome and war criminal for president)

Just an observation.

[RaulVB]

27. "Thanks" for the observation, then (n/t)

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[New Earth]

18. k

[adigal]

19. It may not go through

but it should absolutely be brought up.

Impeach for lying to the public - any lawyers here who can tell us some valid reasons for impeachment???

[euler]

33. Lawyer not required.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment

Even if you could prove that Bush lied (knowingly said something false), I doubt that you could impeach him for it.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

43. I don't know about Bush but there were CIA and DIA people that I am sure

would be delighted to testify about Cheney's Office of Special Plans. They have spoken out publically already. Several knew that there were lies being used to go to war. So then that reaches to at least Douglas Feith and Cheney, and those lies were spoken by the Sociopath (and lets not forget Cheney too).

[euler]

32. I'm confused....

You use phrases such as "Your country" that imply you are not from the USA. Then you say in your post that you've already contacted your representive, implying you have a US representive. It's no big deal either way, but which is it ?

[RaulVB]

39. I agree (n/t)

[euler]

57. I said 'I'm confused', not 'You're confused.'

[WI_DEM]

36. do try to get a few hours sleep

but I do admire your spunk.

[RaulVB]

38. I sleep fine. Do you? (n/t)

[Amaryllis]

40. I f he is impeached, we get Dick. Is that an improvement?

[RaulVB]

42. Not according to the Nuremberg Tribunal standards

Cheney would be on trial also.

[Pooka Fey]

47. Well now you're talking about something I can get behind. But

are you thinking this will happen through Congress? Or are you thinking of going to an international court like the United Nations?

[RaulVB]

50. International Court. Some Democrats voted for the war (n/t)

[Pooka Fey]

51. Excellent. I'm with you. Do we 1st have to write Congress

and pretend like it will make a difference to show the International Court that we tried to impeach 1st within the U.S.? Then when obviously nothing happens, we can go to the International community? Is that the plan?

[RaulVB]

62. Some links,

I hope you understand that such strategies can't be laid out on the internet.

Some info for you:

http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/06/iraq061703.htm

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/03/usint8523.htm

http://hrw.org/editorials/2003/us033103.htm

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/07/iraq8562.htm

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/24/usint8614.htm

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/10/usint8566.htm

Now the conduct of an unjustified war, a war of aggression has legally doomed the regime.

[Pooka Fey]

68. Thanks for the links. ;-)

[euler]

58. Would you please summarize the Nuremberg Tribunal standards for us ?

Thanks.

[Salomonity]

84. say bad things and we kill you

Streicher was hanged for printing an antisemitic magazine.

By the Nuremberg standards, hate speech is a capital crime. So's anything else that will convince a gang of soviet judges, all of whom were going to vote to convict anyone and everyone.

It wasn't actually a particularly noble juridical experiment--there's a reason why Bob Taft was one of JFK's profiles in courage for opposing it.

[RaulVB]

88. WOW, defending Nazi war criminals...

Should you be posting elsewhere?

[Amaryllis]

110. so then we get Hastert?

[DoYouEverWonder]

53. No, if W is impeached the whole cabal

will go down with him.

We've done this before. Just like when Nixon fell, you remove the VP first. Force Congress to install an acceptable Jerry Ford type Repug, then you remove the president.

Just because the DEMS don't have the votes in Congress to impeach, neither did the Repugs and that didn't stop them.

If we the people don't demand either W's resignation and/or impeachment, why should Congress even bother? It is up to us to change our government and I am sick and tired of people who stand and make excuses for these criminals.

[imenja]

61. Presidential Succession Act of 1947 and 25th Amendment

The chain of secession is not negotiable. It was established by law in the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 and modified through the 25th Amendment to the constitution. (Homeland Security Director was recently added to the end of the list). An impeachment of Bush and Cheney would mean Hastert would be president, and Tom Delay would then pull all the strings. That would be even worse than Bush. You can't secure a change in the party running the country through impeachment and conviction. The only conceivable way a Democrat could become president in this scenario is with a Democratic landslide in the House in 2006.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Succession_Act

Unless you are planning a military coup, this is what you are stuck with. Go down far enough and you get Rumsfeld and then Gonzalez. Not a Democrat in sight.

Vice President
Speaker of the House
President Pro Tempore of the Senate
Secretary of State
Secretary of the Treasury
Secretary of Defense
Attorney General
Secretary of the Interior
Secretary of Agriculture
Secretary of Commerce
Secretary of Labor
Secretary of Health and Human Services
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
Secretary of Transportation
Secretary of Energy
Secretary of Education
Secretary of Veterans Affairs
Secretary of Homeland Security

http://bensguide.gpo.gov/6-8/government/national/succession.html

[RaulVB]

63. Correct.

But under such scenario the only viable solution would be some sort of political arrangement between the 2 parties in the system.

[imenja]

89. why?

Why would the Republicans agree to that? No such arrangement was worked out when Nixon resigned.

[RaulVB]

96. Ford was not part of the "plot"

It was an accepted trade.

This conspiracy is bigger than that one.

[imenja]

103. Republicans and Nixon

The Republicans forced Nixon out. Do you think the Republicans would behave so reputably today?
Ford was indeed far more acceptable than Nixon, but who is the Jerry Ford today? Your president would be Hastert, with Delay by his side. Then you would have to deal with the fact you'd have another Republican incumbent in the 2008 election.

[RaulVB]

105. It would be impossible for these Republicans to manage the country

Simple political realism.

They can't manage the country today either, as you know.

[imenja]

107. I know, but unfortunately that doesn't stop them

[DoYouEverWonder]

66. That is why I used Nixon/Agnew has an example

for how to go about this.

Cheney needs to be removed first. Then Bush can nominate a new VP, that will have to be acceptable to Dems and Repugs. Then when Bush is forced to resign, the new VP would become President.

[Salomonity]

71. what if bush nominates tom DeLay?

The president gets to make the veep nomination--why should Bush make it easy for you to remove him?

[RaulVB]

72. Bring it on!

DeLay is about to be indicted for his crimes in Texas...

[DoYouEverWonder]

75. Congress has to approve the VP

that is why an extremest like Tom Delay doesn't have a chance in hell.

[imenja]

90. What's acceptable to Bush won't be acceptable to us

especially if he's mad. You can count on that.

[MadisonProgressive]

44. This is going to be a fun year!

[EFerrari]

45. I'm in for the duration. War Crimes. n/t

[shraby]

48. According to Geneva rules

they give a government time to bring the perps to justice and if that doesn't happen, it then goes to the Geneva tribunal for adjudication. I hope I used the right terms here, but that's the gist of it.

[goclark]

124. I want them all tried at the Hague

I will book my tickets the moment I see any form of light at the end of the tunnel for these crooks.

Have I been asleep? Is there a link to the "Saddam had no WMD etc." in the orignial post?

[Pacifist Patriot]

49. In my opinion, that's the tip of the iceberg of impeachable offenses, BUT

a Republican controlled Senate will not impeach President Bush. We absolutely have to regain a majority in 2006.

[mountainvue]

52. I'm with you baby! n/t

[NickiWitch]

56. I emailed Boxer on this. Thanks for the fire under the ass! n/t

[RaulVB]

67. Nuremberg standards

And the Fallujah attack:

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/123104Davies/123104davies.html

[Orsino]

74. The government...

...that could impeach the current Administration is a government that just might be worth saving from its present suicidal course.

[googly]

78. Raul, I don't know what country you came from, but here in the

USA the constitution rules. And constitution says a sitting
president can NOT be removed by any court. Only congress has
that power. And the partisanship what it is in congress today,
means we have only one option left...TAKE OVER CONGRESS in 2006

[RaulVB]

79. International law applies to the US

Criminals can't, don't have a choice on the tribunals that will indict them, it we talk about war crimes.

That "here in the US" construction lost all validity after "*" decided to attack a country without justification.

New reality now.

[Salomonity]

83. not by the US constitution

the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and it's pretty clear from the US constitution that international Kangaroo courts do not have jurisdiction over a US president.

The US never consented to a law against attacking foreign countries, and so it's not clear how we can be bound by a law we never consented to. International criminal law can not be rammed down our throats without our consent, and the US has NOT consented.

[RaulVB]

85. International "kangaroo" courts

Glad to see you using right wing terminology...

[12345]

93. did you read the article posted?

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/123104Davies/123104davies.html

sounds like we did consent to a law against attacking foreign countries...

how do we Bush tried?

[googly]

133. International law has no teeth if there is no power behind it to

enforce the law. There is no one in the world strong enough
to force the US to do anything. If we did not have a well
armed police force for example, we can write laws till we
are blue in the face, but they would be meaningless since
we could not enforce them. The International laws as they
exist, do not have a strong enough police force to enforce
them on a miltary super power.

[corbett]

81. Under 600 Days

That's right and that's why I like the countdown from 600 days from 11/2/2004. We'll be able to start the impeachment this time in 2007.

[understandinglife]

82. Just received from: [e-mail]

"George W. Bush and his administration have been doing everything in their power to “sanitize” Pennsylvania Avenue on January 20th by trying to banish thousands of people holding Impeach Bush signs and banners. But they have not succeeded.

Not only will ImpeachBush members cover the parade route, but we will have the opportunity to sit in bleachers prominently arranged at 4th St. and Pennsylvania Ave. NW. We are joining with the antiwar movement, which has obtained a permit to build bleachers and hold a mass rally along the Inaugural route at 4th St. and Pennsylvania Ave. NW. This is the first time in Inaugural history that the antiwar movement has secured access to build bleachers along the parade route.

George W. Bush and the presidential motorcade will have to drive right in front of the bleachers and mass rally. Military family members whose loved ones are in Iraq, members of the Arab-American and Muslim communities, and people from all walks of life will hold signs reading “Bush Lied: Thousands Died,” “Impeach Bush,” “Save the Bill of Rights,” among other slogans. We are pleased to announce that Ramsey Clark and others will be featured speakers in the rally that will take place at 4th St. and Pennsylvania Ave.

Bush wants to cleanse the Parade route of dissenters so that he can falsely assert the legitimacy of his government. Nixon used the same tactic at his second inauguration. Let us not forget that Nixon chose to resign rather than be impeached just 20 months after his second inauguration.

The political effort to affirm our rights could not have happened without the support and commitment of so many people who believe strongly in the impeachment movement. The world media will be in Washington DC on January 20, and everyone should feel proud that our movement will be so visible. The people of the world must see that the people of the United States insist that Bush and other high officials be held accountable for their criminal acts.

Buses and car caravans are coming from more than fifty cities. People are flying from the West Coast to join us at 4th St. and Pennsylvania Ave. Volunteers are making signs, posters, handing out leaflets, answering phones and doing the one hundred and one other tasks to make this an effective mobilization.

If you are unable to come to Washington DC but want to help by making a much-needed contribution, we are in urgent needs of funds to cover the many costs. We have grown stronger only because of the continued generosity and commitment of ImpeachBush/VoteToImpeach.org members."

If you want to contact them:
ImpeachBush.org


"Bush Owns It: Let's Purge It"

[BigBearJohn]

87. We MUST MUST win over the Congress in 2006 and THEN!

lookout.

Impeaching we will go,
impeaching we will go,
hi ho, the bush will go,
impeaching we will go.

[bemis12]

92. Ahem

We sold him WMD's. He had some at some point.

When you say "never", you don't mean that he NEVER had them do you? Only that he didn't have them recently?

[RaulVB]

94. You and I both read English, right? (n/t)

[bemis12]

97. Are you saying

that we DIDN'T sell Saddam WMD's in the past?

It would be great if you could answer that question.

[RaulVB]

98. Are you justifying the regime? (n/t)

[bemis12]

100. No, I'm trying to figure out what you're saying.

I take it you have no interest in attempting to clarify it. That's fine with me. If I said something indefensible, I wouldn't try either.

[RaulVB]

102. Great. Agreed. Your position is indefensible (n/t)

[imenja]

119. it's impossible

to make sense of any of it. There is no consistent analysis here.

[RaulVB]

120. Talking about your posting?,

Fantasy-based writings?

I would agree!

[imenja]

125. we're just struggling to understand you here

You insist your goal is impeachment, then insist legal solutions are a waste of time. Legal responses are worthless, yet you seek to apply international law that the US does not recognize and has never submitted to. Yet you haven't specified which that law is, or how you hope to apply it to Bush. When posters point out an electoral landslide for Dem's in 2006 is a prerequisite for impeachment, you say the system is too corrupt to allow that. How do you imagine you'll achieve impeachment and conviction if you don't follow the guidelines of the US Constitution? Impeachment is a political response, not a criminal one. In fact, the constitution specifies that removal from office will be the extent of sanctions against the president. International Courts do not enforce internal political matters. They try international war crimes. The fact the US is not a signatory to the International Court and has never submitted to such jurisdiction seems to have no bearing on your analysis. (Do you actually imagine this is the first administration to commit war crimes? American history is full of them. Kissinger, for example,
walks free, despite his role in supporting torture and dictatorship.)
When queried about who you imagine would replace Bush, you ignore the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 and the 25th Amendment to the Constitution and instead posit the notion that the Republicans will somehow cooperate with Democrats in choosing a successor. You imagine all the Republicans will be impeached, even though there is no legal precedent for impeaching house members. They are up for election every two years. Reelection is when they are turned out, yet you say elections are a waste of time.
This is why people are are frustrated here. It simply doesn't make sense.
Getting rid of Bush is a wonderful idea, but there has to be a thoughtful legal or political strategy for doing so. It has to follow the structures of American law, unless of course you plan a military coup.

[RaulVB]

130. Yawwwn!

Agent "Mike", HE SAID THAT!

[imenja]

132. Do your own ideas mean anything to you?

I've never seen anything like this. What have you got against a thoughtful interchange of ideas? If you can't answer the questions of people on this board, if you find them so boring, how do you expect to convince a court here in the US or at the Hague? If you don't take your own ideas seriously, how do you expect anyone else to do so?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

115. I love the way you think, Raul ! n/t

[RaulVB]

117. Thanks, Laura! (n/t)

[cyberpj]

126. What if parents of military kids who died sued for wrongful death?

Since we went to war for WMD and there were none, isn't that an option now that an official report says there really were none?

If I were a parent of someone killed for this stupid excuse to raid the oil fields I'd consider suing.

[RaulVB]

129. I think is a very valid option...

And some parents might consider that option.

Regards

[Farmgirl]

135. So -- while it's not too hard to agree that the invasion of Iraq

was illegal under international law...In 1945, the United Nations Charter, Article 2 Clause 4, reiterated the principles of the Kellogg-Briand Pact, stating simply, "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." Article 39 established the authority of the Security Council to "determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression" and to "decide what measures shall be taken."....
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/123104Davies/123104davies.html

and there seems to be a heated discussion on how we move from this fundamental truth to the articles of impeachment, my question is this -- if the government of the US can't, or won't bring forth these war criminal charges, then does the UN Charter have the OBLIGATION to do so? What might this look like? We know that in September (2004), U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan told the BBC that the U.S./British invasion of Iraq was illegal under international law. The following week, he dedicated his entire annual address to the U.N. General Assembly to the subject of international law, saying, "We must start from the principle that no one is above the law, and no one should be denied its protection."

Who will bring forth these charges? Kofi Annan? Other UN charter members? And if we believe that our own government is guilty of war crimes, where do we turn to protest?

[imenja]

136. Weakness of International legal mechanisms/ Abu Ghraib prisoners

The UN won't take action against the US. 1) it's only power is sanctions. As you might imagine, sanctions against the US would be untenable, since so many economies depend on trade with us. 2) The UN needs the US to survive. Not only are we the largest dues payer (when we actually pay), but American power in the world means that a UN without the United States would be meaningless.
The appropriate venue would be the Hague, but the Hague has (as far as I'm aware) never prosecuted anyone from a major nation. They were able to move against Milosivich because his was a nation with little power. And of course the US has refused to sign on to the International Criminal Court. This country has had it's share of war criminals, Henry Kissinger most notably. Yet he has escaped prosecution. If he had been Secretary of State of Rwanda or Serbia, he might have stood trial. But then again, perhaps not. Pinochet, if he is prosecuted, will face judgment in Chile. The Hague has never taken action against him or other notorious human rights abusers in Latin America.
Of course Kissinger, Rumsfeld, and Bush all deserve to stand trail for war crimes. The international court system, however, lacks the power or independence to be able to follow through.
The reference to Nuremberg overlooks one important point. When Nazis were tried, Germany had been defeated as a power. Americans will only be tried after our Empire collapses.
That doesn't mean the threat of international law suits might not serve an important purpose in highlighting American atrocities. My guess is that the best opportunity would be suits raised by prisoners at Abu Ghraib. They would have to aim lower than Bush, since I can't imagine a European court issuing a subpoena against the president of the US. Sanchez might make an appropriate target.