No more B.S: War Crimes = Impeachment

[Ugnmoose]

The real Decider's have decided. The SCOTUS decision in Hamden says it all. Documented serious war crimes were committed with the full knowledge and approval of the President and his underlings. While criminal indictments need to be drawn, the Congress of the U.S. or the people through our legislatures should be drawing articles of impeachment.

Of all the many crimes that Bushco has committed this one is the most actionable, thanks to the honorable justices on the Court. It cannot be swept under the rug. Don't let the MSM and Repukes change the message. They want us to think that you can just change the law to make their actions legal and justifiable. It ain't gonna play!

Start screamin and hollering to everyone you know. This one needs all the traction it can get.

[Rabrrrrrr]

1. I missed someting in my 1.5 week news blackout - what Hamden decisiom?

[Ugnmoose]

2. Check this out

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/waronterror/p/hamdan.htm

[larrysh]

3. I thought all that decision said was that

Bush needed to go back to Congress and have Congress pass a law spelling out specifically the parameters under which military trials
or tribunals were to be held. It doesn't sound like LAWS were broken---just the rules of the game needed to have a rubber-stamp Congressional
approval. More breaking of procedure than law.

[Ugnmoose]

4. There were three main questions to the case

As cited in my post above:

The Big Question: This is a complex case, with three big questions:

Is the U.S. government bound by the Geneva Conventions when dealing with "enemy combatants"?

Is the executive branch's establishment of new judicial processes, to try the Guantanamo detainees, consistent with the Uniform Code of Military Justice and/or legislated by 2001's Authorization of Use of Military Force (AUMF)?

Can conspiracy be punished as a war crime?

The plurality (4 justices) concluded the following:

Enemy combatants" are protected by the Geneva Conventions.
The AUMF does not grant Bush the authority to create new tribunals without congressional mandate.
Conspiracy is not a war crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.


The ruling's most substantial point is that all non-citizen prisoners are protected by the Geneva Conventions. This essentially renders illegal the Bush administration's program of indefinite detention, mild torture, and extraordinary rendition, calling on the administration to treat all detainees in a manner consistent with international human rights standards.

[Ohio Joe]

5. OK, I understand what you have written but...

Does that mean that everything done in the past can be prosecuted or only items after the decision was handed down? If everything done in the past is open then I would expect charges to be filed promptly... against a number of top officials.

[larrysh]

6. But not from this Congress......

Hey guys, hate to say it, but we couldn't stop Bush from making his two
Surpreme Court appointments, much less cahrge the guy with war crimes.
Tell me truthfully, with elections coming up and every incumbent looking to CYA in order to woo the Independent voters in their districts...who is going to vote to ARREST the President and try him for war crimes? Who would do the arrsting? US Marshalls? They work for the Bush Justice Department. Is the military going to march MP's into the White House and arrest their Commander=in Chief? How about
Kofi Anan? Shoot, he can't even get the oil-for-food scandel wrapped up
with anything more than collectibve wrist-slaps.
Sorry, but all this talk about war crimes and impeachment, etc., only
drives Independent voters (on whom we MUST rely) to either stay home or vote Repub!

[Mandate My Ass]

7. I beg to differ

If talk of impeachment drives voters away, why did a republican supposedly win in 2000 when the republican congress impeached a very popular president for much less? The public opinion polls were strongly in favor of letting it drop. So following your logic, a dem would have won in 2000 by a wide margin.

So I don't buy this "shhhhh, don't scare the swing voters away." The republicans are shrill and accuse anybody who disagrees with them of treason. There is no need to go to those lengths but speaking out forcefully and truthfully will not scare the voters away. It's a bullshit, crackpot theory that's floated to keep Bush's crimes out of the public discourse.

[larrysh]

8. But, voter for voter Repubs outnumber us.........(EOM)

[Mandate My Ass]

9. Once again, I beg to differ

voter rolls were illegally scrubbed, particularly those of minorities and challenges were mounted only in heavily democratic precincts.

Now that the majority of Americans have turned against Bush and his agenda and prefer a democratic Congress, it's time to speak out why we're the better alternative. Pointing out that Bush has broken the law and several treaties is not going to scare anybody away at this point.