Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Is * going AWOL an impeachable offense?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Bushknew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-04 10:09 PM
Original message
Is * going AWOL an impeachable offense?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sallyseven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-04 10:11 PM
Response to Original message
1. No I don't think so.
More like court marshal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catholic Sensation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-04 10:11 PM
Response to Original message
2. i'd like him out as much as the next guy
but lying about his military service thirty years ago is by far the least horrible of all his actions
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WannaJumpMyScooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-04 10:13 PM
Response to Original message
3. No, and AWOL is kind of stretching it too
He simply did not do drills required of other National Guard members. It is no big deal, except * lied about it. Over and Over.

Lots of rich dads got their kids into the NG. And that is fine, that is what happens. I have no grudge against anyone who did NG duty, and did it well.

And if you did not do it well, don't lie about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-04 10:27 PM
Response to Original message
4. Dunno. Treason is, though.
Bush connected to bin Laden for a long time through James R Bath, Bush's TANG buddy who went on to handle bin Laden family's US business dealings. When the media finally start examining the documents, they'll tie the AwOL story to 9-11. That shows Bush knew bin Laden from way back. And he didn't tell and he didn't stop 9-11. That's treason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peregrine Donating Member (712 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-04 10:27 PM
Response to Original message
5. Impeachment of Clinton
made it clear (and Rhenquist agreed) that an impeachable offense is anything the House says it is. So do you think this House considers it an impeachable offense? That is your answer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maggrwaggr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-04 10:38 PM
Response to Original message
6. lying to congress and starting war illegally is
so who cares about AWOL?

AWOL is just another major revelation as to what a liar this guy is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BillZBubb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-04 11:21 PM
Response to Original message
7. Whatever a majority of the House agrees on
is the current definition of an impeachable offense. That's a pretty radical notion--but what do you expect from today's conservatives? Unfortunately, we don't have a majority in the House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack Rabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-04 11:39 PM
Response to Original message
8. Probably not
However, twisting intelligence to make a phoney case for war is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leesa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 12:33 AM
Response to Original message
9. Lying to start a war is, so is willfully destroying the economy and
endangering the future of America by inciting terrorism and economic collapse
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wapsie B Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 12:37 AM
Response to Original message
10. Article II, Section 4
"The President, Vice-President and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

Isn't military desertion a crime? For those who wish to poo poo this I must wholeheartedly disagree. To have the Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces of this country walk out on his military service is horrendous, even with no military actions going on.



http://www.tpromo.com/gk/gov/1-co1-a.htm#Article%20II,%20Section%204
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack Rabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Military desertion
Failing to report for National Guard service probably does not constitute desertion, or even AWOL.

But it's pretty despicable in that he supported the war and used his family's influence to get a Guard slot, took a million dollar training course and then scoffed it off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bushknew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #10
18. Amazing how contributions are not considered bribery

Anyway, that you all for the input.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chaska Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 01:27 AM
Response to Original message
12. I say we hang him first...
then figure out if we can impeach him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
2004Donkeys Donating Member (123 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 02:08 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. Please don't say that.
The last thing I want for you is the Secret Service knocking on your door.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
2004Donkeys Donating Member (123 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 02:07 AM
Response to Original message
13. No
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0rganism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 04:39 AM
Response to Original message
15. Wouldn't he be covered by Carter's blanket amnesty?
In 1977, one of Carter's first presidential acts was granting a pardon to all those who had evaded the draft or deserted. I would suppose this applies to W's case, were AWOL charges applicable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wickerwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 04:49 AM
Response to Original message
16. He ran as America's CEO.
In business, if you lie on your resume and they find out they can fire your ass in a heartbeat even if you've worked there 30 years.

Legally, no. But if Bush wants to play by business rules, he should be held to all of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NicRic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 07:36 AM
Response to Original message
17. Clinton was impeached on a trivial matter so >>>
I say an eye for an eye ! Lets see how they like it when one of their pResident, who by the way was not even elected by the people gets picked on constantly ! I know some say we should not lower our selves to their unfair way of doing things .I say its time to fight fire with fire ,we should be unrelenting on any issuse that can have legs and be a thorn in this pResidents side. The " no more Mr. nice guy " should be the Dems new moto !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silverhair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 06:04 PM
Response to Original message
19. Do you think a Republican congress is going to impeach a Republican POTUS?
No Way. Besides, the election will be in a few months anyway. Why bother?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 06:46 PM
Response to Original message
20. AWOL is a determination by a commanding officer
Edited on Sat Feb-14-04 06:59 PM by kenny blankenship
who then initiates a court martial charging the service member under article 86

But the whole thing is pretty much within the discretion of the unit commander.

A officer/enlisted is reported absent on a daily report. Or is told to go somewhere as his duty post, and refuses the order.

the commanding officer decides what to do about it: either reprimand, or give Non Judicial Punishment (Article 15) or Court Martial.


Now you're not AWOL, as a legal term, unless you're convicted in a court martial of being AWOL. AWOL is supposed to be a court martial offense. But like I said it appears that the decision to prosecute is up to your commanding officer.

SO if your unit commander declines to prosecute you but gives you some lesser article 15 rap --or nothing at all-- then it kind of didn't happen.

Bush didn't appear for his physical. And he also failed to show up for drills for a long time. That could be AWOL. Morally speaking that IS awol. But what happened instead of a court-martial? Maybe Bush came in from the cold, got a talking to and was assigned non-flight duties to make up his missing drill dates.

If he was AWOL and found guilty under article 86 a whole bunch of people would know about it, documents or no documents.

Article 15 NJP should have shown up in his records if that's what happened -- and again, lots of people would know about it starting with his unit commander(s).

If nothing at all besides reassignment to desk duty was done to Lt. Bush, son of Texas Congressman and Millionaire oilman George H.W. Bush, then there would be no papers related to disciplinary proceedings, no one would know anything about the lack of disciplinary proceedings aside from his Commanding Officers. And it would be a big mystery. Oh --and his commanders would be too embarrassed to admit that they let him get away with being absent for a year and a half.

One of his base commanders IS SUPPOSED TO KNOW why Lt. Bush wasn't court martialled. But this was the ANG not the USAF, and so it appears rules and strict discipline were very relaxed particularly for this Congressman's son.

But you can't impeach Bush on it because, the f*ing ANG gave him an honorable discharge. If he owed them any service they weren't supposed to process him out until he fulfilled it. You can get honorably discharged after an AWOL offense, but that's if "you've paid your debt to society" being locked up, maybe busted down a rank, etc. Once they let you go, you're gone.

What you might get Bush on is a conspiracy to alter/delete his service records AFTER he left the ANG. If he was involved in whitewashing his past record of disciplinary infractions and the like from the TANG files, that's a prosecutable offense. Which could warrant impeachment -- if the Congress wasn't controlled from one side to the other by Republicans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 21st 2024, 08:16 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC