Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Want to know why Bush should be impeached for war crimes? Let's look at the Declaration:

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 (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Initech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-15-10 11:47 PM
Original message
Want to know why Bush should be impeached for war crimes? Let's look at the Declaration:
The declaration of independence brings a laundry list of crimes brought against the King Of England at the time. Who coincidentally was named King George, here are some of the biggest charges:

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. We're seeing the result of this now with HCR

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. Under his watch, Bush completely eradicated a lot of our freedoms to protect us from our enemies under the guise of "the evil terrorists are out to get us!!!"

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. How much of Bush's tenure as president was spent "clearing brush" at the "ranch"?

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers. Check.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.Check

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance. Sounds a lot like the TSA.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. Blackwater. 'Nuff said.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power. Blackwater again.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: Replace "cutting off trade" with "trading our jobs to everywhere but America" and that seems about right.

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury: Appeal of habeas corpus anyone?

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. Check

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. Check

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. Check

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. Check

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.


Now one of the last sentences of the declaration really stands out:

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.


W is the son of George HW Bush, who is the son of Prescott Bush, who tried to overthrow FDR and establish a corporate dictatorship. Our founding fathers never envisioned the Patriot Act.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-15-10 11:53 PM
Response to Original message
1. Could you please provide some evidence for your claim that...
Prescott Bush tried to overthrow FDR and establish a corporate dictatorship? I am a big critic of the Bush family, but your claim is simply not true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KonaKane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-16-10 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #1
8. The OP is conflating P. Bush and the "Bankers Revolt"
The attempt to overthrow FDR and institute what would have amounted to a corpo-fascist junta of the USA was led by a small group of bankers and industrialists, led by Robert Sterling Clark. They allegedly approached Gen. Smedley Butler ("War Is A Racket") with a charge to lead half a million US soldiers in a march on Washington and take over the White House, and the Capitol. Butler refused.

To anyone's knowledge, Grandpappy Bush was not involved in that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-15-10 11:55 PM
Response to Original message
2. I think the current President doesn't want to deal with all the reasons
why this should happen. It would be a messed-up pos, and at this point in this admin, what would be the positive? He's trying to solve the real problems that confront us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Initech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-16-10 12:01 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Well then we get someone else to do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gimama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-16-10 12:01 AM
Response to Original message
4. Excellent! Thank YOU..
there are links to contact Holder,
maybe on
www.afterdowningstreet.org ?

meanwhile Ck out:

www.indictbushnow.org
&
www.prosecutegeorgebush.com
It ain't over till WE get this DONE.
Thank You, again!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Initech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-16-10 12:03 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Right - it aint over till its over!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gimama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-16-10 12:33 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. I neeed 2 things, to be at PEACE..
prosecution of these monsters,
& ALL the Troops back HOME.

I will Work, without ceasing,
till it happens.

Thank YOU,again!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hfojvt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-16-10 12:05 AM
Response to Original message
6. I just had a hilarious thought
sorta unrelated, but suppose the House passes the crappy HCR from the Senate, and Obama changes it to single payer - with a signing statement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ddeclue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-16-10 12:09 AM
Response to Original message
7. The millenium called - they want their decade back!
Can't impeach an out of office President. It's too late. You can try him in court but you can no longer impeach.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gimama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-16-10 12:35 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. INVESTIGATE/INDICT/PROSECUTE..
FAIR trials..& PRISON.
That's all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Initech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-16-10 12:38 AM
Response to Reply #7
11. No laws in the constitution prohibit it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nemo137 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-16-10 12:42 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. No, the definition of "impeach" prohibits it.
It specifically refers to bringing charges against a sitting public official.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ddeclue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-16-10 02:10 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. You can only impeach someone who holds office. It has no meaning outside of that because its only
Edited on Tue Feb-16-10 02:11 AM by ddeclue
punishment is to remove someone from office. You can't remove someone from office who isn't in office.

Shaka when the walls fell!

:P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mike K Donating Member (539 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-16-10 12:50 AM
Response to Original message
13. Well done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ashling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-16-10 11:34 AM
Response to Original message
15. First of all,
Impeachment is a means provided by the Constitution for the removal of a president from office - nothing more. It does not reach former officials of the government. George Bush is no longer president. End of story.

At any rate, you are conflating the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution does not mention the Declaration which has no effect in law.
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 Wed May 01st 2024, 10:38 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) 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