Rechtsprofessor plant Impeachment-Verfahren gegen Präsident Bush - 500 Beiträge pro Seite

[Heizkessel]

Preemptive impeachment
Law professor stands ready to draft articles for any member of the House

By Kéllia Ramares
Online Journal Contributing Editor

While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country . . .

—The National Security Strategy of the United States of America

January 4, 2002—"We sentenced Nazi leaders to death for waging a war of aggression," says International Law Professor Francis A. Boyle of the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. By contrast, Prof. Boyle wants merely to impeach George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and John Ashcroft for their plans to invade Iraq and create a police state in America.

Boyle is offering his services as counsel, free of charge, to any member of the House of Representatives willing to sponsor articles of impeachment. He is experienced in this work, having undertaken it in 1991 for the late Rep. Henry B. Gonzalez (D-TX), in an effort to stop the first Persian Gulf War. It takes only one member to introduce articles of impeachment. Of course, it will take many more than that to vote for impeachment, which will culminate in a trial in the Senate. Boyle is confident that, once the articles are introduced, others, including Republicans, will co-sponsor them. But we have to convince our Representatives that impeachment is necessary for the country and politically safe for them. This non-violent, constitutional process may be our best way of stopping World War III and saving our civil rights.

Grounds for Impeachment

Article II Sec. 4 of the Constitution states that: "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." Boyle says that waging a war of aggression is a crime under the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment and Principles. "It`s very clear," he adds, "if you read all the press reports, they are going to devastate Baghdad, a metropolitan area of 5 million people. The Nuremberg Charter clearly says the wanton devastation of a city is a Nuremberg war crime."

The United States is a party to the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment and Principles, and thus is constitutionally bound to obey them. "The Constitution, in Article 6, says that international treaties are the supreme law of the land here in the United States of America. So all we would be doing here, in this impeachment campaign," Boyle says, "is impeaching them for violating international treaties, as incorporated into the United States Constitution, as well as the Constitution itself."

Bush Cabal Repudiates Nuremberg Principles

We don`t have to wait for the devastation of Baghdad to impeach the Bush cabal because they have already repudiated the Nuremberg Charter via the so-called Bush Doctrine of preventive war and pre-emptive attack. "This doctrine of pre-emptive warfare or pre-emptive attack was rejected soundly in the Nuremberg Judgment, " Boyle says. "The Nuremberg Judgment . . . rejected this Nazi doctrine of international law of alleged self-defense." The Bush Doctrine, embodied in the National Security Strategy document, published on the White House web site, is appalling, Boyle says. "It reads like a Nazi planning document prior to the Second World War."

The Fruit Doesn`t Fall Far From the Tree

As Rep. Henry B. Gonzalez explained on the floor of the House in 1991, his articles charged the elder Bush with:

1) Violating the Equal Protection Clause by having minorities and poor whites, who were the majority of the soldiers in the Middle East, "fight a war for oil to preserve the lifestyles of the wealthy."

2) Violating "the Constitution, Federal law, and the UN Charter by bribing, intimidating, and threatening others, including the members of the UN Security Council, to support belligerent acts against Iraq."

3) Violating the Nuremberg principles by conspiring to engage in a massive war against Iraq that would cause tens of thousands of civilian deaths.

4) Committing "the United States to acts of war without congressional consent and contrary to the UN Charter and international law." (This refers to the lack of a formal declaration of war, as required by the Constitution).

5) Committing crimes against the peace by leading the United States into aggressive war against Iraq, in violation of Article 24 of the UN Charter, the Nuremberg Charter, other international instruments and treaties, and the Constitution of the United States.

Boyle believes that the articles he drafted for Gonzalez` effort to impeach George H. W. Bush, the father, could still serve as a basis for impeaching George W. Bush, the son.

Are the People Ready for Another Impeachment?

Impeachment has the advantage of bypassing the U.S. Supreme Court, which illegally installed Bush in the Oval Office. The same "Justices" would have the final word on legal challenges to constitutional abominations, such as the USA PATRIOT Act and the Homeland Security Act, both of which the White House rammed through a Congress frightened by the September 11th attacks and the as yet unsolved anthrax attacks on Capitol Hill.

But no matter how blatant the violations of constitutional, statutory and international law are, impeachment is still a political process. Republicans control the Congress and many Democrats, fearful of being labeled "soft on terrorism" might be unwilling to challenge the Bush cabal. It would take tremendous public pressure to get a reluctant Congress to impeach. Still, Boyle thinks he can garner public support by adding an article of impeachment against John Ashcroft.

"We know for a fact that there are Republicans and Democrats and Independents and Greens, even very conservative Republicans, such as Dick Armey and [Bob] Barr, who are very worried about a police state." Boyle says that an article against Ashcroft would make clear "that we don`t want a police state in the name of an oil empire."

It`s Up to Us

Unfortunately for the impeachment campaign, Armey has retired and Barr, who spoke out against some of the most draconian proposals for what eventually became the USA PATRIOT Act, was defeated in the Republican primary. Boyle is still waiting for the one member of Congress willing to introduce articles of impeachment when the 108th Congress convenes on January 7.

Since Bush has indicated that he is not likely to go to war before the end of January or early February, Boyle thinks we have a month to stop the war by impeaching the chain of command: Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, along with police state enforcer Ashcroft. Time and the Internet are advantages Rep. Gonzalez did not have in 1991, when the Persian Gulf War was launched the day after he introduced his articles.

Boyle is asking the public to push for impeachment in two ways. First, contact your own member of Congress to urge him or her to introduce articles of impeachment, and tell the member that he or she may contact Prof. Boyle for assistance in drafting the articles. Second, demand impeachment by engaging in non-violent direct action, in exercise of your First Amendment rights to free speech, peaceable assembly and petition for redress of grievances. Boyle was pleased that 100,000 people marched around the White House last October 26 to protest the impending war on Iraq. But he says one million people need to peaceably take to the streets with signs, banners and voices shouting, "Impeach Bush!"

"The bottom line: it`s really up to you and to me to enforce the law and the Constitution against our own government," he says. "We are citizens of the United States of America. We have to act to preserve the republic that we have, to preserve our Constitution, to preserve a rule of law. This is our responsibility as citizens. We simply can`t pass the buck and say `Oh, some judge is going to do it somewhere.` It`s up to us to keep this republic."

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/Ramares010403/r…

http://www.impeach-bush-now.org

[sittin bull inv]

Eine wünschenswerte Maßnahme.

[rightnow]

# 1

richtig mutig!
mein respekt.

leider befürchte ich, dass die "imperialistische walze"
mit "recht"? momentan nicht mehr zu stoppen ist.

im gegenteil:
inzwischen gilt durch die us-regierung vorgegeben:das recht des stärkeren (=widerrechtlich) u. leider nicht mehr die stärke des rechts !

patriot act II: wird gerade entworfen (=verschärfung)

dh., wer ein impeachment gegen die "regierung" anstrebt, muss damit rechnen ;ich drücke es jetzt mal zugespitzt aus:

dass ohne gerichtsverfahren schon vorher also preemtive, die handschellen klicken


freiheit war gestern


cu rightnow

[rightnow]

btw:

wie in einer vor tagen gezeigten fernsehsendung nachgewiesen wurde:
hat ca. die hälfte der aktuellen "us-regierungsmannschaft"
laufende verfahren wegen ihrer ölfirmen am hals.
u.a., wegen lieferung an irak trotz embargos, das von usa selbst verhängt wurde !!!

reaktion der betroffenen (beschuldigten, heutigen "regierungsmitgliedern"):

...wir geben keine bilanzunterlagen unserer firmen an sie (=das entsprechend anfordernde u. für die aufklärung zuständige gericht) heraus...!

begründung:

(von mir jetzt bewusst platt u. in cowboymässiger "regierungssprache" ausgedrückt):

was interessiert uns das gericht, wir sind "über" euch als regierung (u. haben den "längeren colt") ;

also - nichts mit unterlagen rausrücken: game over!


cu

rightnow

[burnix]

Orwell läßt grüßen ....

hat halt eben 20 Jahre länger gedauert.

Als ich vor ca. 3 Jahren in den Staaten war, hörte ich nicht nur einmal in Gesprächen unter Amerikanern : "... the FBI, CIA und the Department of justice - they all want to catch you.... "

und das war schon VOR dem 11.September.... selten habe ich mich in einem Land unfreier gefühlt

[rightnow]

es kommt noch schlimmer:

die verschiedenen sicherheits- u. geheimdienste wie cia,fbi,nsa haben in der vergangenheit mit sicherheit viele ausländische verdeckte operationen im auftrag der jeweiligen us-regierung durchgeführt.

jedoch: die cia stufte das risikopotential des irakischen staates ein mit: low

dh., in der sprache des cia nicht mehr u. nicht weniger als:
ungefährlich für die usa (=peanuts)

die jetzige us- regierung; allen voran mr. dummfeld, ist verständlicherweise sehr, sehr, sehr enttäuscht, dass ihm der cia
oder auch andere keine beweise oder wenigstens etwas
"stich-u.oder kriegshaltiges" geliefert haben.

das hat er gewünscht,gewollt,befohlen -aber er bekam es nicht. (so ein pech aber auch, mr. dummfeld)!

was macht mr. dummfeld daraufhin:

genau,
er gründet einen "eigenen", hörigeren "geheimdienst" -ausgestattet mit allen möglichkeiten.

dh., die kriegsspirale , u. infolgedessen die persönlichen freiheiten des bürgers u. der pers. meinung wird immer mehr beschnitten.

also die us-regierung ,nicht die mehrheit der amerikanischen bürger , bewegen sich auf eines zu:

eine "pseudoreligiös" untermauerte diktatur !

cu

rightnow

[sittin bull inv]

sie bewegen sich nicht drauf zu, sie ist bereits fertig installiert-


und das in einem Kernland der Demokratie, unter Ausnutzung einer kleinen Krise, und mit sehr viel Geld und den daraus resultierenden Interessen im Rücken.

[Heizkessel]

Spiegel:

KRITIK AN IRAK-POLITIK

Carter straft Bush ab

Der frühere US-Präsident Jimmy Carter übte scharfe Kritik an der Irak-Politik seines Nachfolgers George W. Bush. Ein Krieg gegen den Irak sei "ungerecht" und zerstöre die Ergebnisse zweier Jahrhunderte amerikanischer Außenpolitik, schrieb der Friedens-Nobelpreisträger in einem Beitrag für eine US-Zeitung.




New York - Die Außenpolitik der amtierenden US-Regierung habe "den zwei Jahrhunderte langen konsequenten Einsatz" der beiden amerikanischen Volksparteien, der "der Nation Größe brachte", ins Gegenteil verkehrt, schrieb Carter in der "New York Times". Der Politiker, der von 1977 bis 1981 Präsident der Vereinigten Staaten war, betonte, dass auch er viele internationale Krisen habe bewältigen müssen. "Ich wurde zutiefst vertraut mit den Grundsätzen eines gerechten Krieges, und es ist klar, dass ein unilateraler Angriff auf den Irak diesen Regeln nicht gerecht wird."
Carter, der im vergangenen Jahr mit dem Friedensnobelpreis geehrt wurde, betonte, der Irak stelle keine direkte Bedrohung für die Sicherheit der Vereinigten Staaten dar. "Dennoch scheinen die USA entschlossen, gegen die überwältigende Mehrheit der meisten Menschen und Regierungen der Welt militärisch und diplomatisch auf eine Art gegen den Irak aktiv zu werden, die in der Geschichte der zivilisierten Nationen nahezu beispiellos ist."

Der Ex-Präsident bezeichnete die Versuche Bushs, die Terror-Angriffe des 11. September mit dem Irak in Verbindung zu bringen, als nicht überzeugend. Zudem habe Bush kein internationales Mandat, eine "Pax Americana" in der Golfregion zu erzwingen, was dazu führen könne, dass der Irak ein Jahrzehnt lang besetzt werden müsse.

[Heizkessel]

[Heizkessel]

NOTES

FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF

THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH, VICE PRESIDENT RICHARD B. CHENEY, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE DONALD H. RUMSFELD, AND ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN DAVID ASHCROFT

(Part 5 of 6)

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH AND OTHER NAMED OFFICIALS OF THE UNITED STATES HAVE COMMITTED IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES OF UNPRECEDENTED DANGER TO THE CONSTITUTION AND PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES.

Draft Articles of Impeachment of President George W. Bush and other named officials of the United States charge the most serious crimes known to law and history. Nothing in the experience of the impeachment power under the Constitution compares. The conduct charged threatens the Constitution, the United Nations, the rule of law and the lives of unknown thousands, or millions of people by their act and example.

The alleged impeachable acts of President George W. Bush include:

1. Ordering and directing "first strike" war of aggression against Afghanistan causing thousands of deaths;

2. Removing the government of Afghanistan by force and installing a government of his choice;

3. Authorizing daily intrusions into Iraqi airspace and aerial attacks including attacks on alleged defense installations in Iraq which have killed hundreds of people in time of peace;

4. Authorizing, ordering and condoning attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq on civilians, civilian facilities and locations where civilian casualties are unavoidable;

5. Threatening the use of nuclear weapons and ordering preparation for their use;

6. Threatening the independence and sovereignty of Iraq by belligerently proclaiming his personal intention to change its government by force;

7. Authorizing, ordering and condoning assassinations, summary executions, murder, kidnappings, secret and other illegal detentions of individuals, torture and physical and psychological coercion of prisoners;

8. Authorizing, ordering and condoning violations of rights of individuals under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eight Amendments to the Constitution and of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and other international protections of human rights;

9. Authorizing, directing and condoning bribery and coercion of individuals and governments to obtain his war ends;

10. Making, ordering and condoning false statements and propaganda and concealing information vital to public discussion and informed judgment to create a climate of fear and hatred and destroy opposition to his war goals.

President Bush is accused of Crimes Against Peace, War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity. No crimes are greater threats to the Constitution of the United States, the United Nation Charter, the rule of law or the future of humanity.

[BoardMod]

Test

[BoardMod]

Test2

[Heizkessel]

http://csf.colorado.edu/forums/peace/oct02/msg00006.html