Slashdot Mirror


35 Articles of Impeachment Introduced Against Bush

vsync64 writes "Last night, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) spent 4 hours reading into the Congressional Record 35 articles of impeachment against George W. Bush. Interestingly, those articles (63-page PDF via Coral CDN) include not just complaints about signing statements and the war in Iraq, but also charges that the President "Sp[ied] on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment,' 'Direct[ed] Telecommunications Companies to Create an Illegal and Unconstitutional Database of the Private Telephone Numbers and Emails of American Citizens,' and 'Tamper[ed] with Free and Fair Elections.' These are issues near and dear to the hearts of many here, so it's worth discussing. What little mainstream media coverage there is tends to be brief (USA Today, CBS News, UPI, AP, Reuters)." The (Democratic) House leadership has said that the idea of impeachment is "off the table." The Judiciary Committee has not acted on articles of impeachment against Vice President Cheney introduced by Kucinich a year ago.

15 of 1,657 comments (clear)

  1. Re:For the readers from Europe ... by Iamthecheese · · Score: 5, Informative

    From http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/clinton/clin826.htm How impeachment works: The Constitution gives the House of Representatives the power of impeachment - the constitutional equivalent of an indictment - and gives the Senate the power to try all impeachments. The first step in removing the president is the approval of articles of impeachment by the House Judiciary Committee. A majority vote of the full House is then needed to impeach and send the case to trial in the Senate. The chief justice of the United States presides at the trial, and a two-thirds majority of those senators present is needed to convict. Conviction results in automatic removal from office. Most of the house and two thirds of the senate are needed, and they have to decise that he has committed a crime. If so, the person being impeached will be removed from office and the next in command takes the post. *shudders at a Cheney presidency*

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
  2. Disqualification from office by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 5, Informative

    >Everyone knows Bush will be gone in seven months. What's the point?

    There's a value beyond the symbolic one. Article I, Section 3 allows the outcome of impeachment and conviction to include "disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States". We've had convicted felons re-hired into the Executive branch before. Impeachment and conviction could remove the risk of something like that happening.

  3. Re:For the readers from Europe ... by i_love_unix · · Score: 5, Informative

    IANACL (I am not a Constitutional lawyer) but the Impeachment process goes something like this:

    1.) One or more Congressmen in the House of Representatives present the Articles of Impeachment for consideration.
    2.) The House considers the Articles and says "yea" or "nay"; A yes vote (a simple majority is required) acts like an official indictment against the President. This is the actual "Impeachment" that everyone talks about. A common misunderstanding is that Impeachment means removal from office. That takes place in step three.
    3.) If impeached, the Senate acts as the jury in a trial presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. If convicted (this part requires a 2/3ds majority of Senators), the President is then removed from office.

    Two Presidents have ever been impeached. Andrew Johnson (succeeded Lincoln after his assassination) and Bill Clinton. Johnson resigned before his Senate trial and Clinton was aquitted. Richard Nixon was never officially impeached, but he resigned after it became clear that not only would be be impeached, but that the Senate would remove him from office.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment#United_States The Wikipedia entry has more info.

  4. Re:Sex vs. Violence by slashkitty · · Score: 5, Informative
    "attempting to impeach a president because he got a BJ"

    Correction. "Impeached a president because a lying about a BJ". Yes, Bill was impeached. Look it up.

    --
    -- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
  5. BBC uncovers lost Iraq billions by McDutchie · · Score: 5, Informative

    On a related note...

    A BBC investigation estimates that around $23bn (£11.75bn) may have been lost, stolen or just not properly accounted for in Iraq.

    For the first time, the extent to which some private contractors have profited from the conflict and rebuilding has been researched by the BBC's Panorama using US and Iraqi government sources.

    A US gagging order is preventing discussion of the allegations.

    The order applies to 70 court cases against some of the top US companies.

    (more)

  6. Re:...Brought to you by Carl's Jr. by mwa · · Score: 5, Informative

    Then you might want to get behind the Read the Laws Act.

  7. Re:Pointless and stupid by UncleTogie · · Score: 5, Informative

    Everyone knows this won't pass. Everyone knows that this will get tabled at the first opportunity.

    They better not... their own rulebook says about the like:

    A direct proposition to impeach is a question of high privilege in the House and at once supersedes business otherwise in order under the rules governing the order of business (III, 2045-2048, 2051, 2398; VI, 468, 469; July 22, 1986, p. 17294; Aug. 3, 1988, p. 20206; May 10, 1989, p. 8814; ept. 23, 1998, pp. 21560-62; see Deschler, ch. 14, 8). It may not even be superseded by an election case, which is also a matter of high privilege II, 2581). It does not lose its privilege from the fact that a similar proposition has been made at a previous time during the same session of Congress (III, 2408), previous action of the House not affecting it (III, 2053).

    Unless they've got a darn good reason not to move along with this, they've got to deal with it...before anything else, it seems, but I'm not lawyer-shaped.

    I'm just glad someone, anyone more like, finally pointed out the emperor has no clothes...and hasn't for a while...

    --
    Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
  8. Re:Too little too late... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Think about it. Who is supplying the crude Sorry to burst your bubble, but the USA procures more than 2/3 of its oil from North America, the bulk of which comes from Canada.. After North America, you might think the Middle East comes second but again you'd be wrong, it's South America.
  9. Re:Too little too late... by PhreakOfTime · · Score: 5, Informative

    In all of that, not a single mention of the alternatives to oil. Not a single mention of nuclear power. Not a single mention of wind power. Not a single mention of solar power.

    But the part that gave you away, was the part about "China is drilling off the shore of Florida, that should be OUR OIL". Because, you have somehow taken the fact that the straights of florida are 90 miles wide, and HALF of them are legally within the territoy of Cuba. 45 miles is ours, and 45 miles is theirs. Cuba has leased out the dilling rights to a company from China. Whats the problem with that? If the world oil market global as you say it is, then it doesnt really matter who is drilling it, as it will be sold to the person who pays market value for it.

    Its not OUR oil, its the oil of a sovereign country that happens to be within 90 miles of our own coastline. It makes me skeptical that you chose to not present that fact in your post.

    I know you made a mistake in typing out the first can(t) in the following sentence, but the humor of saying "If he can handle an interview with Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly, then he can't handle being president!" was probably the most amusing Freudian slip Ive seen in a very long while.

  10. Re:You don't seem to understand the point... by hardburn · · Score: 5, Informative

    Doesn't work that way. International war crime laws apply to the rulers of all nations no matter if they sign up or not. Otherwise, every two-bit dictator could just declare that their country is immune and do whatever they want. Assuming the next President doesn't decide to throw Bush to the wolves by shipping him out, Bush will probably have to stay within US boarders lest he get picked up.

    Not that this will be a big change, since Bush hardly ever left Texas before he was elected.

    --
    Not a typewriter
  11. Re:Too little too late... by dokebi · · Score: 5, Informative
    --
    In Soviet Russia, articles before post read *you*!
  12. Re:...Brought to you by Carl's Jr. by Rycross · · Score: 5, Informative

    Thats a good idea. We should call it the War Powers Resolution.

  13. Re:...Brought to you by Carl's Jr. by Maxmin · · Score: 5, Informative

    Then you might want to get behind the Read the Laws Act.

    Ahem, I'd like to begin with a reading of the Articles of Impeachment. Here goes.

    (You know, some of these are actually plausible. It will be interesting to see where this goes.)

    Article I

    Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign to Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq.

    Article II. Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression.

    Article III. Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War.

    Article IV. Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Posed an Imminent Threat to the United States.

    Article V. Illegally Misspending Funds to Secretly Begin a War of Aggression.

    Article VI. Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of HJRes114.

    Article VII. Invading Iraq Absent a Declaration of War.

    Article VIII. Invading Iraq, A Sovereign Nation, in Violation of the UN Charter.

    Article IX. Failing to Provide Troops With Body Armor and Vehicle Armor

    Article X. Falsifying Accounts of US Troop Deaths and Injuries for Political Purposes

    Article XI. Establishment of Permanent U.S. Military Bases in Iraq

    Article XII. Initiating a War Against Iraq for Control of That Nation's Natural Resources

    Article XIIII. Creating a Secret Task Force to Develop Energy and Military Policies With Respect to Iraq and Other Countries

    Article XIV. Misprision of a Felony, Misuse and Exposure of Classified Information And Obstruction of Justice in the Matter of Valerie Plame Wilson, Clandestine Agent of the Central Intelligence Agency

    Article XV. Providing Immunity from Prosecution for Criminal Contractors in Iraq

    Article XVI. Reckless Misspending and Waste of U.S. Tax Dollars in Connection With Iraq and US Contractors

    Article XVII. Illegal Detention: Detaining Indefinitely And Without Charge Persons Both U.S. Citizens and Foreign Captives

    Article XVIII. Torture: Secretly Authorizing, and Encouraging the Use of Torture Against Captives in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Other Places, as a Matter of Official Policy

    Article XIX. Rendition: Kidnapping People and Taking Them Against Their Will to "Black Sites" Located in Other Nations, Including Nations Known to Practice Torture

    Article XX. Imprisoning Children

    Article XXI. Misleading Congress and the American People About Threats from Iran, and Supporting Terrorist Organizations Within Iran, With the Goal of Overthrowing the Iranian Government

    Article XXII. Creating Secret Laws

    Article XXIII. Violation of the Posse Comitatus Act

    Article XXIV. Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment

    Article XXV. Directing Telecommunications Companies to Create an Illegal and Unconstitutional Database of the Private Telephone Numbers and Emails of American Citizens

    Article XXVI. Announcing the Intent to Violate Laws with Signing Statements

    Article XXVII. Failing to Comply with Congressional Subpoenas and Instructing Former Employees Not to Comply

    Article XXVIII. Tampering with Free and Fair Elections, Corruption of the Administration of Justice

    Article XXIX. Conspiracy to Violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965

    Article XXX. Misleading Congress and the American People in an Attempt to Destroy Medicare

    Article XXXI. Katrina: Failure to Plan for the Predicted Disaster of Hurricane Katrina, Failure to Respond to a Civil Emergency

    Article XXXII. Misleading Congress and the American People, Systematically Undermining Efforts to Address Global Climate Change

    Article XXXIII. Repe

    --
    O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
  14. Re:...Brought to you by Carl's Jr. by FredThompson · · Score: 5, Informative

    That's not how classification works.

    First, to be "outed", Valerie Plame would have had to be a covert operative. She wasn't at that time. You can check the Congressional Record to read the testimony of the author of the governing regulations.

    Second, the ultimate classification authority is the President. This has a long history of precedent. If the President wishes to reveal something which is classified, that's his prerogative. The Soviet nuke missile sites in Cuba were classified information and JFK didn't need anyone's permission to reveal that.

    Third, it was Richard Armitage who revealed the information about Valerie Plame. Even the special prosecutor knew that before investigating.

    This is a country of laws, It's the usA, not the usSR.

  15. Re:...Brought to you by Carl's Jr. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    First, to be "outed", Valerie Plame would have had to be a covert operative. She wasn't at that time.

    Sorry, I was barely paying attention to this thread, but couldn't help noticing this bit of misinformation.

    Plame was covert agent at time of name leak --MSNBC

    Yes, Valerie Plame Was Covert --CBSNews

    Leak Prosecutor says Plame was Covert --NYTimes

    Video: Valerie Plame confirms her covert status --thinkprogress.org

    etc.

    You may be confused because of the following misinformation campaign:

    Right-wing noise machine: Plame not covert --Salon