Quote:
Originally Posted by RASTAMAN
10 Reasons to Imapeach GW BUSH
1. The fraudulent basis on which the President got us into the war in Iraq;
2. The obvious criminality of the warrant less wiretapping;
3. Indefinite detention in violation of the Constitution;
4. Torture as a part of indefinite detention and other ways;
5. Special rendition, which is simply the out sourcing of torture
6. All of these violate various laws of the US, and they also violate his oath office which he swears to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, and he¹s doing just the opposite, he¹s undermining the Constitution and attempting to destroy certain parts of it.
7. For starters, invading another country on false pretenses is grounds for impeachment. Also, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution essentially says that the people have the right to be secure against unreasonable government searches and seizures and that no search warrants shall be issued without probable cause that a crime has been committed.
8. Furthermore, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) requires that warrants for national security wiretaps be authorized by the secret FISA court. The law says that it is a crime for government officials to conduct electronic surveillance outside the exclusive purviews of that law or the criminal wiretap statute.
9. President Bush’s authorization of the monitoring of Americans’ e-mails and phone calls by the National Security Agency (NSA) without even the minimal protection of FISA court warrants is clearly unconstitutional and illegal.
10. Executive searches without judicial review violate the unique checks and balances that the nation’s founders created in the U.S. government and are a considerable threat to American liberty.
Finally, surveillance of Americans by the NSA, an intelligence service rather than a law enforcement agency, is a regression to the practices of the Vietnam-era, when intelligence agencies were misused to spy on anti-war protesters-another impeachable violation of peoples’ constitutional rights by LBJ and Nixon.
Bush Broke the law when he ordered Spying on Americans without a warrant.
This law is a basic protection against tyranny, to prevent the rise of a dictator.
Bush Knew he was breaking the law, when he lied about it on national tv.
April 2004:
"A wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed....
Constitutional guarantees are in place."
This was a lie: Bush had already approved
unconstitutional wiretaps.
Dec 2005:
"Do I have the legal authority to do this? ... the answer is absolutely."
No it is not legal and Bush knows it. As per his 2004 speech,
Bush knew wiretaps without warrants were illegal. |
Wow! It seems someone has been reading the talking points for the DNC! Good job! However, you may want to read the Constitution, the FISA Act, and a number of court cases(ie. Eisentrager) before repeating that which you do not understand.
1. You call it a fradulent basis. However, your friends the French and the Germans, along with the Israelis, British, and Russian intelligence agencies all had information that Saddam's NBC weapons were an immenent threat to the region. Disregarding the NBC crap. Freeing a people from a tyrannical despot who tortured, killed, and gassed his own people seems like a pretty good reason for going to Iraq. After all, none of your people threw a fit when Clinton unilatterally went to the former Yugoslavia to do the same. He had condemnation of the UN and NATO. Still no fuss from you guys then.
2.If you knew Constitutional law there is no [i]obvious[i] criminality in "wiretapping"(as you call it...which is not what they are doing) conversations outside of the United States, not involving United States citizens. Read the FISA Act pal. There is no need for FISA warrants when intercepting foregin calls.
3.Actually, this is the best point you have. It is in violation of the Constitution to indefinately hold citizens....Oops there is your problem. Indefinately holding enemy combatants does not violate the Constitution as the Supreme Court established in Eisentrager (1952?). Nor does it violate the Geneva Convention or anything else you can find.
4.Here you are again flawed as the Bush administrations policy is to not torture because it isn't effective. Shipping prioners overseas as a means for information is not only legal, but ingenious. (You never want to be interogated by the Israelis or anyone from the Eastern Bloc)
5. Covered above
6.Crazy talk! He has done nothing to violate his Oath of Office. He has however upheld and enforced the Constitution of the United States in a decent way. Is it perfect? no. Exactly what part is he trying to destroy? The part about protecting terrorists at all costs?.....OH YEAH THAT PARTS NOT IN THERE!!!!!!
7.A jumble of points here but ok. Invading a country on false pretences? Not sure what those are. Also, if you were to read the Constitution that part is not in there. On to the 4th. It does say people are protected against unreasonable searches. It does not say enemy combatants or non-citizens are protected. And nothing the Administration or NSA has done violates the Fourth Amendment.
8.Almost correct. The FISA Act requires wiretap warrants be awarded by the FISA court. However when you are not wiretapping a phone, the FISA court has no jurisdiction or authority. Wiretapping laws under the FISA Act require a tap(ie. electronic equipment) be placed on a phone. The NSA is not tapping phones. They are eavesdropping(this is different than tapping) on phone calls originating outside of the United States to suspected terrorists, or from within the United States to people who are deemed dangerous. Computer eavesdropping is not restricted by the FISA Act or any other piece of legislation or the Constitution itself. So you were correct in saying the FISA Act required warrants for wire-tapping, but incorrect in what the Administration and the NSA are doing.
9.Covered above.
10. Getting tired of refutting everything you say. So Im out.
Any questions for me let me know.
Linear Mode
