The "I" word and effects on equity markets

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by trader556, Jan 12, 2003.

  1. Preemptive impeachment

    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."
  2. I'm out of touch: how has the Bush administration moved closer to a police state? (I've seen a few liberties chipped away but, from what I've read, nothing drastic.)
  3. wild


    Nuremberg Principles

    Principle Vl

    The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

    Crimes against peace:

    Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

    Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

    War crimes:

    Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or illtreatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

    Crimes against humanity:

    Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.


    Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Vol. 1
    Charter of the International Military Tribunal


    to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

    to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

    to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

    to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,


    to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and

    to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

    to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

    to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,


    Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.

    UN charter

    The National Security Strategy of the United States of America

    The US Patriot Act
  4. wild


    This Law is Dangerous

    The USA Patriot Act is an insult to Americans. The name, itself, is insulting, given what the Act contains and what it will someday be known for: its complete abdication of democratic law and principles. It should be called the Constitution Shredding Act.

    In particular, it utterly relinquishes any semblance of due process, violates the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments, and unacceptably mixes aspects of criminal investigations with aspects of immigration and foreign intelligence laws.

    Let me state it even more bluntly. This law is dangerous. It’s a travesty.


    Repeal the USA Patriot Act
  5. Thx for the information. It is scarier than I thought.

    However, I would guess most Americans would be in favor of this. What I mean is that the majority probably desire for the feds to be able to investigate potential terrorists by virtually any means they deem necessary. I really think most would say, "Do whatever it takes - just don't let another 911 happen. And do anything to make sure a nuke isn't detonated on our soil."

    As tragic as the loss of life was at 9-11, perhaps just as tragic will be ensuing loss of freedoms that millions will experience afterwards.
  6. I read an article recently in the Futurist that stated as the ability for one individual to destroy greater and greater numbers of people increased, the freedoms in a society will, out of necessity for survival, steadily decrease.

    I hate to be fatalistic, but I can't imagine that we'll be able to keep our freedoms when it will soon be childsplay for someone like Hussein, Bin Laden, etc. to destroy tens of thousands of Americans with just a few individuals and a few million dollars.

    If a few dirty bombs go off in our American cities, people will be begging for the Patriot Act to be enforced!
  7. Scary??? YES frigging scary. :mad: :mad: :mad:

    (1) LAW ENFORCEMENT- Section 2517 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting at the end the following:
    `(6) Any investigative or law enforcement officer, or attorney for the Government, who by any means authorized by this chapter, has obtained knowledge of the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, or evidence derived therefrom

    Wait till I get a hold of hapaboy's address!!! :D Then a call to local law enforcement, stating overhearing bomb attacks, bring them down, run away, he buys alchohol from da local Home Depot (now he produces WMD's).
    Next his phones are tapped, without warrant, remember now he is labeled a terrorist. A call talking some funny bs code words to him and hung up, and he is off to the slammer, no due process no representation, no court hearing for weeks or months? try to untangle the legal mesh

    But seriously hapa, it could be your neighbor that dislikes you.

    Scary??? YES frigging scary.:mad: :mad: :mad:

  8. What is even more scary is that the average American trusts implicitly the American govt. America has a modern love affair with the State.

    Most people will be willing to allow the govt to make the call as to when to use the Patriot Act. By that I mean that the Patriot Act is supposed to be used only on "suspected terrorists" and not to be used on "normal citizens". I think most Americans trust the American govt to make that distinction and to not abuse that power. "Let Ceasar protect me and I'll give him my freedom."

    Bush could not have pushed this through if people actually cared about their freedoms. I've heard scarcely a word in either conservative or liberal forums. This complacency will accelerate The Patriot Act's abuse (kind of like RICO).
  9. I'm gonna be ready for the Caribbean in a few years...
  10. wild


    Camps for Citizens: Ashcroft's Hellish Vision
    Attorney general shows himself as a menace to liberty.
    By Jonathan Turley
    Jonathan Turley is a professor of constitutional law at George Washington University.
    Los Angeles Times

    Wednesday, 14 August, 2002

    Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft's announced desire for camps for U.S. citizens he deems to be "enemy combatants" has moved him from merely being a political embarrassment to being a constitutional menace.

    Ashcroft's plan, disclosed last week but little publicized, would allow him to order the indefinite incarceration of U.S. citizens and summarily strip them of their constitutional rights and access to the courts by declaring them enemy combatants.

    The proposed camp plan should trigger immediate congressional hearings and reconsideration of Ashcroft's fitness for this important office. Whereas Al Qaeda is a threat to the lives of our citizens, Ashcroft has become a clear and present threat to our liberties.

    We are only now getting a full vision of Ashcroft's America. Some of his predecessors dreamed of creating a great society or a nation unfettered by racism. Ashcroft seems to dream of a country secured from itself, neatly contained and controlled by his judgment of loyalty.

    For more than 200 years, security and liberty have been viewed as coexistent values. Ashcroft and his aides appear to view this relationship as lineal, where security must precede liberty.

    Since the nation will never be entirely safe from terrorism, liberty has become a mere rhetorical justification for increased security.

    Ashcroft is a catalyst for constitutional devolution, encouraging citizens to accept autocratic rule as their only way of avoiding massive terrorist attacks.

    His greatest problem has been preserving a level of panic and fear that would induce a free people to surrender the rights so dearly won by their ancestors.

    more at


    #10     Jan 12, 2003