|
Author
|
Topic: Hagel calls for "Impeachment" of Bush
|
vista
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13903
|
posted 25 March 2007 01:47 PM
I really hope that the mostly-political tool - of impeachment - doesn't allow lawmakers to skip the legal ramifications of Bush's past actions - include Cheney in that too, and anyone else who conspired with those two to facilitate "War" on Iraq, and to let that country degenerate into the hopelessness it's approaching.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17786158/ [ 25 March 2007: Message edited by: vista ]
From: vancouver island | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
vista
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13903
|
posted 25 March 2007 03:09 PM
Stephen Harper should have arrested puddin'head Bush when he visited this country.Even I would have voted for the Cons if that had happened. It didn't happen, therefore the Cons are a non-entity, IMHO
From: vancouver island | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Steppenwolf Allende
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13076
|
posted 25 March 2007 05:49 PM
This has been building ever since the freak was fraudulently "elected" in 2000--and the actions of the Administration in the last seven years have fuelled it further.Sadly, no one in the US Senate or COngress has had enough guts to actually move this or move for a forensic investigation or constitutional review of the Administration's policies and conduct or into the well-documented fraud in both the 2000 and 2004 elections. It shouldn't be too much of a surprise though. Other than a whole bunch of tax-funded hype and propaganda, backed up by the corporate media and various lobbies, the US is hardly a democracy to begin with. It's more like a liberalized version of a totalitarian autocratic order. Some info on this from US sources:
Is America a Police State?
Top Ten Signs of the US Police State, Plus One More Sign 'Totalitarian clock' Signs of a Police State Are Everywhere
From: goes far, flies near, to the stars away from here | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
vista
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13903
|
posted 26 March 2007 12:29 AM
josh k: thanks for the rhetorical question
step a: here's a possible heads up re the imminence of a "police state"http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/03/25/83/ ooh! but wait! what's that? raising it's ugly head out of the swamp of political expediency? "the Dems!", you say? Naaa... that'd be like waiting for the Cons to arrest a war criminal. Ya gotta love Zbiggie, though, don't ya? [ 26 March 2007: Message edited by: vista ]
From: vancouver island | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739
|
posted 26 March 2007 11:37 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
I don't think it's possible to arrest a sitting head of a country, is it? Normally people wait until after they've been deposed somehow. (Or in the case of Iraq, they depose the leader first and THEN arrest him.)
I believe most 'leaders' have immunity to prosecution while being the leaders. Which is why, despite him being heavily involved in the details, Bill Clinton was never really implicated in the white water scandal, just his wife Hillary. The case where a sitting leader is charged with a crime is typically called a Coup.
P.S. Anyone not remembering White Water should brush up on it. If she gets the democratic nomination, this will be coming back up.
From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
$1000 Wedding
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11486
|
posted 26 March 2007 09:40 PM
It's difficult to arrest, charge or prosecute a political leader for actions in line with his/her duty because it would be impossible to run a govt a country if you applied the same rules and law for the average citizen. Whether a govt official orders troops to enforce the law or wages war, all within powers legally granted to him, he can't be charged with murder. Or if he orders the building of a dam and workers die during its construction. There are so many examples and scenarios. Ultimately, if you want a govt that is not gridlocked in endless, self-righteous debates you need to trust and empower officials. And if they don't work out you need a system to replace them without tearing apart society. Extend this argument to another level. George F. Kennan once argued in an essay that govt has to be an amoral body especially in the area of national security. Govt's most important job, since man organized govts, is to protect the country. Without security, a healthy economy or good social policies are impossible to develop. And national security must be executed with a cold ruthlessness. People on this site often confuse govts with a person- people are bound by moral behaviour, govts shouldn't be. Sometimes the needs of the many require some difficult, amoral decisions to be made.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 26 March 2007 09:42 PM
Interestingly Kennan agrees with Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin and Hilter on this point of national security and morality. But then immature personalities are excited by the idea of "secret elitist cabals" and love the thrill of power that comes with supressing their own human empathy by enacting ruthless necessities upon the population for "its own good." I am reminded that Himmler used to force himself to go through the camps despite the fact that he detested it, because it reinforced his sense of strength by overcoming his weakness in the name of resolve.As interesting is the phenomena whereby people without power, support these views, enounciate them, and publicize them, as if they are the normal, and above all natural, expression of worthy human conduct almost as if they get the vicarious thrill of being assocaited with the ruthlessness application of power even though they may very well be the victims, as if this association compensates for their complete lack of self esteem, or real influence, and their sad little lives, which have to be artificially pumped up by repeating the noxious ideas of people like George Kennan -- Fascist. Its a kind of Stockholm Syndrome, I suppose. quote:
Originally posted by $1000 Wedding:
Whether a govt official orders troops to enforce the law or wages war, all within powers legally granted to him, he can't be charged with murder. Or if he orders the building of a dam and workers die during its construction. There are so many examples and scenarios. Ultimately, if you want a govt that is not gridlocked in endless, self-righteous debates you need to trust and empower officials. And if they don't work out you need a system to replace them without tearing apart society.
No but you can charge them with committing the "supreme international crime" which contains the "accumulated evil of the whole," in the case where they launch a war of agression, and hang them. Herman Goering comes to mind. [ 26 March 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Email this thread to someone!
