Thread: Website Set up for IMPEACHMENT VOTES

Originally Posted by JZ

Originally Posted by Neese

Originally Posted by anniealone

Originally Posted by JZ

It never ceases to amaze me that the “Bush Lovers” who claim to know so much and will defend Bush43 to their dying day. That they seem to over look certain well publicized facts. I suppose they would think differently if they weren't on the Bush Administrations Payroll or the La Raza Payroll.

”

And here we go again with the name calling. Anyone on this site who doesn't support impeachment, is a bush-bot, bush-backer, bush-lover, or whatever the term of the day is. I,for one, am thoroughly tired of it. Stick to the facts, stick to the debate. Do you think it increases your credibility when you personally attack people?

Anniealone...I'll second that.

It's OK to love Bush or Hiltler or Custer if you like. EVERYONE is entitled to their opinion.

I don't love Bush, I love my country. I try to look at issues first, and make my decisions based on fact, other that prejudice. I also realize that sometimes, I need to support our country, even if it seems like I am supporting Bush, in lieu of supporting another country who has ill will toward me, and my fellow Americans. I don't agree with your opinions, but I am not calling you names.

Originally Posted by Neese

Originally Posted by JZ

Originally Posted by Neese

Originally Posted by anniealone

Originally Posted by JZ

It never ceases to amaze me that the “Bush Lovers” who claim to know so much and will defend Bush43 to their dying day. That they seem to over look certain well publicized facts. I suppose they would think differently if they weren't on the Bush Administrations Payroll or the La Raza Payroll.

”

And here we go again with the name calling. Anyone on this site who doesn't support impeachment, is a bush-bot, bush-backer, bush-lover, or whatever the term of the day is. I,for one, am thoroughly tired of it. Stick to the facts, stick to the debate. Do you think it increases your credibility when you personally attack people?

Anniealone...I'll second that.

It's OK to love Bush or Hiltler or Custer if you like. EVERYONE is entitled to their opinion.

I don't love Bush, I love my country. I try to look at issues first, and make my decisions based on fact, other that prejudice. I also realize that sometimes, I need to support our country, even if it seems like I am supporting Bush, in lieu of supporting another country who has ill will toward me, and my fellow Americans. I don't agree with your opinions, but I am not calling you names.

I didn't call you any names!

I didn't call you any names!

Sorry, my mistake. I should have known loving Hitler was some type of compliment.

"JZ wrote

A better question would be why does President Bush fund Islamic countries with Foreign Aid? If these countries hate us and disregard the worlds laws. Then why does President Bush give Foreign Aid to Iran who has publically hated us for more than 20 years. Bush has given Iran Foreign Aid of about $70 million dollars a year since he’s been in office. In the New Budget Bush has INCREASED the amount of Foreign Aid to the Government of Iran to $75 million dollars.

Why is Mr. Bush funding these so called, “Islamic maniacs”? Bush has funded them since the time he took office with the Taxpayers money! Here is a list of ‘SOME’ of the countries that receive taxpayers hard earned money in the form of Foreign and Military Aid!

______________________________

Top Recipients of Developmental Assistance:

Indonesia $61 million
Ethiopia $40 million
Bangladesh $40
Bolivia $39 million
______________________________

President Bush’s FY2008 Budget
Top Recipients of Military Aid:

Israel $2.4 billion
Egypt $1.3 billion
Pakistan $382 billion
Iraq $298 million
Jordan $263 million
Sudan $245 million
_______________________________

President Bush's FY2008 Budget
Top Reciepients of the Economic Support Fund:

Afghanistan $693 million
Egypt $415 million
Pakistan $382 million
Iraq $298 million
Jordon $263 million
Sudan $245 million

________________________________

President Bush’s FY2008 Budget Milennium Challenge Corporation:

FY2008 Request: $3 billion
FY2008 Request: $1.1 billion

________________________________

Source: C-Span and State Department


Proposed Budget for Foreign Aid for 2008

http://link.toolbot.com/c-span.org/60656

Washington Journal
Monday, February 12, 2007
(30 minute video)

Carol Lancaster, Georgetown University Associate Professor

Proposed Budget for Foreign Aid
is 22 - 24 Billion
Last year was 18 Billion

Presidents Bush’s FY 2008 Budget

Total FY2008 Request: 2.9 trillion
Request for Foreign Aid: 20.3 billion

Source: State Department

75 million for Foreign Aid to the Government of Iran.

I have read that Bush gives Foreign Aid to Iran. Iran is providing weapons to insurgents in Iraq that are killing American soldiers.

Wouldn't that make Mr. Bush an accomplice and guilty of aiding and abetting the enemy?

Makes you wonder who's side Bush is on!

Originally Posted by JZ

Another reason President Bush should be impeached is he, Breached the Geneva Convention and tortured people to death in Abu Ghraib prison.

I agree and I agree with this article.

The Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War was adopted on 12 August 1949 and entered into force on 21 October 1950.The United States and Iraq are both state parties to the Convention. In view of mounting international concern about events in Iraq, This article provides the following information to help clarify debate.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the Convention, State parties agree to certain rules to govern the conduct of war, the treatment of combatants, non-combatants and prisoners of war. In Article 2 it is agreed by all parties that: 'The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.' So it applies to the current occupation of Iraq.

In the second part of that convention it is stated that: 'Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions there of.'

It is in relation to this part of the Second Article that the Bush Administration rests some of its objections to the Convention. The administration argues that terrorists are not state parties, do not comply with the Convention and therefore forfeit its protection. Most international lawyers argue, however, that there is no place for unilateral exemption from the provisions of the Convention and the United States as a state party should comply or be found in breach of the convention.

The important operative sections of the Convention are Articles 3 and 4 and it is these which are critical to recent United States conduct and the conduct of its opponents. Article 3 states that each party to the conflict needs to apply as a minimum, the following provisions:

'1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.'

Article 4 has very specific provisions in relation to Prisoners of War. Most of this article concerns defining who is or is not a Prisoner of War. It concludes that where there is any doubt this question should be submitted to an international tribunal for decision. This, it is further argued, is something which the United States has failed to do at Guantanamo Bay or in relation to detainees in Iraq. The next 10 Articles elaborate the different criteria for Prisoner of War status. Article 13 then states that:

'Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention... Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity. Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.'

Article 14 is even more specific and states that:

'Prisoners of war are entitled in all circumstances to respect for their persons and their honour. Women shall be treated with all the regard due to their sex and shall in all cases benefit by treatment as favourable as that granted to men ...'

It is clear, according to those critical of the United States' administration, that there have been breaches of these conventions by all sides in Iraq, in Afghanistan and at Guantanamo Bay. United States Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld made the administration's position clear when he was asked whether it was legitimate and 'proportionate' to bomb the Mazar El Sharif prison in Afghanistan in response to a prison riot. Rumsfeld indicated bafflement.

'Now, the word 'proportion'-'proportionate' is interesting. And I don't know that it's appropriate. And I don't know that I could define it. But it might be said--and I wouldn't say it--(laughter)--but it might be said by some that to quickly and aggressively repress a prison riot in one location may help dissuade people in other locations from engaging in prison riots and breaking out of prison and killing more people. I don't know that that's true. It might also persuade the people who are still in there with weapons, killing each other and killing other people, to stop doing it... Your question's too tough for me. I don't know what 'proportionate' would be'.

In this quotation, it is further argued, not only did Rumsfeld remove a central criterion for determining whether a war was just or not, he also gave license to his subordinates to breach some generally agreed rules of war. Neil Lewis, writing in the New York Times (22/5/04), stated that the Secretary of Defense instructed Legal Counsel to work out ways in which the Geneva conventions could be breached without generating personal or collective liability for the military. This, he wrote, resulted in a series of Justice Department memorandums, written in late 2001 and the first few months of 2002, to build a legal framework for United States officials to avoid complying with international laws and treaties on handling prisoners. These confidential memoranda, several of which were written or co-written by John Yoo, a University of California law professor, provided arguments to keep United States officials from being charged with war crimes for the way prisoners were detained and interrogated. They were endorsed by lawyers in the White House, Pentagon and Vice President's office but opposed by the State Department and Colin Powell in particular.

Lewis states that they provided legal arguments to support administration officials' assertions that the Geneva conventions did not apply to detainees from the Afghanistan war and were later used to justify illegal behaviour in Iraq as well. Memoranda were prepared, according to Lewis, which suggested how officials could prevent personal and collective liability by claiming that abused prisoners were in some other nation's custody or by arguing that the Taliban government in Afghanistan was a 'failed state,' thus its soldiers were not entitled to protections accorded in the conventions. If Bush did not want to do that, the memorandum gave other grounds, such as asserting that the Taliban were a terrorist group. It also noted that the president could just say that he was suspending the Geneva conventions for a particular conflict.

As Lewis further noted: 'On Jan. 25, 2002, Alberto Gonzales, the White House counsel, in a memorandum to President Bush, said that the Justice Department's advice was sound and that Bush should declare the Taliban and Al Qaeda outside the coverage of the Geneva conventions. That would keep United States officials from being exposed to the federal War Crimes Act, a 1996 law, which, he noted, carries the death penalty.' Gonzales wrote that the war against terrorism 'in my judgment renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners.' In his judgement another benefit of declaring the conventions inapplicable would be that United States officials could not be prosecuted for war crimes in the future.

These sorts of memoranda, it is argued, are the clearest example to date of deliberate high level efforts to breach the fundamental articles of the Geneva Convention and created a permissive environment for United States military violations of human rights in response to terrorist and resistance violations.

Originally Posted by Neese

I didn't call you any names!

Sorry, my mistake. I should have known loving Hitler was some type of compliment.

Apology accepted.

I didn't say you loved Hitler. By the way do you??? Do you love ONE WORLD ORDER? Or open borders with Mexico like Bush wants? The North American Union, NAFTA or the Security Prosperity Partnership??? How about Che Guevera do you love him?

Originally Posted by JZ

Originally Posted by Neese

I didn't call you any names!

Sorry, my mistake. I should have known loving Hitler was some type of compliment.

Apology accepted.

I didn't say you loved Hitler. By the way do you??? Do you love ONE WORLD ORDER? Or open borders with Mexico like Bush wants? The North American Union, NAFTA or the Security Prosperity Partnership??? How about Che Guevera do you love him?

Sorry dude, but a person doesn't have to "drink the koolaid" to be a good American and an honorable person. When the best that you can conjure is to insult people by suggesting that their failure to agree with your rants are "Bush lovers" or fans of Hitler, it's pretty clear that you cannot hold your own in factual debate.

As for the provisions of Convention III, they are quite clear as to which are "either/or" and which are "and." The provisions relating to militias were EXPLICIT in their requirement that these militias were required to be under standard military command, that the troops be uniformed (wear clear insignia), and that they should not be engaging in crimes, which is what booby-trapping civilian areas, specifically targeting civilian populations, and using other terror tactics such as suicide bombings and car/truck bombs are under international law.

My personal opinion is that you never once had even read, much less studied or debated, the Geneva Conventions prior to my posting of the relevant excerpt from Convention III, because you seem utterly incapable of grasping its clear language which, incidentally, makes a mess of your entire premise.

I would say that your behavior has been trollish at best. Please attempt to refrain from insulting the intelligent posters of this site.

Originally Posted by LawnCheney

Originally Posted by JZ

Another reason President Bush should be impeached is he, Breached the Geneva Convention and tortured people to death in Abu Ghraib prison.

I agree and I agree with this article.

The Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War was adopted on 12 August 1949 and entered into force on 21 October 1950.The United States and Iraq are both state parties to the Convention. In view of mounting international concern about events in Iraq, This article provides the following information to help clarify debate.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the Convention, State parties agree to certain rules to govern the conduct of war, the treatment of combatants, non-combatants and prisoners of war. In Article 2 it is agreed by all parties that: 'The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.' So it applies to the current occupation of Iraq.

In the second part of that convention it is stated that: 'Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions there of.'

It is in relation to this part of the Second Article that the Bush Administration rests some of its objections to the Convention. The administration argues that terrorists are not state parties, do not comply with the Convention and therefore forfeit its protection. Most international lawyers argue, however, that there is no place for unilateral exemption from the provisions of the Convention and the United States as a state party should comply or be found in breach of the convention.

The important operative sections of the Convention are Articles 3 and 4 and it is these which are critical to recent United States conduct and the conduct of its opponents. Article 3 states that each party to the conflict needs to apply as a minimum, the following provisions:

'1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.'

Article 4 has very specific provisions in relation to Prisoners of War. Most of this article concerns defining who is or is not a Prisoner of War. It concludes that where there is any doubt this question should be submitted to an international tribunal for decision. This, it is further argued, is something which the United States has failed to do at Guantanamo Bay or in relation to detainees in Iraq. The next 10 Articles elaborate the different criteria for Prisoner of War status. Article 13 then states that:

'Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention... Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity. Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.'

Article 14 is even more specific and states that:

'Prisoners of war are entitled in all circumstances to respect for their persons and their honour. Women shall be treated with all the regard due to their sex and shall in all cases benefit by treatment as favourable as that granted to men ...'

It is clear, according to those critical of the United States' administration, that there have been breaches of these conventions by all sides in Iraq, in Afghanistan and at Guantanamo Bay. United States Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld made the administration's position clear when he was asked whether it was legitimate and 'proportionate' to bomb the Mazar El Sharif prison in Afghanistan in response to a prison riot. Rumsfeld indicated bafflement.

'Now, the word 'proportion'-'proportionate' is interesting. And I don't know that it's appropriate. And I don't know that I could define it. But it might be said--and I wouldn't say it--(laughter)--but it might be said by some that to quickly and aggressively repress a prison riot in one location may help dissuade people in other locations from engaging in prison riots and breaking out of prison and killing more people. I don't know that that's true. It might also persuade the people who are still in there with weapons, killing each other and killing other people, to stop doing it... Your question's too tough for me. I don't know what 'proportionate' would be'.

In this quotation, it is further argued, not only did Rumsfeld remove a central criterion for determining whether a war was just or not, he also gave license to his subordinates to breach some generally agreed rules of war. Neil Lewis, writing in the New York Times (22/5/04), stated that the Secretary of Defense instructed Legal Counsel to work out ways in which the Geneva conventions could be breached without generating personal or collective liability for the military. This, he wrote, resulted in a series of Justice Department memorandums, written in late 2001 and the first few months of 2002, to build a legal framework for United States officials to avoid complying with international laws and treaties on handling prisoners. These confidential memoranda, several of which were written or co-written by John Yoo, a University of California law professor, provided arguments to keep United States officials from being charged with war crimes for the way prisoners were detained and interrogated. They were endorsed by lawyers in the White House, Pentagon and Vice President's office but opposed by the State Department and Colin Powell in particular.

Lewis states that they provided legal arguments to support administration officials' assertions that the Geneva conventions did not apply to detainees from the Afghanistan war and were later used to justify illegal behaviour in Iraq as well. Memoranda were prepared, according to Lewis, which suggested how officials could prevent personal and collective liability by claiming that abused prisoners were in some other nation's custody or by arguing that the Taliban government in Afghanistan was a 'failed state,' thus its soldiers were not entitled to protections accorded in the conventions. If Bush did not want to do that, the memorandum gave other grounds, such as asserting that the Taliban were a terrorist group. It also noted that the president could just say that he was suspending the Geneva conventions for a particular conflict.

As Lewis further noted: 'On Jan. 25, 2002, Alberto Gonzales, the White House counsel, in a memorandum to President Bush, said that the Justice Department's advice was sound and that Bush should declare the Taliban and Al Qaeda outside the coverage of the Geneva conventions. That would keep United States officials from being exposed to the federal War Crimes Act, a 1996 law, which, he noted, carries the death penalty.' Gonzales wrote that the war against terrorism 'in my judgment renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners.' In his judgement another benefit of declaring the conventions inapplicable would be that United States officials could not be prosecuted for war crimes in the future.

These sorts of memoranda, it is argued, are the clearest example to date of deliberate high level efforts to breach the fundamental articles of the Geneva Convention and created a permissive environment for United States military violations of human rights in response to terrorist and resistance violations.

I totally agree! Great article thanks for sharing!

I wonder if I should ask JZ if he is a supporter of the Taliban and the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein since he felt compelled to ask those of us who actually understand the law (and actually EXPLAINED the law as well as specifically citing it) whether we supported Hitler and various other silly questions?

LawnCheney,

If you really want to get an idea of the abuse in Abu Ghraib and Gitmo. Check out this PBS site the video is appalling!

"Abu Ghraib - And Beyond"

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/torture/view/

Some of the things that happened was prisoners were jump on as they laid on the floor. One was made to lay on the floor while soldiers spit and urinated on him. More common tactics was nudity, beating and dogs let loose in the room. One detainee was sodomize with a police baton and female soldiers threw balls at his genitals. Bones were broken and they would smash peoples feet with the back end of an axe. The tortures of Iraqi would happened in the homes of Iraqis. The tortures happened all over Iraq with the knowledge of the upper military staff without much concern.

Some soldiers tell first hand of the abuse.