| Revision as of 23:14, 4 April 2006 view sourceMerecat (talk | contribs)2,799 edits please discuss this prior to messing with this again - thank you← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:15, 4 April 2006 view source Merecat (talk | contribs)2,799 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| <!-- Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled -->{{qif|test={{NAMESPACE}}|then=|else=}} | |||
| <div class="boilerplate metadata" id="afd" style="margin: 0 5%; padding: 0 7px 7px 7px; background: #EDF1F1; border: 1px solid #999999; text-align: left; font-size:95%;"> | |||
| '''This article is being considered for deletion''' in accordance with Misplaced Pages's ].<br /> | |||
| Please share your thoughts on the matter at ''']''' on the ] page.<br /> | |||
| You are welcome to edit this article, but please do not blank this article or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the ].<br/> | |||
| <small>If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, please join the discussion and consider improving the article so that it meets the ].</small><br/> | |||
| <div class="NavFrame" style="padding:0;border-style:none;"><div class="NavFrame" style="border-style:none;padding:0;"><div class="NavHead" style="background:#EDF1F1;text-align:left;"><span style="font-weight:normal;">] ()</span></div> | |||
| <div class="NavContent" style="display:none;background:#EDF1F1;"> | |||
| {{AfD doc|{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}} | |||
| </div></div></div></div> | |||
| ] | |||
| <!-- End of AfD message, feel free to edit beyond this point --> | |||
| {{NPOV}} | |||
| {{cleanup}} | |||
| {{main|Movement to impeach George W. Bush}} | |||
| Proponents of the impeachment of current ] ] assert that one or more of President Bush's actions qualify as "high crimes and misdemeanors" under which the president can constitionally be impeached. <ref>Arguments in general | |||
| * originally Web-posted by ] member ] (D-Calif.) | |||
| * By ], ], January 28 / 29, 2006 | |||
| * by ], ], December 27, 2005 | |||
| * By DAVE LINDORFF, ], March 7, 2006 | |||
| * ], March 7, 2006 | |||
| * by John Nichols, ], December 20, 2005</ref> The ] discusses some arguments in ''Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush''.<ref> By Onnesha Roychoudhuri, ], March 6, 2006.</ref> | |||
| ==Suggested reasons to impeach== | |||
| ===NSA warrantless surveillance controversy=== | |||
| {{main|NSA warrantless surveillance controversy}} | |||
| As part of the actions taken by President Bush in the war on terror was the order to authorize wiretapping of certain international calls to and from U.S. without a warrant. Whether this is illegal is currently debated, since it violates the ] (FISA), which was adopted to remedy supposedly similar actions in the past (i.e. ], ], ]). Additionally, it allegedly violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits unlawful searches and seizures - this includes electronic surveillance. These allegations have been advanced by articles published in The ] and ].<ref>Wiretapping possibly illegal | |||
| * By ], The ], March 06, 2006 | |||
| * by John Nichols, The Nation, January 23, 2006 | |||
| * Tim Shorrock, The Nation, March 2, 2006</ref> In its defense, the administration has asserted that it had the authority to bypass FISA using ] (AUMF) and the presidential powers inherent in the Constitution (]), which interprets the ] clause of Article II of the Constitution to grant the President certain powers that are unreviewable by Congress or the courts.<ref> U.S. Department of Justice, January 19, 2006</ref> (See also: ] and ].) | |||
| In January 2006, the nonpartisan ] released two legal analyses concluding that "...no court has held squarely that the Constitution disables the Congress from endeavoring to set limits on that power. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has stated that Congress does indeed have power to regulate domestic surveillance... the NSA surveillance program... would appear to be inconsistent with the law."<ref>Congressional Research Service | |||
| * January 5, 2006 | |||
| * January 18, 2006</ref> On February 13, 2006, the ] issued a statement denouncing the warrantless domestic surveillance program, accusing the President of exceeding his powers under the Constitution. Their analysis observes that the key arguments advanced by the Bush administration are not compatible with the law.<ref>American Bar Association | |||
| * ADOPTED BY THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES, February 13, 2006 | |||
| * Washington Post, February 14, 2006</ref> Also five former FISA judges voiced their doubts as to the legallity of the program. | |||
| <ref name="FISAJudges">Former FISA judges | |||
| * By ERIC LICHTBLAU, The ], March 29, 2006 | |||
| * By Christy Hardin Smith, March 28th, 2006</ref> | |||
| Some commentators responded to the Bush administration's justification of the program, that its interpretation of presidential power overthrows the Constitutional system of checks and balances and ignores other provisions of the Constitution mandating that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"and vesting Congress with the sole authority "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces" and "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." ], ] and ] from ] assert that FISA has been violated and the claimed legal authority is invalid, constituting a felony and as such an impeachable offense.<ref>Wiretapping probably impeachable offense | |||
| * ], December 19th, 2005 | |||
| * by ], The Nation, January 11, 2006 | |||
| * By JOHN W. DEAN, FindLaw, December 30, 2005 | |||
| * by Rosa Brooks, ], December 30, 2005 | |||
| * By JENNIFER VAN BERGEN, CounterPunch, March 4 / 5, 2006 | |||
| * By JOHN W. DEAN, FindLaw, February 24, 2006 </ref>A detailed investigation into the matter seems to be averted.<ref>No official inquiry into wiretapping | |||
| * By ], ], March 8, 2006 | |||
| *</ref> | |||
| ===Invasion of Iraq=== | |||
| {{main3|Invasion of Iraq|Iraq and weapons of mass destruction|Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda}} | |||
| {{main2|Downing Street memo|Bush-Blair memo}} | |||
| Both the cited ]<ref>Weapons of Mass Destruction | |||
| * ], January 07, 2004 | |||
| * ], January 26, 2004 </ref>and the link with ]<ref>Link with Al Qaeda | |||
| * Documents show Administration claims were exaggerated, by ], April 15, 2005 | |||
| * By Dave Zweifel, The Capital Times | |||
| * ] </ref> used as evidence against Saddam Hussein turned out to be non-existent.<ref> By Joseph Cirincione, Jessica Tuchman Mathews, George Perkovich, with Alexis Orton, ], January 2004 </ref> The Bush administration advocated that this was due to failure by the intelligence community. However, it has become clear that prior to the invasion these arguments had already been widely disputed, which had purportedly been reported to the U.S. administration.<ref>Misrepresenting the facts surrounding Iraq | |||
| *, by Elizabeth Holtzman, The Nation, January 11, 2006 | |||
| * By ], ], July 18, 2003 | |||
| * By ], FindLaw.com, June 11, 2003 | |||
| * ], January 29, 2004] | |||
| * February 19, 2003 </ref> Until today an in-depth investigation into the nature of these discrepancies has been frustrated. | |||
| Activists charge that Bush committed obstruction of Congress, a felony under 18 U.S.C. 1001, by withholding information and by supplying information Bush should have known to be incorrect in his States of the Union speeches. This law is comparable to perjury, but it does not require that the statements be made under oath. {{fact}} | |||
| A number of legislators, journalists, bloggers and citizen activist groups see the secret Downing Street memo and Bush-Blair memo as proof that Bush was willingly and knowingly untruthful about Iraq's possession of ]s, and had lied in the months leading up to the Iraqi Invasion of 2003, and that the president planned to invade Iraq regardless of whether or not Iraq has any such weapons.<ref> Downing Street memo | |||
| * Posted by ] March 28, 2006 | |||
| * DAVID MANNING, ], July 23, 2002 | |||
| </ref> Congressional Democrats sponsored both a request for documents and a resolution of inquiry.<ref> ] request | |||
| * By David Paul, ], June 06, 2005 | |||
| * Raw Story, June 30, 2005</ref> | |||
| ] asserts that this was not a war in self-defense but a ] contrary to the ] and therefore is possibly a ].<ref> By Marjorie Cohn, Truthout, March 13, 2006</ref> | |||
| ===Geneva Conventions controversy=== | |||
| {{main|Illegal combatant}} | |||
| Following the ] the Bush administration advocated that Al Qaeda and Taliban would be determined to be unlawful combatants. As such it was suggested they did not have the protection by the ]. The ], ], the ] and ] from ] have dismissed this as not compatible with U.S. and international law.<ref>Violating ] | |||
| * by AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION | |||
| * by ], January 28, 2002 | |||
| * by the ], December 12, 2002 | |||
| * By JOANNE MARINER, FindLaw, March 11, 2002 </ref> | |||
| ===Extraordinary rendition=== | |||
| {{main2|Extraordinary rendition|United Nations Convention Against Torture}} | |||
| Critics have accused the CIA of rendering suspected terrorists to other countries in order to avoid U.S. laws prescribing due process and prohibiting torture and have called this "torture by proxy" or "torture flights".<ref>Torture by proxy | |||
| * By Ken Silverstein, The ], December 08, 2005] | |||
| * ], February 14, 2005 </ref> Alberto Gonzales explicitly testified to Congress that the administration's position was to extradite detainees to other nations as long as it was not "more likely than not" that they would be tortured, although he later modified that statement.<ref> By R. Jeffrey Smith, Washington Post, March 8, 2005</ref> However, the Convention against torture states: | |||
| :''No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.'' | |||
| Commentators, among which the ] and ], have stated that under international law rendition as practiced by the U.S. government is illegal.<ref>Legal position of rendition | |||
| * by Thalif Deen, Inter Press Service | |||
| * By ], The ], December 07, 2005 </ref> | |||
| ===Mistreatment of detainees=== | |||
| {{main4|Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse|Bagram torture and prisoner abuse|United Nations Convention Against Torture|Command responsibility}} | |||
| As part of the war on terror several memos<ref> the memos written as part of the war on terror</ref> were written analyzing the legal position and possibilities in the treatment of prisoners. The memos, known today as the "torture memos," were written advocating enhanced interrogation techniques but also pointing out that refuting the Geneva Conventions would reduce the possibility of prosecution for war crimes.<ref>War crimes warning | |||
| * By Michael Isikoff, ], May 19, 2004 | |||
| * by Elizabeth Holtzman, The Nation, June 28, 2005 | |||
| * By Grant McCool, ], ], January 28, 2003 </ref> In addition, a new definition of torture was issued. Most actions that fall under the international definition do not fall within this new definition advocated by the U.S.<ref>US definition of torture | |||
| * by Richard Norton-Taylor and Suzanne Goldenberg, The Guardian, February 17, 2006 | |||
| * By Dahr Jamail, ], March 9, 2006</ref> | |||
| Several top military lawyers including ] reported that policies equivalent to torture were officially handed down from the highest levels of the administration, and led an effort within the Department of Defense to put a stop to those policies and instead mandate non-coercive interrogation standards.<ref>Torture as policy? | |||
| * July 07, 2004 | |||
| * by JANE MAYER, The New Yorker, February 20, 2006 | |||
| * by Marty Lederman, February 20, 2006</ref> | |||
| Notwithstanding the suggestion of official policy the administration repeatedly assured critics the publicised cases were incidents and President Bush later stated that: | |||
| :''"The United States of America does not torture. And that's important for people around the world to understand."''<ref>We don't torture | |||
| * ], December 19, 2005 | |||
| * ], ], December 10, 2005 | |||
| * By Mark Morford, SF Gate, December 16, 2005 | |||
| </ref> | |||
| To address the multitude of incidents of prisoner abuse the ] was adopted. However, in his ] President Bush made clear that he reserved the right to waive this bill if he thought that was needed.<ref> McCain Law May Not Apply to Cuba Prison, By Josh White and Carol D. Leonnig, Washington Post, March 3, 2006</ref> | |||
| Over the years numerous incidents have been reported and a UN report denounced the abuse of prisoners as tantamount to torture.<ref> BBC, Read the full UN report into Guantanamo Bay, February 16, 2006</ref> Several legal analysts -such as ], ], ]- have advocated that writing these memos, not preventing or stopping the abuse could result in legal challenges involving war crimes under the command responsibility.<ref>Accountability | |||
| * Democracy Now, June 30th, 2005 | |||
| * By Marjorie Cohn, ], January 19, 2005 | |||
| * By Marjorie Cohn, La Prensa San Diego Bilingual Newspaper, November 19, 2004 | |||
| * by Elizabeth Holtzman, The Nation, January 11, 2006 | |||
| * ] | |||
| * By David R. Irvine and Deborah Pearlstein, Salt Lake Tribune, March 04, 2006 | |||
| *</ref> | |||
| ===Allegedly leaking classified information=== | |||
| {{main2|Yellowcake forgery|Plame affair}} | |||
| In his 2003 ], President Bush cited British government sources in saying that ] was seeking uranium. He referred to what turned out to be ]. After Ambassador Wilson wrote an article denouncing this assertion, the identity of his wife as CIA employee was made public - alledgedly for the 1st time. Wilson later made the allegation this was done to retaliate after his article. An investigation about this by ] is ongoing. It has led so far to the indictment of ], though not for releasing any Plame information. There are reports that an indictment of ] may be pending. {{fact}} Additionally, the litigation surrounding Libby has yielded court papers showing that Libby was ordered to disseminate classified information by his "superiors". <ref> CBS/AP, Feb. 9, 2006</ref> It has been pointed out that, as Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff to the Vice President, Libby's only superiors were the President and the Vice President. {{fact}} | |||
| ===Hurricane Katrina=== | |||
| {{main3|Hurricane Katrina|Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina|Political effects of Hurricane Katrina}} | |||
| The alleged responsibility of the ] in the mishandling of Hurricane Katrina has been used by ], ], ], and the ] to suggest failure by the administration to adequately provide for the need of its citizens.<ref>Hurricane Katrina | |||
| * Ramsey Clarke, September 6, 2005 | |||
| * by Robert R. Thompson, ], October 03, 2005 | |||
| * By FRANCIS BOYLE, September 16, 2005 | |||
| * , August 1, 2005 | |||
| * Sunday Independent, September 4, 2005 | |||
| * | |||
| * The Nation, January 30, 2006</ref> Aside from these allegations of incompetence, how any Katrina related complaints rise to the level of an impeachable offense, has not been explained. | |||
| The administration pointed out that the principal responsibility lies with the local authorities. Therefore any accusation of inadequate handling of the disaster should be addressed at the Governor ]. | |||
| ===Alleged abuse of power=== | |||
| {{main|Unitary executive theory}} | |||
| As ] in the war on terror, President Bush has asserted broad war powers to protect the American people. These have been used to justify policies connected with the war. Elizabeth Holtzman, John Dean, ], ], the ] and the ] have claimed that Bush has exceeded constitutional or other legal limitations on such war powers. <ref>Abuse of Power | |||
| * by Elizabeth Holtzman, The Nation, January 11, 2006 | |||
| * By JOHN W. DEAN, FindLaw, January 13, 2006 | |||
| * By JENNIFER VAN BERGEN, Findlaw, January 09, 2006 | |||
| * By EDWARD LAZARUS, FindLaw, January 5, 2006 | |||
| * By ], Tomdispatch.com. Posted January 19, 2006 | |||
| * Alternet, March 6, 2006 | |||
| * Common Dreams, March 5, 2006 | |||
| * The Santiago Times, Dec 21, 2005</ref> | |||
| The Bush administration denies this allegation by explaining that the President is only asserting his Constitutional duty as ] to protect the country. | |||
| ==See also== | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| ==References== | |||
| <div style="font-size:90%;"> | |||
| <references/> | |||
| </div> | |||
| ] | |||
Revision as of 23:15, 4 April 2006
Redirect to: