PBS Ombudsman Michael Getler has to be getting uncomfortable for calling out unbalanced liberal programs on the taxpayer-funded network. After he agreed with critics last week that a pro-Kerry editorial was wildly out of place on the show "History Detectives," now he has noticed the incredibly one-sided Bill Moyers Journal hour on impeaching Bush and Cheney and mildly noted it could have used a smidgen of balance. Despite Nancy Pelosi’s promise to avoid impeachment hearings, he wrote, "I would argue that it is still a newsworthy topic. So, as a viewer, I'm grateful that it is being addressed....On the other hand, there was almost a complete absence of balance, as I watched it, in the way this program presented the case for impeachment proceedings against President Bush and Vice President Cheney."
Getler praised Moyers and his guests for some educational television (and most of the letters he reproduces are rave reviews). He concluded: "This was an hour-long program and it was, in many ways, an education, listening to this view of the impeachment process being laid out, whether or not you agree with it. But the program, in my view, would have been not only less vulnerable to charges of political bias, but also even more educational to more people in terms of illuminating the public about impeachment, if it had contained at the very least a succinct summary of the likely legal challenges to each of the main charges raised by the pro-impeachment process guests."
It would have been a lot easier to do that by having more of a debate. But Getler failed to address several issues, such as the outrageous historical comparisons guest Bruce Fein used, comparing Bush to the Nazis and the Soviets, and he failed to consider that PBS had no such "educational" hour when the House considered impeaching President Clinton, displaying a bias when comparing past to present.
CPB Ombudsman Ken Bode did not comment on the Moyers impeachment show on his official blog, although he did strangely condemn the Moyers program that started his latest incarnation of the Journal show -- for not including any critique of PBS and its failure to prevent war in Iraq. However, Bode did write a sharp-elbowed piece in the Indianapolis Star about the Moyers show and impeachment. He listed "Bush administration crimes," and insisted Bush had a "monumental" amount of "monarchical arrogance." But he still thought the timing wasn't right for Pelosi to pounce:
Charges: Guantanamo. Abu Ghraib. Rendition. Indefinite detention. Starting a war of aggression in Iraq without cause. Hiding and torturing captives without due process. Illegal wiretapping. Some would add obstructing honest elections and gross negligence in failing to assist New Orleans after Katrina.
The list of Bush administration crimes is very real, but I have not paid much attention to the blogs, petitions and other efforts to promote impeachment, on the theory that they are diversionary to the more important efforts to end the war in Iraq. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, "Impeachment is not on the table," which I thought was good politics. Then a friend urged me to look at last Friday's PBS broadcast of "Bill Moyers Journal," a program devoted to putting the case for impeachment in a more serious context....
Only through impeachment hearings is it possible to concentrate the mind of the public on the monarchical arrogance and sneering attitude of George W. Bush. "I am king," Fein says of Bush's view of executive powers....
The crimes are real and probably impeachable, and the monarchial arrogance of the Bush-Cheney administration is monumental. But the timing is wrong.
Once again, CPB only really wanted a partisan liberal ombudsman, or else they would have replaced conservative co-ombudsman William Schulz, which they never have. The PBS system is turning into Bush Hater Headquarters without even timid Republican majorities to discourage the natural leftist tendencies of public broadcasting.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
PBS and NPR are the only
July 21, 2007 - 19:23 ET by Andrew H.PBS and NPR are the only two media outlets the Fariness Doctrine should ever be applied. It is our tax money after all that pays for this junk. Nice thought, our money being used to lie back to our faces.
Liberalism is a convenient lie.
I could not agree with
July 21, 2007 - 19:46 ET by bigtimerI could not agree with anything more Andrew.
I remember when Gingrich backed away from pursuing that I think he did, seems like I was very angry.
I have been angry at the gutlessness of the repub's to not get rid of tax-payers being forced to pay for these leftists lying filled bins of trash for years, especially when the have had the House and Senate and could of done it easily IMO.
Ah, bt, you forget that
July 21, 2007 - 21:49 ET by motherbeltAh, bt, you forget that Republicans think that if they suck up to the Democrats, they will be nice in return.
Republicans never, never learn....
What a joke.
July 22, 2007 - 00:05 ET by Scout FinchSeriously. What a joke. Republicans wishing Democrats would be fair. HA.
Unfortunately, Mr. Getler's
July 21, 2007 - 19:25 ET by GalvanicUnfortunately, Mr. Getler's findings will have absolutely no impact on PBS programming, particularly Moyer's show.
So, PBS fends off charges of liberal bias by reminding us that they have an ombudsman to look out for abuse, but when he finds it, they ignore him. Getler's findings are just a placebo.
Starting a war of
July 21, 2007 - 19:29 ET by SMGalbraithStarting a war of aggression in Iraq without cause.
Saddam Hussein was the aggrieved party?
This is so risible one has to just stop and say, Mr. Bode, you have no credibility to comment further on this topic.
Sign up for Professor Bluto's History Course
July 21, 2007 - 19:46 ET by KC MulvilleI'm sorry, but I keep gagging at the idea that Abu Ghraib was a "Bush crime." How can you possibly indict Bush for that crime? This is Bluto history ("when the Germans attacked Pearl Harbor!?").
Abu Ghraib is not the only thing
July 22, 2007 - 21:12 ET by pbthinkerIf you look at the garbage, they throw out there for impeachment, the only thing you can assume is that it's an impeachable offense to do anything Liberals don't agree with.
There are 2 things, the Liberals constantly bring up, that annoy me to no end, one is Abu Ghraib and the second one is Hurricane Katrina. Abu Ghraib was dealt with and the perpetrators were punished and Katrina was a disaster, made worse by, some of the worst reporting the media has ever put out. If Louisiana had any leadership, at the time, we would have been praising the effort taken to move people out of danger, once the dikes broke. Instead, the Liberals have covered up the real blame and laid it on the President. The only shame is the media has allowed them to get away with it for 2 years, with no let up in sight.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
To the really scary part is...
July 21, 2007 - 20:21 ET by c5thenRight now they are railing and flaling at a Republican Administration with Democrats having a small majority in the House and the Senate virtually split 50/50. The really scary part is what would happen if in a short time we would have a Democratic Administration and a Democratic majority in both the House and the Senate?
Between the liberal politicians and the liberal media, they will be able to virtually do almost anything that they want. It is only the current make up of the Supreme Court that there is any hope at all in that scenario.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic
Cheney & Ginsberg
July 21, 2007 - 20:34 ET by PawpawNAny truth to the rumor that Pres for today, Dick Cheney, was seen near Ruth Bader Ginsberg's home in a bright orange outfit today?
I reject the frame that
July 21, 2007 - 20:23 ET by takingmyconstitutionalI reject the frame that impeachment of Bush and Cheney should even be considered a liberal versus conservative issue. Certainly some conservatives already understand that these men have been lawbreakers in a variety of contexts, and that their behavior threatens our 200-year-old system of constiitutional governance. I certainly hope more conservatives will recognize that on this issue, all Americans--right, left, and in-between---should rise up and say "enough."
And those LAWBREAKING things are?
July 21, 2007 - 20:28 ET by PawpawNAnd those lawbreaking things are? Please recite specifics and when done, when charged, etc. I keep hearing this mantra but never see any answers!
I guess it falls to me to
July 21, 2007 - 21:46 ET by motherbeltI guess it falls to me to remind the above accuser that implementing policies opposed by some Senators and Cngressmen is not a criminal act.
Constitutionality.
July 22, 2007 - 00:10 ET by Scout FinchPeriod.
Prove it.
Oh come on, I can name
July 22, 2007 - 21:46 ET by JerryOh come on, I can name numerous laws that were broken.
Gosh, there are just so many.... but wait... those happened over 7 years ago. Here's something a little more recent...
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment
vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any
President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
Ouch !
August 20, 2007 - 01:21 ET by SportPoliticsSlapdown and silence.
lol
that these men have been
July 21, 2007 - 20:34 ET by SMGalbraiththat these men have been lawbreakers in a variety of contexts,
Please, the floor is yours. List the "variety of contexts".
Let's go.
Wow. It's taking him a
July 21, 2007 - 20:40 ET by saw the lightWow. It's taking him a while. There must be a bunch of links and examples he is compiling in his attempt to convince us that our elected President and Vice-President are criminals.
Of course, the last criminal to occupy the Oval Office was disbarred for perjury, right?
We're all waiting!
July 21, 2007 - 20:42 ET by PawpawNGuess we're pulling an ALLNIGHTNER waiting for answers and he's gone to take a nap!
takin something but not a
July 21, 2007 - 20:54 ET bytakin something but not a nap! (then he'll try to dump it here)
Well, if he comes from the
July 21, 2007 - 21:03 ET by SMGalbraithWell, if he comes from the libertarian wing - those that think the IRS is unconstitutional - perhaps our request should have been set aside.
There's certainly some real legitimate scepticism or concern about some of the actions these past years. The open ended nature of some of the acts causes me problems. In previous wars, when presidents acted in their commander-in-chief roles, roles which permitted them more powers, there was always an "end date" to those activities. Once the war was over - the Germans or Japanese defeated - the expansive powers of the Executive would diminish.
The brilliant Jonathan Rauch has pointed out that, compared to the actions of other war time presidents, Bush's actions are much less expansive. However, the fact that this war seemingly has no end date - a forever war - makes what actions he has taken more troubling.
now you have some
July 21, 2007 - 21:12 ET bynow you have some legitimate concerns and rational thesis' i doubt 'takinmydump' was even in your ballpark, but you may have provided some brief cover for him. Isn't Bush out of office in 18 months? Did he continue the endless presidential decrees used by his predecessor?
"The more I study science, the more I believe in God." Einstein
Isn't Bush out of office in
July 21, 2007 - 21:18 ET by SMGalbraithIsn't Bush out of office in 18 months? Did he continue the endless presidential decrees used by his predecessor?
Yes, but do these powers go with him? I'm not as concerned with Bush misusing these powers but with future presidents using these for less-than-noble purposes.
We've all seen how government has expanded over the decades during crises, economic and otherwise. And how this racheting up continues unabated. Once government gains power, it's reluctant to give those powers back. Heck, many of the same programs that FDR enacted to deal with the war and depression have outlived him.
The power we give today for Bush to use can be used tomorrow by another president for nefarious purposes.
i agree we need be careful,
July 21, 2007 - 21:24 ET byi agree we need be careful, the best we can vote for is a POTUS who will appoint strict constructionists to the SCOTUS. The present slim Dem controlled Congress also is trying to over-step it's constitutional powers. This whole balance of powers thing seems to be working. The other important vote for us is to keep the 2nd ammendment intact as that is the final enforcer of the "consent" of the governed.
"The more I study science, the more I believe in God." Einstein
Oh, I get it...
July 21, 2007 - 21:19 ET by c5thenYou reject reality and substitute your own.
Makes perfect sense...
Just to help the troll out a bit (kind of a handicap)... You do realize that impeachment has to be for "High crimes and misdemeanors"? That means that articles of impeachment are basically an indictment of what particular US laws were broken by whom and when.
President Bush was authorized to use the US military in Iraq by congress in 2003. So doing so, for whatever reason, can not by definition be a crime.
Now...feel free to list any other crimes that you feel have been commited.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic
Poll
July 21, 2007 - 21:29 ET by rob6677"In our latest poll here at Propaganda Associated (PAss) we have found that there is a high percentage of low people that continue to refrain from making any sense. Our polls are based on (but may not include) the rapid stupidity of the few Americans that ruin a good conversation by leaving the kiddie table to say something stupid with their finger up their nose. If you would like an explanation of our polling process please talk to your nearest liberal (use the proper safety equipment). Our next segment is about how these people continue to function in society of "conspiracy and deceit" while they are conspiring to deceive anyone with a brain."
"We hope this has been as informative as information should be while informing you of the informal nature of "informed" liberals."
This message brought to you by Propaganda Associated (PAss)
We funnel the news you need through the PAss hole of ambiguity!
"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana!" Groucho
I'd like to see the variety of contexts detailed too please
July 21, 2007 - 22:13 ET by Brett PaatschYou would not be writing for an entirely unsympathetic set of readers.
I
am Australian, neither a Democrat, nor a Republican. I think George W
Bush should be impeached, in the interests of the United States citizen
and in the interests of upholding the rule of law both nationally and
internationally, and this is a conclusion that I have reached
independently.
I happen to agree with Kofi Annan, then Secretary
General of the United Nations, that the invasion of Iraq, in the manner
in which it was done, was a breach of UN Charter.
The UN Charter
was ratified by a vote of 89 to 2 by the US Senate in 1945 - before
George W Bush was born. [Google will enable the facts I assert here to
be checked by any reader].
The US Constitution makes clear at
article 6 that "all treaties made under the authority of the United
States, shall be the supreme law of the land". Therefore a breach of
the UN Charter (a treaty) is a breach of the "supreme law of the land".
Before becoming President, in accordance with article 2 of
the Constitution, George W Bush took an oath to "preserve, protect and
defend the Constitution of the United States". Article 2. Section 3
makes clear that the President shall "take care that the laws be
faithfully executed".
By his Presidential Oath, by the
Constitution, by the "supreme law" George W Bush was NOT entitled to
break the UN Charter or to break a Security Council resolution. To
break the UN Charter or to break a Security Council resolution is a
crime under US law.
When did Bush break the UN Charter?
He
broke it when he ordered the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 after the
United States had agreed along with all the other Security Council
members to UN Resolution 1441 in November 2002. The dates are
important as 1441 was made in November and Congress gave the President
the Authorisation to Use Military Force in October 2002.
1441
states, amongst other things, that Iraq was to be afforded a "final
opportunity" and that the Security Council was "seized of the matter".
Article
27 of the UN Charter states that "Decisions of the Security Council on
procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine
members" and on "ALL other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote
of nine members including the concurring votes fof the permanent
members".
i.e. It was not the Presidents perogative to conclude
that Iraq's "final opportunity" had ended unilaterally. That perogative
was the Security Councils.
Bush knew the law here. Acting with
Spain and the UK, the Bush administration sought another Security
Council resolution the text of which is available on the net, that
declared only that Iraq's "final opportunity" had ended. He could not
get agreement on that resolution. Bush then decided to invade Iraq
anyway.
As a consequence of the illegal invasion of Iraq, over
3500 American servicemen and women, bound by their own oaths both to
follow the orders of the President and their commanders, have died. No
weapons of mass destruction were found. Al Quaida that was not formerly
in Iraq, now is.
The invasion of Iraq was a crime under US law.
Congress's Authorisation to Use Military Force
[ http://www.whitehous... ] authorised the President "to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by
Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
Resolutions regarding Iraq."
Nowhere, is the President authorised to break UN Security Council Resolutions. The President usurped that authority himself.
The invasion of Iraq, against the terms of 1441 was a crime against
the United States and against all the member nations of the United
Nations. The scale of the consequences contribute to making this crime
a "high crime".
The Constitution says at Article 2, Section 4 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'.
By the way.
The United Nations, is a body that was put together largely by the
efforts of two American wartime Presidents, FDR and Truman, in order to
"save succeeding generations from the scourge of war" and to "maintain
international peace and security".
Its article 2 states, "The Organisation is based on the principle of
the sovereign equality of all its Members" and "All members, in order
to ensure to all of them the rights, and benefits resulting from
membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them
in accordance with the present Charter".
So thats my reason (one of them) for wanting Bush impeached. What are yours?
Excuse me. You're citing
July 21, 2007 - 22:24 ET by dahliatraversExcuse me. You're citing Kofi Annan to make a point?
Thanks, I need to read no further. Your comments are bereft of credibility.
makes a great argument for
July 21, 2007 - 22:34 ET bymakes a great argument for turning the present UN building into a daycare and sending the UN to Bejing without a US rep
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
I only mentioned Kofi Annan
July 21, 2007 - 22:41 ET by Brett Paatschin passing because some folks won't check the facts for themselves.
None of the facts I state require anyone to trust Kofi Annan.
In fairness I did not read the UN Charter or the US Constitution myself until after 9-11.
If you can fault the facts I put down then you'd be doing me a service. I am open to changing my mind if I am in error.
Hate to burst your bubble
July 22, 2007 - 13:09 ET by BDHate to burst your bubble my Austrailian compadre, but Saddam's continued engagement of US aircraft, plaing bounties on the headof US pilots, and supportof terrorist organizations was by ITSELF an act of war which legally required NO FURTHER Justification legally for the US response.
Everything beyond that point is simply tortured defense lawyeristic gobble-de-gook.
Sincerely, Michael Ware.
July 21, 2007 - 22:29 ET by fitzfongSincerely, Michael Ware.
G'Day, Mate! I've been a
July 21, 2007 - 22:43 ET by Del DolemonteG'Day, Mate! I've been a daily listener of Radio Australia on shortwave since the 1960s. Their overnight transmission to the Pacific for some strange reason follows a compass pattern that takes them right over my head at 6 AM
Now, let's examine your points
1. I hate to tell you this, but Kofi was a stooge, and his son was in bed with Saddam Hussein in the "Oil for Food" scam
2. Please legally dissect Bill Clinton's War of Choice in Kosovo. I don't recall him going to the UN before he started carpet bombing over there...
G'day.
July 21, 2007 - 23:00 ET by Brett PaatschFeel free to disregard Kofi Annan's view if you wish. My argument comes from the UN Charter and the US Constitution.
Am
I saying the UN isn't corrupt? No, sometimes it is. The
Australian Wheat Board was undermining UN sanctions and arguably
helping to hold the Saddam Hussein regime up. They should in my view be
punished appropriately. The UN isn't perfect - but that is irrelevant.
Brett,I do not care what
July 21, 2007 - 23:08 ET by bigtimerBrett,
I do not care what any other person or country thinks about the UN...
I for one am sick and tired of supporting a thieving filthy corrupt organization...filled with nothing but dictators and criminals that all should be imprisoned.
We need to exit as of yesterday.
Where is Jesse Helms or John Bolton when you need them?
You worry about your own country and keep your nose out of ours when it comes to this.
JMO of course.
Btw....Did you vote for John Howard?
bt... I'm definately with
July 21, 2007 - 23:14 ET by Clear thinkerbt...
I'm definately with you on this one.
The UN should be outlawed, period.
Why we still support this anti-American Org is beyond comprehension.
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
Actually, I think the US should revoke the UN Charter
July 22, 2007 - 00:04 ET by Brett Paatschthere is potentially honor in that IF it is done for the right
reasons. But the revoking should be wholesale not peicemeal.
By
staying in the UN, and breaking the Charter, the US sends a message of
dishonor and lawlessness. It undermines confidence in the rule of law
by doing that. Better to have no law (and so have the possibility of
making a law or an international treaty that works) than to be the
obvious breaker of the law.
There is nothing in
conservative politics that favours breaking one's word, breaking
existing promises or undermining the rule of law is there? So I'd argue
don't do it. If the UN isn't working and can't be made to work then
withdrawing is the honorable thing to do.
If I were running for
President on the Republican side withdrawal from the UN Charter would
be something I'd be looking at seriously. But I'm not.
You think the USA is the first?
July 22, 2007 - 00:11 ET by dagdaYou think the USA is the first to break a charter (assuming for the sake of argument that we did)? How many times do you think the USSR broke it, or China, or Vietnam or ????? How many times do you think the Secretary General broke it? Or his subordinates?
The UN is a big joke. I vote that we close the UN building in NY. Sell the property for real estate development and have them move to Africa.
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
So far as I am aware the US is the first
July 22, 2007 - 01:14 ET by Brett Paatschto break the Charter. It has certainly never been broken in such
in-your-face controversial circumstances as was the case with the
invasion of Iraq when the whole world was watching and the whole world
knew that the reason the US (with the UK and Australia in support) was
offering was the threat of WMDs coupled with a rogue regime like
Saddams.
There have been a lot of wars fought since the
Charter was signed. Usually the involvement of one of the permanent
security council members in a war means that their power to veto a
resolution against them (or sometimes as is the case of the US to veto
a resolution against Israel) means that no resolution gets to exist to
be broken as 1441 was.
The USA is currently a world
leader. It can be a world leader for good or bad. What the US does
matters more than what smaller less important countries do. In the same
way the breaking of a Presidential Oath is more serious than the
breaking of a promise from some more junior politician. It sets an
example.
I think George H W Bush, in repelling the Iraqis from
Kuwait, and then NOT pursuing the Saddam regime into Iraq and tossing
it out (because to do so would have been illegal), actually gave the US
and the world its first demonstration of how the UN could work with the
US using it legitimately as a tool. I think George H W behaved as
statesman in Gulf War 1, but he is treated as some sort of wimp in some
circles for holding to the rule of law.
Working with committees
July 22, 2007 - 01:19 ET by dagdaThe biggest problem with the Gulf War was the Saddam needed to be kicked out then and there. He needed to be replaced. But we made a deal with our Arab allies that we would not go after Saddam. So, he destablized the region for the next 10 years or so. He funded terrorists, trained them, and destablized the UN with the Food for Oil program.
That is always the problem with working with committees. We probably would have won WWII a year earlier if we could have fired Montgomery. Read a book titled Eisenhower's Generals. You will wonder how we ever won the war.
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
Montgomery and Patton
July 22, 2007 - 01:23 ET by Carl KolchakMontgomery and Patton were great friends weren't they? What did the book say about Montgomery? His victory at El-Alamein was a big turning point in the war in my opinion
"I'm a man of means by no means, King of the Road" 'King of the Road
No kind words
July 22, 2007 - 01:28 ET by dagdaThe book is not really kind to anyone. Montgomery comes off as a stiff prig. An egomanic who was frustrated that an American was his superior officer. He and Patton hated the very air the other breathed. Montgomery and he were in this great competition for supplies and gasoline. Patton, of course, was a prima donna, but went way back with Eisenhower. They had served together in Texas before the war. Bradley does not come off very well either. He was probably responsible for the set up for the Battle of the Bulge.
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
Yeah Patton really saved
July 22, 2007 - 01:33 ET by Carl KolchakYeah Patton really saved Bradley at the Battle of the Bulge. Bradley seemed to have no idea what was going on, and you know Patton crossing the Rhine before Montgomery did, really had to drive Montgomery nuts. I thought Montgomery performed very admirably in Africa. You really have to admire Eisenhower and how he handled all the egos and generals.
"I'm a man of means by no means, King of the Road" 'King of the Road'
Montgomery failures
July 22, 2007 - 01:48 ET by dagdaMontgomery got himself bogged down on Siciliy, in the hedgerows coming out of the Normandy landings and seriously screwed up with Operation Marketgarden. His Africa exploits were helped by the complete destruction of Rommel's fuel supply by breaking the German codes and outnumbering the Germans 2 1/2 to 1.
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
Now we're talking.
July 22, 2007 - 01:57 ET by Carl KolchakNow we're talking. Operation Market Garden was a huge failure. I also think Rommel had left prior to Montgomery's victory at El-Alamein, but I think he did do a very good job in North Africa though. I think you have to look at Anzio as a complete screwup as well as Marketgarden. Can you imagine how the left wing MSM would react nowadays to something like Anzio or Market Garden? They already think they are military experts, so I'm sure they would have wanted the Allies to sue for peace. It's been awhile since I've seen "A Bridge too Far", but that is a good movie about Marketgarden.
"I'm a man of means by no means, King of the Road" 'King of the Road'
A wimp in some
July 22, 2007 - 01:22 ET by bigtimerA wimp in some circles...
That is really rich Brett.
I thank your John Howard and Tony Blair.
No matter what when or where, whenever there is trouble whether it is natural causes or another country in trouble ect...who does everyone scream for help from Brett?
Hmmmmm...
You are nothing but another leftists who thinks he is just so smart by half.
Another maddening spoiled ungrateful leftist you are indeed.
Troll on.
I think you misunderstood what I wrote
July 22, 2007 - 02:51 ET by Brett PaatschIt is not me that would call George HERBERT W Bush a wimp. On Gulf
War 1, I called his restraint, his respect for the law under difficult
circumstances, statemanlike.
It is the supporters of George W
Bush who characterise the failure to remove Saddam from Iraq (which
would have involved GHWB breaking his word and the law) after removing
his forces from Kuwait that describe George H W as wanting not me.
It
is those who DISREGARD the rule of law that misrepresent George Herbert W
Bush as being a wimp for not removing Saddam. It is not a good
trade for a policeman to become a crook to arrest a crook. Or for a President to become a tyrant to stop a tyrant. The world is
just up one crook with the powers of a policeman or a tyrant with the powers of a President. We should already
have been evolved past that.
What it comes down to for me
is this. There is no obligation to make promises, but when they are
made they ought be kept. The UN Charter is an international promise not to launch aggressive wars.
Any country that breaks it breaks it in my opinion with all
countries.
The rule of law must apply to all or in the
default we fall back on the rule of the jungle. There is nothing new or
novel about the rule of the jungle, all humans of all races are the
decendants of people who have lived in those circumstances before.
I
will not accept an American jackboot over the rule of law any more than
I would accept a German or a Japanese one. If Americans claim a
right to break their word on peace treaties then of course there will be war. That is
what we humans of all tribes do when there is no law. Its rule of law or rule of war.
Brett, again with the charges!
July 22, 2007 - 02:58 ET by Pragmatic-ManBrett, what's with the repeated charges? The US did not break any treaties or UN charters. Get over it. Your assertions have been discredited.
no Prag-man its your
July 26, 2007 - 01:13 ET by Brett Paatschspurious 'rebuttals' that are discreditted (by me elsewhere in this thread). My assertions have not been refutted they stand.
The
UN Charter is a treaty and is part of US supreme law. (Your
Constitution say that at article 6, and although 'contrary' raised some
interesting points they don't change the fact that a literal reading of
your Constitution supporting my contention is in fact supported by
other documents and so far refutted by none).
Bush did break UN
Resolution 1441 (by unilaterally declaring Iraq's "final opportunity"
against the terms of the Charter - at article 27) and thereby broke
Article 25 of the Charter which states "The Members of the UN agree to
accept and carry out the decisions of the SC in accordance with the
present Charter".
Your mistaken effort to try an apply
Article 51 has been addressed. Article 51 can't be invoked when the SC
is "seized of the matter" and the link I provided you shows that the
Bush administration was aware that the SC would not accept firing on US
planes in the no-fly zone as sufficient cause to invade.
I
repeat myself here, because you in your enthusiasm jumped all over
the thread repeating yourself in multiple places and I don't want
readers to think your points were not addressed.
repost: Brett, you ignore your errors
July 22, 2007 - 01:32 ET by Pragmatic-ManBrett, I already informed you that firing at US warplanes over the
no-fly zone gave the USA the latitude to use force against Iraq, in
accord with the UN charter verbage you have posted.
But you ignore this and restate your point that the US violated the
UN, and did so in an "in-your-face" manner. Ignoring your errors will
not make them go away.
Firing at planes over the fly zones
July 22, 2007 - 04:22 ET by Brett Paatschcould only be relevant if it happened AFTER the SC agreed to 1441 in November 2002, indeed, if then, which I doubt.
Being
given a "final opportunity" has to mean something. There is no
argument that Iraq had been given previous opportunities. But as
at November it was in fact given another one. Being given a "final
opportunity" would
make no sense, if it could be claimed shots fired at aircraft before
could still be a justification for an invasion after November 2002.
Reactivating the hostilities for breach of an earlier
1991 cease fire likewise makes the words "final opportunity" make no
sense. The US, and President Bush, can't legitimately stretch the words
"final opportunity" so far as to make them senseless.
no-fly-zones after UN 1441
July 22, 2007 - 13:41 ET by Pragmatic-ManSaturday, November 16, 2002 Posted: 1:49 PM EST (1849 GMT)
MACDILL AFB, Florida (CNN) --Coalition
aircraft patrolling the southern "no-fly" zone in Iraq struck an air
defense communications facility Friday after the planes came under
heavy fire, an action the United States said violates the latest U.N.
resolution.
Lt. Cmdr. Nick Balice, a U.S. Central Command
(CENTCOM) spokesman, said the coalition strike "came as a result of
Iraqi forces firing anti-aircraft (artillery) and surface-to-air
missiles."
The Pentagon said the hostile action by Baghdad was a
breach of U.N. resolution 1441, Section 8, which says "Iraq shall not
take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or
personnel of the United Nations or ... any member state taking action
to uphold any Council resolution."
Okay, this is after 8 November
July 22, 2007 - 16:28 ET by Brett PaatschIf the UN Security council had agreed that it constituted a material
breach, after the US made a case to that effect if it wanted to - if
the US thought it serious enough, then I'd go along with the UN
Security Council.
My bottom line on this sort of stuff is that
it falls into the sort of thing that I'd expect to happen with fly
zones over Iraqi space and the US wanting to have a trigger to end the
US Resolution 1441 so they could clean Saddams clock (I put no blame on
them wanting that). With the Security Council seized of the matter of
Iraq it was their call as to what sort of "material breaches" could
terminate the "final opportunity". They obviously didn't think this one
was substantive enough. It isn't for me to overrule them anymore
(actually less I get no vote) than it was for the US to overrule them.
Its a Security Council decision as to how to respond when the Security
Council is "seized of the matter". That said I am sure that the
USAF would have had rules of engagement etc that certainly would have
permitted them responding in a measured way as part of their self
defence to being fired upon.
where is the UN resolution against Bush?
July 22, 2007 - 16:48 ET by Pragmatic-ManThursday, September 16, 2004, Kofi declares, weakly, that the coalition forces had invaded Iraq illegally (with regards to UN resolutions).
BUT, somehow, the UN never passed a resolution to decry the invasion, or to order the withdrawal of forces.
So it seems that Brett has borrowed from Kofi's playbook, and relied solely on the seriousness of the charge to make his points.
Brett never will understand
July 22, 2007 - 16:58 ET by PawpawNPrag, seems Brett will never understand. He still has offered no proof. Just mindless wanderings and things written but never proven. If GWB & Dick Cheney had done something illegal the whole Lib Nation, led by George Sor(ry)os, would have filed lawsuit after lawsuit, just the same as the Right would have if they had anything concrete on Sor(ry)os!
The US is a permanent security council member
July 22, 2007 - 18:09 ET by Brett Paatschand just like each of the other 4 it has the power of veto which
means it can prevent a permanent security council resolution being
passed against it on ANY matter unless it is somehow incompetent enough
to vote against itself.
Brett: seriousness of the charge paramount
July 22, 2007 - 01:52 ET by Pragmatic-ManFacts schmacts, right Brett? It's all about the seriousness of the charge.
Your arguments have been deconstructed and discredited, and errors have been detailed in rebuttal, but you still do not answer.
Just a drive-by accuser, relying on the seriousness of the charge to carry him through.
Try again. Your credibility is waning.
Yada yada yada, blah blah
July 22, 2007 - 05:40 ET by Jack BauerYada yada yada, blah blah blah. Don't you extreme leftist retreds ever get tired of spewing out the same old platitudes, cliches, adolescent ramblings, and craptrap.
Because I sure do get bored reading the collected tripe of quasi-Marxists and assorted totalitarians.
Here's a newsflash, the "UN Charter" does NOT supercede the U.S. constitution, no matter how whinebags like your bad self whine, and natter, and bray, and bluster.
Your so-called analysis of the historical record, such as Saddam Hussein's repeated breaking of the UK/US enforced "No-Fly Zone" over thirteen years, is as bogus as most things your commit to post.
Nobody here is buying your shite. We dissent against you and your ilk.
Why waste your time, go somewhere more congenial like the Daily Nutjob, or Dhummies.
Most "In your face"
July 22, 2007 - 13:13 ET by BDMost "In your face" breaking of the charter? Huh?
How about the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia? Afghanistan?
Chinese invasion of Vietnam in 1970's?
Saddams invasion of Kuwait?
Argie invasion of Falkland Islands?
Greeks Vs Turks?
Paki's Vs Indians?
Please study some history FOR GODS Sake!!!
I stand willing to be corrected but
July 22, 2007 - 14:01 ET by Brett Paatschthe distiction I would make between Iraq and all of the above cases
is whilst all aggressive invasions are prohibited by the UN Charter, it
is more in-your-face to take an argument to the Security Council itself
for consideration (thus bringing it to the worlds attention), getting a
resolution as occurred with 1441, and then despite getting that
unanimous resolution, going ahead and breaking it anyway because you
couldn't get the other security council members to go along with your
interpretation over the interpretation of three other permanent
security council members (all of whom valued their own prestige).
It
is often the case in law and in contract that there are breaches.
Sometimes those breaches are not prosecuted because the other parties
don't care enough to prosecute or because frankly they may be bribed or
compromised. I am not saying that the UN was beyond corruption as it
clearly was not. I AM saying though that Iraq constitutes a high point
of in-your-face we-the-US-hear-you-but-you-the-world-can-go-to-hell we
are doing it our way.
For the rule of law to work it has
to be respected. The US under Bush disrespected the UN more blatantly
than had been done before, and tellingly, the WMDs did not turn up. A
lot of the sublety of the way the UN works is lost on most people but
that the WMDs didn't turn up wasn't. That I think has turned a lot of
world opinion against the US.
Pakis vs Indian - not UN
Security Council members. Likewise Greeks vs Turks. Breaches by SC
permanent members rankle more because they have priviledges, like
judges that are corrupt rankle more.
Argentina not a SC
member though the UK was. I guess the UK just decided to kick them out
without using the UN, perhaps they used article 51 I don't
recall. I'm sure the UK didn't go to the UN for approval then
invade after failing to get it though.
Saddams invasion of
Kuwait was clearly illegal, and somewhat to Saddams surprise I think
the UN actually got rolling and worked against him as it was supposed
to. I think Saddam thought the US might give him some cover by
using their veto, or that perhaps Russia would.
Please
understand I am not saying the UN worked as good as it should. It
didn't but I am saying it worked better than nothing for much of the
time. It kept the major powers off each other. It provided a forum in
which Adele Stephenson could turn then world opinion on Russia during
the Cuban missile crissis.
Brett -- corrected
July 22, 2007 - 14:08 ET by Pragmatic-ManAGAIN, let me reiterate for about the fourth time, the USA did not breach UN 1441. It was adhered to. It is not a treaty, it is a resolution. The latitude in Article 51 gives the USA plenty of reason to strike back at Iraq, but note that it was not until UN 1441 was breached by Saddam that coalition forces invaded Iraq.
It seems that you are completely sluffing off the facts, and ignoring your errors.
Hang on let me see if I have your postion clear here.
July 22, 2007 - 17:36 ET by Brett PaatschAre you saying that even though UN Res. 1441 was in place that the
firing at US planes in the no-fly zone (after 8 November) gave the US
the right to invade the whole country of Iraq under Article 51?
Are
you saying that the US was permitted to determine that a breach had
occurred on its own? That a breach is a breach on the facts and not on
the determination of the Security Council?
I'm going to have to stop to get some sleep. I'll check back later.
It is immateral WHAT UN Res
July 22, 2007 - 21:17 ET by BDIt is immateral WHAT UN Res 1441 gave us. THe US was fired upon, and therefore a military response was legitimate.
The UN does not hold the keys tothe car that is our country, and no treaty can be allowed to do so.
To think so is tortured legalistic thinking........
Your Constitution says
July 25, 2007 - 17:46 ET by Brett Paatschthat treaties made under it are the supreme law of the land. See article 6.
The
UN Charter was a treaty made in accordance with the treaty making
provisions of the Constitution in 1945 before George W Bush was born.
Amongst the terms of the treaty that is the UN Charter are
terms that describe how Security Council resolutions like 1441 are
made. The US agreed with 1441, they did not veto it, there is no
argument that it is not valid.
Article 25 of the Charter states
that "the members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out
the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present
Charter". 1441 was a decision. The decision was to allow Iraq a "final
opportunity".
Bush unilaterally terminated that "final
opportunity" against the terms of the Charter which make clear how
decisions of the SC are to be reached at Article 27 "by an affirmative
vote of nine members" "including the concurring votes of the permanent
members". France, China and Russia did not agree that the "final
opportunity" was ended and Bush invaded anyway. Thus Bush broke the UN
Charter, and US law.
You are so wrong
July 22, 2007 - 14:08 ET by dagdaBrett, you act as though the US is in this by themselves. There are many allies giving support. We may have the majority of troops, but we also are doing the heavy lifting in the area. We are the ONLY superpower.
We did not go into Iraq on our own. Other members of the UN came in with us. We did not have the same number as during the Gulf War but we had a significant number. Still do. Sure, a couple have wienned out, but that is on them. If there is wrong-doing, they are just as culpable.
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
kudos to John Howard
July 22, 2007 - 14:15 ET by Pragmatic-ManAnd kudos to John Howard for supporting the USA during the invasion and afterward. The support of the Aussies has been great. Now, if they could only curb this insidious islam problem they have.
The topic was about impeachment
July 26, 2007 - 05:06 ET by Brett PaatschWhilst John Howard and Tony Blair may have breached the UN Charter
along with Bush, (though Bush gave the order to invade), only Bush is
impeachable under the US Constitution for high crimes and misdemeanors
arising from breaking US supreme law (in the form of the UN Charter - a treaty).
Unlike Bush,
Howard and Blair could break the UN Charter without breaking the US
Constitution because Howard and Blair are foreigners are not subject to
the US Constitution as Bush is.
Howard and Blair may be subject
to trial in the Hague, whereas US law, Congress made law, passed during
Bush's first term, prevents Bush from being subject to that.
minutae: Argentina was the aggressor
July 22, 2007 - 14:19 ET by Pragmatic-ManBrett, you state that Britain invaded the Falklands. This is patently false. The Argentinians invaded British territory when they landed on the Falkland Islands in 1982. Boy, you should get your facts straight. This argument of yours is turning into swiss cheese!
Check - I didn't say that
July 22, 2007 - 17:11 ET by Brett PaatschI said the UK kicked them out. Them being the Argentinians, kicked out being from the Falklands after they invaded.
UN Charter
July 22, 2007 - 21:29 ET by pbthinkerI'm sure, that if we really look at the UN Charter, it's been broken many times, by many countries. One of the problems, and also the beauty of the UN is, if they bring up an amendment that states you broke the UN Charter and want to call it up for a vote, it can be set aside by the Security Council. There have been numerous attempts to condemn countries, for the actions they've taken, only to have them vetoed by the Security Council. I'm reasonably sure that we could have been considered as breaking the charter with our bombing of Yugoslavia, we weren't attacked, nor was NATO attacked. Also, where were all the bodies buried we were supposed to find (I believe the catchword of the day was "Ethnic Cleansing") to the best of my knowledge there have been few than 500 bodies found, and some of them were Serbian Soldiers.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
IF you REALLY look
July 26, 2007 - 01:23 ET by Brett PaatschI think that you will find that no other countries have broken an
explicit security council resolution that they had themselves agreed to.
The
general terms of the UN Charter apply to everyone but being general
they leave wiggle room to some extent which the permanent security
council members have historically been able to exploit. It is
relatively rare for the Security Council to unanimously agree on
anything that has even the potential to frustrate the aspirations of
any one of the big 5, as the big 5 like to use their veto to stop
explicit Security Council resolutions being made that could constrain
them. 1441 did constrain the US in that it stopped it and
everyone else from unilaterally declaring Iraq's "final opportunity"
over.
Did you vote or support
July 22, 2007 - 00:11 ET by bigtimerDid you vote or support John Howard Brett?
...simple question.
Btw...get ready for President Thompson.
Kofi
July 22, 2007 - 00:12 ET byshould have been impeached for allowing Sadaam to ignore 17 resolutions but we know the UN is not about international fairness and law, their main objective it seems is to condemn Israel
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
The UN is about as competent as the League of Nations was
July 22, 2007 - 00:56 ET by Carl KolchakI agree the UN is a joke. They are about as competent as the Legaue of Nations was. The League of Nations didn't prevent WWII, or the Holocaust, or the deaths of all the kulaks, or the Japanese takeover in the South Pacific. In fact I think one of the first cases the League of Nations heard was from Ethiopia after Italy invaded them. The League of Nations which was setup to prevent another Great War, just basically said go right ahead Italy, and totaly ignored Ethiopia. Did the UN prevent all those dying in China under Mao, or how about the lack of freedoms in those countries living behind the Iron Curtain during the Cold War? Why didn't the UN come up with a solution for the Berlin Wall, or why can't they solved the problems between Protestants and Catholics in Ireland? Why couldn't they prevent people like Pol Pot from coming into power, or preventing the Killing Fields? All the UN seems to do is blame the US for everything and pump themselves up like they are so smart. Did the UN prevent the genoicde in Rwanda, and what are they doing about Mugabe or Darfur? Marxist Mengistu Mariam was found gulity of committing genocide agains the people of Ehtiopia and is being harbored in Zimbabwe. Is the UN going to do antyhing about this? I doubt it, they'll all probably sit around and talk about how bad they think the US is. And what about freeing Tibet? Is the UN going to "Free Tibet"? without speaking out against Chinese Communism? I doubt it. They seem to be forunate that the MSM loves them and pumps them up like they are great, but I can't honestly think of anything competent that they do.
"I'm a man of means by no means, King of the Road" 'King of the Road'
Hi Carl, So right you
July 22, 2007 - 01:02 ET by bigtimerHi Carl,
So right you are....
Plus the non coverage about Zimbabwe has been absolutely horrendous.
Of course we had reverse racism there too now didn't we...so the msm doesn't want to cover that now do they?
A great prosperous place is now in tatters.
Where has the UN been for any of this or those you mentioned other than pointing fingers and siphoning money off of us.
....the filthy ba$tardS all.
In theory the idea for the
July 22, 2007 - 01:09 ET by Carl KolchakIn theory the idea for the League of Nations and UN is good. If you ever study the horrific fighting from WW1, you can really see why they wanted to prevent another Great War. The problem is that no one from the UN or the League of Nations wants to act like a police officer. The Korean War was a United Nations war, and the First Gulf War was a United Nations War, but when it comes to many other events, they seem to just act like it's not happening or that they can just sit around and blame the US for not fixing the problem or blame the US for causing the problem. Also with so many forms of governments in the world, i"m not so sure you can get all of those to agree on things either.
"I'm a man of means by no means, King of the Road" 'King of the Road'
Brett... You made a
July 21, 2007 - 23:11 ET by Clear thinkerBrett...
You made a critical error in your last sentence, it should read "The UN is irrelevant"!
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
Exactly Ct... Looks like
July 21, 2007 - 23:16 ET by bigtimerExactly Ct...
Looks like we have another live one here....eh mate?
LMAO....
bt.... There you go
July 21, 2007 - 23:20 ET by Clear thinkerbt....
There you go again using foriegn language on me. Now I'll have to fire up me Rosetta Stone program.
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
Dang me... Sorry 'bout
July 21, 2007 - 23:22 ET by bigtimerDang me...
Sorry 'bout that Ct...won't let that happen again....
Trust me...
LOL
I just think it's comical
July 21, 2007 - 23:26 ET by Clear thinkerI just think it's comical that anyone would beleive that the USA should bow down to the wishes of the UN.
Just the thought makes me giggle.
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
Makes me just roar with
July 21, 2007 - 23:28 ET by bigtimerMakes me just roar with laughter Ct...
Which I am doing at the moment.
Man, did I light a stick of
July 22, 2007 - 00:16 ET by Del DolemonteMan, did I light a stick of whoopass on fire or what? I've created a monster!
The US Constitution makes
July 21, 2007 - 23:08 ET by SMGalbraithThe US Constitution makes clear at
article 6 that "all treaties made under the authority of the United
States, shall be the supreme law of the land". Therefore a breach of
the UN Charter (a treaty) is a breach of the "supreme law of the land".
Well, this is an extremely complicated issue. Need the Volokh folks to answer this one.
First, it's been a long established fact that treaties (in effect, a new law) cannot trump the Constitution. Just as a law cannot violate the Constitution, a treaty (another form of law) cannot as well. Treaty committments do not - cannot - diminish the authorized powers of Congress or the other branches.
If, for example, the US signs a treaty (and it is ratified) with Saudi Arabia that says that "women may be denied the right to vote", that does not mean that that treaty trumps the right of women to vote and that the US government may ban women from voting. Or if the President signs a treaty with Poland that says that the Presidents of both countries may serve as presidents for life, that too would be in violation of the Constitution.
The President of the Unites States does not - cannot really - have to get the approval of the UN Security Council in order to take military action. Were he to do so would be a violation of the Constitution that says that "only Congress may declare war."
Question: Following the 9/11 attacks, if the UN had forbidden the US from attacking al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, should the US have been required to follow that action? The US can only take military action when the UN approves?
Nothing trumps the constitution
July 21, 2007 - 23:40 ET by Brett Paatschbut under the Constitution there is the power to make treaties and
for those treaties to be made part of the Supreme law. President Truman
brought the UN Charter to the US Senate to be ratified in 1945 and the
US Senate did ratify it. So the UN Charter is part of US "supreme
law". Its a crime for the President, any President, to break US
supreme law.
Under the terms of the UN Charter, President
Bush did indeed "have to get the approval of the UN Security Council to
take military action", unless, as was arguably the case with
Afghanistan post 9-11, he was acting under article 51 of the Charter,
which acts to give an exception to the prohibition against the use of
force.
Article 51
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair
the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed
attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, UNTIL the
Security Council has taken measures to maintain international peace and
security."
Iraq is different to Afghanistan because under
Resolution 1441 the Security Council was "seized of the matter", it
says so in the resolution 1441, which Bush agreed to - the "matter" was
the exact same "matter", that Bush decided to invade over. Its
impossible for Bush to use article 51 as a justification for Iraq. Its
also impossible for him to use earlier resolutions to override the
agreement of November 2002 to give Iraq a "final opportunity".
You might say Bush bungled the handling of the UN.
Bush
ALSO needed Congress to authorise him to use military force - and
appropriately in my view - Congress did give him that authorisation
giving him a full range of negotiating options with the Hussein regime,
but that authorisation didn't and couldn't amount to an authorisation
to break the terms of 1441 (which Bush agreed to afterwards) and of
course the terms of the Charter.
To answer your question.
Article 51 gave, in my opinion, though its a close call, the US the
right to act out of self-defence on Afghanistan because the US was in
hot pursuit of the terrorists post 9-11 and there were known training
camps in Afghanistan. The UN did not get a chance to be "seized of the
matter" on Afghanistan so the US could at least offer article 51 as a
justification. Not so with Iraq.
Wow, that's a
July 21, 2007 - 23:44 ET by Clear thinkerWow, that's a stretch.
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
Brett,As much as you and
July 21, 2007 - 23:46 ET by BlondeBrett,
As much as you and the euros wish for a global authority..it's just not the case.
The U.S. is a "member" of the U.N. i.e. it's voluntary (and unnecessary IMO).
Nothing about the U.N. trumps the U.S. Contstitution and the laws of OUR land.
It's nice that you've at least taken the time to read and try to understand our Constitution before posting here, but what you need to understand is that we, as Americans, could hardly care less what the rest of the world thinks about how we pursue our national interests and security. It matters not one iota. Is that plain enough?
Blonde... Maybe half an
July 21, 2007 - 23:50 ET by Clear thinkerBlonde...
Maybe half an iota?!
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
Clear, Nope, not one
July 21, 2007 - 23:55 ET by BlondeClear,
Nope, not one little fraction of an iota. :)
Bret, I ask you once
July 21, 2007 - 23:50 ET by bigtimerBret,
I ask you once again, did you vote or support John Howard?
Got a problem answering that?
Brett, time for study hall
July 22, 2007 - 00:15 ET by Pragmatic-ManWhat does "seized of the matter" mean? Allow me to explain...
Article 12 of the U.N. charter:
It is the security council telling the UN body to leave the resolution alone. It is simply a preservation clause that is in almost all UN documentation issued by the security council. And it can be ignored as a basis for your argument. It is a non-issue.
Now, about Article 51... lest we forget that Iraq had been firing at US warplanes in the no-fly zone for years. This constitutes reason for the US to strike Iraq in defense, and not be impaired by waiting for security council action. But we did wait. And we waited a very long time.
And let's not forget, Brett, that no matter what the UN decides to do, we in the USA are a sovereign nation. And no international body trumps the US constitution on American soil. Period. If it did, the UN would have been dismantling our nation long ago.
What does "seized of the matter" mean?
July 22, 2007 - 04:04 ET by Brett Paatsch"seized of the matter" means that the Security Council is asserting
its jurisdiction over "the matter" detailed in the resolution.
Yes
as a consequence, as you say Article 12 would apply. But it ALSO means
than Article 51 can't be relied on, from that time forward, on the same
matter.
The key word in article 51 is UNTIL.
ie. "Nothing
in the present Charter shall impair (etc).. UNTIL the Security Council
has taken measures to maintain international peace and security".
The
Resolution 1441 itself IS the Security Council taking measures. The US
can't unilaterally take defensive action on exactly the same grounds
that the Security Council is exercising its juridiction on.
I
will grant that Iraq (after Gulf War 1) had been firing at the aircraft
including US aircraft over the no fly zone. But I don't grant
that that gives rise, after 1441, with "final opportunity" was agreed,
(november 2002) to a unilateral right by the US to invade. Once
the Security Council has hold of a matter it has hold of it. The
Security Council had hold of Iraq inwith 1441. Only the Security
Council can interpret the meaning of its own terms in the face of any
disagreement. That is the point of Article 27.
I suspect
that you will recall that France, China and Russia (Permanent Security
Council members) disagreed with the US and the UK about whether 1441
gave rise of itself to an automatic war trigger with those nations
arguing another resolution was needed.
At the time there was much discussion and debate about "serious
consequences" and "material breaches" with the US and the UK arguing
that these terms self-evidently meant what the US and the UK wanted
them to mean. What wasn't debated was "final opportunity". An
opportunity necessarily has a start and and end point. It is for the
Security Council to say when an opportunity has ended not the US or
President Bush. When the "final opportunity" started, any right the US
might have had to retaliate for its planes being fired upon in the
past, was past.
This language and word chopping is almost
ridiculous but it only comes up because it was the very powerful USA
that was trying to wring the language as much as possible to do what it
wanted to.
No one really doubts that the French and the
Chinese and the Russians (amongst others) wanted to give the weapons
inspectors more time and did not want the invasion to take place when
it did. That is the big picture against which the invasion took place.
That and the fact that ultimately there were no WMDs found.
UN Article 51 explained
July 22, 2007 - 13:50 ET by Pragmatic-ManBrett, your arguments are wearing stretchy pants...
Article 51, UN Charter: Nothing in the
present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or
collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of
the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures
necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken
by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be
immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way
affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under
the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems
necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and
security.
Okay, Brett, in the matter of the word "UNTIL", this is stating that member nations can react immediately in self-defense against armed attack, and does not have to wait until the security council convenes.
"Final opportunity" was given time to run its course, the no-fly-zones were breached, and Iraq was in defiance of the resolution. Time for those threatened consequences, that "jackboot" as you say.
No this is a wrong
July 25, 2007 - 17:49 ET by Brett Paatschas I have addressed elsewhere.
but under the Constitution
July 22, 2007 - 00:24 ET by SMGalbraithbut under the Constitution there is the power to make treaties and
for those treaties to be made part of the Supreme law
Yes, but again, treaties may not trump the other provisions in the Constitution.
The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land and a treaty - even though it is considered as part of the Supreme Law - simply cannot take away the powers elsewhere stated in the Constitution. The Charter of the UN - or any other treaty -just cannot override the Constitution.
There was a huge debate over this very issue - how much power the UN charter would have - when it was ratified. See the debate over the Bricker Amendment, for example.
Justice Black summed things up (in Reid v. Covert):
There is nothing in [the Constitution] which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to [it] do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result.
The UN Charter doesn't override the Constitution
July 22, 2007 - 03:08 ET by Brett PaatschI agree.
If there were anything in the Constitution that made
it illegal (unconstitutional) for the US to ratify the UN Charter or
that made anything agreed in a particular UN Resolution illegal then
I'd agree that that part of the Constitution would override the Charter
or the relevant Resolution.
But there isn't. The Charter was
allowed to be ratified under the Constitution and it was ratified.
Resolution 1441 was allowed to be made and it was made. Having been
made its terms apply.
If you are saying that there is something in the US Constitution
that either prohibits the US from ratifying the UN Charter or that
prohibits the US under the Bush adminstration from agreeing to
Resolution 1441 then I am all ears?
If there is nothing that does that then the UN Charter is valid and the UN Resolution is valid under US law.
UN 1441 not valid under US law
July 22, 2007 - 03:17 ET by Pragmatic-ManUN 1441 is not valid under US law... it is valid under international law. There is a difference. As well, UN 1441 was agreed to and was adhered to.
Are you deaf? There was no defiance of the UN resolution by the US. Your argument is empty, but you keep on spouting these charges.
The UN Charter is BOTH US law and international law
July 22, 2007 - 05:42 ET by Brett PaatschPlease see my reply to - contrary. I have not been avoiding your arguments, I just needed time to get to them.
Not
surprisingly, arguing the case for impeaching Bush, even on this one ground,
in this forum, threw up quite a lot of counterpoint.
Brett's deflation
July 22, 2007 - 13:14 ET by Pragmatic-ManBrett, not surprisingly, when you pitch your inflated talking points against the sharp rapier of truth, you get a bit of commotion upon the immediate deflation.
US Consititution
July 25, 2007 - 18:08 ET by LionKing"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be
made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be
made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme
law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby,
anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary
notwithstanding." [my emphasis]
This is a very relevant point that no treaty can supercede any existing Federal or state law.
Secondly, ratification of a treaty by the Senate does not create a new law. Our Legislative process requires that both houses of congress pass the law and that the POTUS signs it into effect. [If vetoed, congress vote again and override theveto wtih 2/3 vote.]
Your emphasis seems to reinforce my point
July 25, 2007 - 19:16 ET by Brett Paatscheven more.
That is that (a) the Constitution, and (b)
laws of the US made in accordance with the Constitution, and (c)
treaties made in accordance with the constitution, are ALL parts of the
US "supreme law"
and as such the judges shall be bound
thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws or any State to the
contrary notwithstanding.
ie. No State Constitution or State law shall override the US supreme law made via (a), (b) or (c).
The
clause itself says no state law can supercede "the supreme law of the
land" and includes "treaties made" as part of the "supreme law".
This refutes your first point.
Treaties (according to the
Constitution and the Federalist Papers) seem to be another way, a less
used, but still valid way, to make laws.
As it is
your Constitution that says "treaties made" "shall be the supreme law
of the land" you will please need to provide a better argument for your
second assertion rather than just to assert it.
I do realise that your legislative process does typically make laws as you suggest, that is law via (b) above.
So thats my reason (one of
July 21, 2007 - 23:13 ET by contrarySo thats my reason (one of them) for wanting Bush impeached. What are yours?
Authorizing the spending of United States tax dollars outside the mandates of our US Constitution. But then again, you would have to "impeach" most of Congress as well.
Speaking of our US Constitution, you have a very interesting interpretation of the document. I would suggest, if you are really interested in the "supreme law of the land," to check out the Federalist papers and other works concerning the Founding Fathers, as they provide context for why certain articles were written the way they were. Your conclusion that President Bush is in conflict with the UN Charter, and thus disobeyed his oath to the "Supreme law of the land" is in error. As the UN Charter is not the Supreme law of the land. The US Constitution is. The reference to treaties in Article 6 means states cannot contradict treaties signed by the US Congress. For Example:
In Gibbons v. Ogden, the Court held that certain statutes of New York granting an exclusive right to use steam navigation on the waters of the State were null and void insofar as they applied to vessels licensed by the United States to engage in coastal trade. Said the Chief Justice: ''In argument, however, it has been contended, that if a law passed by a State, in the exercise of its acknowledged sovereignty, comes into conflict with a law passed by Congress in pursuance of the Constitution, they affect the subject, and each other, like equal opposing powers. But the framers of our Constitution foresaw this state of things, and provided for it, by declaring the supremacy not only of itself, but of the laws made in pursuance of it. The nullity of an act, inconsistent with the Constitution, is produced by the declaration, that the Constitution is the supreme law. The appropriate application of that part of the clause which confers the same supremacy on laws and treaties, is to such acts of the State legislatures as do not transcend their powers, but though enacted in the execution of acknowledged State powers, interfere with, or are contrary to the laws of Congress, made in pursuance of the Constitution, or some treaty made under the authority of the United States. In every such case, the act of Congress, or the treaty, is supreme; and the law of the State, though enacted in the exercise of powers not controverted, must yield to it.''
The conclusion that Bush ignored procedure with the Security Council and therefore broke the laws of the Constitution has no bearing as Article 6 was not written for this purpose.
Your rebuttal doesn't rebut
July 22, 2007 - 05:36 ET by Brett Paatsch"Your conclusion that President Bush is in conflict with the UN Charter,
and thus disobeyed his oath to the "Supreme law of the land" is in
error. As the UN Charter is not the Supreme law of the land. The US
Constitution is."
I
do not say that the UN Charter ONLY is the Supreme law, rather I say
that the UN Charter (as a ratified treaty) is a PART of the supreme
law, along with the Constitution itself and along with laws made by
congress in accordance with the constitution, because the US
Constitution says so at article 6.
Here is the whole first paragraph of Article 6.
"THIS
CONSTITUTION, AND THE LAWS of the United States which shall be made in
puruance thereof; AND ALL TREATIES made, or which shall be made, under
the authority of the United States, SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW of the
land; and the judges in every state shall be bound therebt, anything in
the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding".
Ask yourself is the UN Charter a "TREAT(Y) made" ? And Google will show you that it is.
Accept that fact and there is no reading of Article 6 that one can make
which will allow one to dispute that the UN Charter is a part of the
United States supreme law.
I don't dispute Gibbons V Ogden, I just assert that that case is beside the point.
Accept
that the UN Charter is part of the supreme law and it follows that its
terms are a part of the supreme law (unless they conflict with the
Constitution). Its terms include the terms by which resolutions such as
resolution 1441 are made.
Of the President the
Constitution at article 2 says he shall "take care that the laws be
faithfully executed". Again, once you accept that the UN Charter is US
law that leaves you no choice but to accept that the President (in
order to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" - which must
mean the Constitutions clauses) must see that the UN Charter (his
obligations under it) are "faithfully executed".
As counter
intuitive as it might be to think of the UN Charter as US law, that is
exactly what it is. It is not ONLY US law, and it is not ALL of US law,
but it is US law.
Arguments about what "purpose" article 6 was
meant to serve can only arise when it is unclear from reading the words
on their face as to what they may mean. Can you show me anywhere a
Supreme Court ruling that says any ratified treaty is not a part of US
law? I don't think you can.
You are misreading my
July 22, 2007 - 11:44 ET by contraryYou are misreading my argument and the United States Constitution. The fact that a treaty was signed is not at issue. The fact that a treaty signed by the US Congress in 1945 called the UN Charter that gave the US a procedure to follow when dealing with other nations is also not the issue. Your use of Article 6 to say the PRESIDENT is negligent with his duty to faithfully execute the CONSTITUTION is in error. Again the purpose of each Article in the Constitution was made for a specific reason, and if you don't know that purpose, you will end up intrepreting the Constitution incorrectly, which I believe you have done here. Read the Federalist Papers and Supreme Court decisions to understand what the Articles apply to. You will see that the decision for the United States to break provisions of a treaty, be it with an International Organization or Economic Organization, does not mean the President has not "faithfully executed" his oath to the Constitution. Article 6 was NOT written to ensure the Executive Branch did not disobey the provisions of a treaty.
A misreading is possible
July 22, 2007 - 13:34 ET by Brett PaatschYou say my "use of article 6 to say the President is negligent with
his duty to faithfully execute the Constitution is in error"
perhaps arising from my not having read the Federalist Papers or
Supreme Court decisions to understand what the Articles apply to.
I
haven't read those things - that's true. It occurs to me that an
exhaustive list of what the Articles apply to might not have been put
down by the Founding Fathers, despite that some justifications for some
clauses were put down. And it may be that the SCOTUS haven't tested
some articles whose meaning and purpose are just plain obvious on their face.
I will freely admit that I am highly suspicious of anyone that
wants to pretend that English words are beyond the capacity of any but
an elite priesthood of which they (as lawyers or scholars) are members
to understand. I don't accuse you of that.
I accept that it is possible that I might be interpreting the
Constitution differently (or incorrectly) with respect to how a person
using a traditional interpretation arising from the Federalist Papers
(historical documents) and SCOTUS rulings might interpret it. If that
is what I am doing it is possible that the President is not negligent
or malfeasant. Its also possible that he is despite my
misunderstanding. I will look for the Federalist Papers.
Do you agree that the UN Charter (as per Article 6) is a part of the US supreme law?
That much, I think, should be beyond reasonable disagreement.
IMHO, I think the US should
July 22, 2007 - 18:19 ET by contraryIMHO, I think the US should live up to its UN Charter membership or leave that body.
For a comparison, you should look up the court ruling (or non-ruling in this case) of Goldwater v Carter. Not quite the same set of circumstances, but similar. Also, look at Federalist number 64, as John Jay describes the concerns of signing and rescinding treaties. I believe the intent of the founders with Article 6 seems to be with States' interest being represented and served by the Executive and Legislative powers of the Federal Government. States were weary of the Federal Government, but any treaty the US signed on to would be have to be seen as binding to every State of the Union, and thus be considered part of the "Supreme law of the land."
That is not to say the UN Charter, or any treaty, is equal to the US Constitution, as treaties can be broken. The Executive has the authority to do this with the advise of the Senate, so it seems to me from a Constitutional point of view, as long as the interests of the States were being represented, President Bush could do this. The argument exist that the UN Charter is not in the best interests of the States and should be rescinded immediately, as recent scandals in the UN body can attest to.
Getting out of Dodge
July 22, 2007 - 18:22 ET by dagdaI think we should cut our losses, rescind our authorization of the Charter of the UN and kick their asses to Africa to start afresh.
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
I could see nothing in the Federalist Papers
July 25, 2007 - 18:11 ET by Brett Paatschto suggest that "made treaties" like the UN Charter are not, just
exactly as the article 6 of the Constitution suggests on a literal
reading of its text, also a part of the US "supreme law".
Indeed
the Federalist Papers reinforce that treaties are the part of the
"supreme law". That treaties are contracts or bargains between
sovereigns.
As you say "any treaty the US signed on would have
to be seen as binding to every State of the Union, and thus considered
part of the "supreme law of the land" ". Actually more than
signing on, but ratification by the Senate is required, but
ratification occurred with the UN Charter in 1945 by a Senate vote of
89 to 2.
You say that it seems to you that Bush could break the
UN Charter, without breaking the US supreme law, as long as he did so
with the concurrence of the Senate. That is likely correct. But he did
not have the concurrence of the Senate - he never sought the Senate's
agreement to break the Charter or the terms of 1441, he just went ahead
and did it on his own. The October 2002 Authorisation to Use Military
Force, (which I link earlier in this thread) is an authorisation to
uphold not break UN Resolutions.
I return to my previous
assertions now. Bush broke the US supreme law. He knew that it
was not his right to unilaterally terminate Iraq's "final opportunity"
and he did it anyway.
Knowingly breaking US law ("supreme
law") is most definately a breach of his constitutional duty to "take
care that the laws be faithfully executed". (art 2. sec 3).
Because
my arguments are coming straight from the Constitution I think it is
the duty of anyone disagreeing on the grounds that the Constitution
can't be taken on its face as meaning what the words mean, to show that
some other interpretation is the correct one. Any other approach would
leave the Constitution unable to be read on its face and so effectively
meaningless.
Federalist Papers
July 25, 2007 - 18:28 ET by dagdaDo not lay a lot of weight on the Federalist Papers. They do contradict themselves in places. Think of the Federalist Papers as a propaganda tool to sell the Constitution to the states. Although the Federalist Papers are referenced occasionally, they have no force or effect in law.
While you are looking in the Constitution, then find the section on a right to privacy that allows women to have abortions. When you find that section, then you can instruct the rest of us on the meaning of the face value of the Constitution.
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
I went to the Federalist Papers at "contrarys" suggestion
July 25, 2007 - 19:48 ET by Brett Paatschbecause he asserted my interpretation of the Constitution was wrong based on ignorance.
Having
now read some of the Federalist Papers I agree with you and contrary
that they are
historical documents and yes also with you that they are propaganda
tools, but they do not in any way detract from the way I was
interpreting
the clauses of the Constitution I was relying on in good faith to make
my argument.
I think an argument based on a clear common sensical reading of the Constitution stands until it is shown to be wrong.
I don't really want to get into other issues like abortion and
right to privacy stuff with you now - I'm Australian, my beef is with
the undermining of the rule of law which increases the probability of
future wars. I figure the rule of law should be a conservative value. I
don't see how we can have a civilization where individuals can rise on
their merits without it. I don't see how conservatives taking the big
picture view could not be in favour of the bedrock principles that
promises once made should be kept and the rule of law should be upheld.
I agree with the sentiment of your Eisenhower quote.
However I think that the rule of law applying to all is the best way to
ensure our strength tomorrow.
This will be my last
July 25, 2007 - 21:19 ET by contraryThis will be my last comment on this thread and concerning this topic as I had thought my arguments were laid out adequately.
Brett: read this http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1999/RepRecord103.htm
If you do not agree, that is your right. However, the US Supreme Court has spoken on this issue. UN laws do not equal US laws for the purposes of the President upholding his oath to the US Constitution. You may believe otherwise, but that is it. If the POTUS does not follow UN procedures as described in a treaty or agreement. The parties use diplomacy to iron out the differences. That does not entitle those who do not like President Bush to impeach him.
I do appreciate your obvious intelligence in this thread, however. I do not feel you are "ignorant." Others may disagree and take it personally, but I try not to and enjoy the learning experience in other people's opinions and arguments.
Contrary, you are, in fact, wrong. Here is why.
July 26, 2007 - 06:02 ET by Brett PaatschNOWHERE have you yet shown, nor do I think that you can show because I
assert having read your material that it is NOT true that,
"the US Supreme Court has spoken (directly and relevantly) on this
issue" that a President CAN, on just his own authority, terminate a treaty
such as the UN Charter.
You identified Goldwater vs Carter, yourself, correctly, as a
non-decision. And I found, and you pointed to, nothing, in the The Federal
Papers bearing out any argument that "made treaties" are not
"supreme law". Indeed, I found there support that they are. The
first case you offered in your first post - Gibbon vs Ogden was irrelevant as it went to states
rights vs federal powers.
Your conclusion in your first post, that my "conclusion that Bush
ignored procedure with the Security Council and therefore broke the
laws of the
Constitution has no bearing as Article 6 was not written for this
purpose"
is invalid because its an assertion without evidence (that which you
offered I refuted) against my assertion with evidence. My "with
evidence" is still the prima facie reading of the Constitutions article
6 clause,plus, now, a bunch of other reading done at your suggestion.
Although, as your link in your last post shows, Edward Kennedy argued Carter
could unilaterally terminate the Mutual Defence Treaty, he did it by making (I
think fairly spuriously but whatever) use of a term in the treaty itself that
expressly provided for the treaties termination. I think the Supreme Court
would have ruled against the President having sole power to end a treaty in
both the Mutual Defense Treaty and the ABM treaty if the point had been tested.
Whilst it is largely pointless to distinguish between non-existant rulings,
even if the SCOTUS had found Kennedy's reasoning on the MDT treaty valid, (and
had used the same on the ADM treaty) it would not have been able to apply the
Kennedy argument to the UN Charter as the UN Charter has no specific termination
clause.
[For reasons I outline in my last post I think the logic of the Constitution
and Federalist Papers require the President plus at least 1/3rd of the senate
or the President plus Congress to terminate the UN Charter.]
In the link to Jon Kyl's speach that you provide above, Jon Kyl wrongly asserts
that two things which you may see for yourself as follows.
First, he says, "The Senates role on treaties is merely a check on the
President's otherwise plenary power - hence the absence of any mention of
treaty-making power in Article 1, Section 8". Contrary, if you look at the
constitution yourself in Article 1, Section 8, at points 2 and 10 you will see
two places where Congress specifically is given a role in "regulating
commerce with foreign nations" and in "defining and punishing ...
offenses against the law of nations;". I think YOU will agree with me IF
YOU LOOK that "defining .. offenses against laws of nations" brings
the Congress power into this area of treaties by necessity even if Jon Kyl
can't find the word "treaty" to be read there.
Second, amidst a bunch of obfuscation and diversion, Kyl's only potentially relevant
case on point is US
vs Curtis-Wright Corp of 1936. I have now read that case and Jon Kyl
misunderstands or misrepresents it.
Kyl argues that case is the most frequently cited as confirming that the
President is the supreme authority in the Nations conduct of foreign affairs. (Perhaps
he is right about that). He then quotes Justice Sutherland "the power to
conduct foreign affairs is "the very delicate, plenary and exclusive power
of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of
international relations - a power which does not require for its exercise an
act of Congress".
Please note that he has not quoted Justice Sutherlands entire sentence and
that in so doing had altered the meaning. In US vs Curtiss-Wright the Congress
had passed a Joint Resolution pre-authorizing the President with their power
within a range of circumstances. The
whole quote that Kyl doesn't give and which changes the meaning is this.
"IT IS IMPORTANT TO BEAR IN MIND THAT WE ARE HERE DEALING NOT ALONE
WITH AN AUTHORITY VESTED IN THE PRESIDENT BY AN EXERTION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER,
BUT WITH SUCH AN AUTHORITY PLUS the very
delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the
federal government in the field of international relations - a power that does
not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress, BUT WHICH OF
COURSE, LIKE EVERY OTHER GOVERNMENT POWER, MUST BE EXERCISED IN SUBORDINATION
TO THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION."
Contrary, your Jon Kyl is either mislead or mistaken himself, perhaps by his
staff, or he is playing fast and loose politics here in his representation of
the law, in support of his fellow Republican, the President.
This sort of extra-constitution power grabbing Kyl is supporting is not in fact lawful (constitutionally), and I suggest
to you most sincerely it is not in your interests as a citizen regardless of
which political parties members want to try it on. And the Kennedy reference suggests they both have.
The UN Charter, whether you approve of it, or even understand it, or not,
was something at least two previous wartime Presidents and an overwhelming
majority of the Senate of the time thought was in the national interest. Your interest most likely. If it is lost,
whether you realize it or not, you will have lost something. More
to my point I will have lost something and it will be partly your fault
and the fault of every US citizen who can act to hold your
President to account for wrongs done all the other people of the world
as well
as yourself that I will have lost something.
Beyond the rule of law there is only the rule of war (or force) and your
President has acted to place himself and all his successors, if you let him, beyond
our (non-US citizens) lawful reach. To get justice we (non-US citizens) can
only appeal to you (citizens) or use force. Currently
it is still in the power of US citizens to bring President to account
using impeachment. That situation is not guaranteed to continue.
cont -- the guy's a classic
July 26, 2007 - 06:25 ET by Jack Bauercont -- the guy's a classic raving fanatic as defined by Sir Winston Churchill: a man who cannot change his mind and will not change the subject.
You are too kind as well. I see no real sign of intelligent life here, it's a closed mind.
Jack, I CAN change the subject : - )
July 26, 2007 - 08:24 ET by Brett Paatschhttp://www.youtube.c...
I fear you are right Jack.
July 26, 2007 - 09:48 ET by contraryI fear you are right Jack. His dogmatic approach is bordering on arrogant. I see this type of thinking alot where the Conclusion (Bush is bad and needs to be impeached) just needs the "evidence" written in some document (that only so and so happens to intrepret the true meaning of) to support it. And when history, the SCOTUS, and Congress have shown otherwise, they are dismissed as being wrong or irrelavant. LOL. It is hard to change a mind of granite, but as I care not a single person's opinion on the subject, I'll go my merry way.
cont -- so the dope wet
July 26, 2007 - 10:00 ET by Jack Bauercont -- so the dope wet dreams over the UN. Big deal. As you imply with your last line, who cares? He's a fanatic.
Not fair
July 26, 2007 - 11:42 ET by Brett PaatschAll the evidence you gave me to look at and all that I could find
myself did not bear out your assertion that I was wrong so far as I
could see. I was open to there being other interpretations than my own
but you didn't provide a positive example demonstrating that my
interpretation was wrong as you started out asserting you just asserted
it.
If I am still wrong, in fact, it is not arrogance as I read
everything you suggested, but the reading supported rather than
contradicted my interpretation. Only a fool changes their mind without
a reason.
There have been a lot of people posting in this
threat and I doubt that you would disagree that most are not naturally
sympathetic to the conclusion that I am drawing. To hold to the truth
as one perceives when it is a minority position on something that is
important - like the rule of law is important - is not arrogance. Not
everyone argued as courteously as you.
I agree
with you that one persons opinion one way or another doesn't greatly
matter (mine or yours) but it is a bit disappointing when intelligent
people can't reason out to a common conclusion. So as you go your merry
way thinking I'm arrogant I'll have little choice but to conclude that
you probably were not willing to change your own mind. If you had you'd
have had a problem that you'd have had to have done something about.
Well, Bret, one must conclude from reading this discussion...
July 26, 2007 - 11:55 ET by acaiguana1. Your legal training has some merit.
2. The assumptive power of Congress over the President's enumerated authorities are subject to exclusionary clauses ancillary to the powers.
3. The refutations rely on the idea that the Constitution can be 'bent' to fit political expediency and this is inherent to the logic of the President managing the foreign policy of the United States, under the tutalage of the Congress.
The real problem with all of your 'refutation' as I can see is that it diminishes the President's power to manage the Foreign Policy of the United States; and from this principle I believe the cases would be argued.
If the SC hasn't ruled on this principle specifically then all of this is pretty much moot.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
You are absolutly correct
July 26, 2007 - 14:58 ET by contraryYou are absolutly correct aca.
The SC has NOT made a verification of how treaties are to be terminated in this case. In fact, they make it a point to leave that to the Legislative and Executive branches. Brett seems to not want to go on his own to look at other perspectives and instead relies on my limited knowledge and time to provide links to sources.
Brett: That is just my opinion based on my prima facie reading of your assertions regarding your argument... Go and look for yourself. Don't take my word for it. There are numerous resources I haven't linked to that provide strong evidence of counter-arguments to the one you are fixated on. They have law degrees, I don't. A simple google search will turn up plenty of sources.
Your lack of postings in other areas of this forum also leads me to believe you just want to "win" this argument. You have not provided much in historical cases or qualified opinions that reinforce any of your arguments. That will not win over anyone here. Merely stating you read and believe the US Constitution to mean this or that is not evidence your argument is correct. Provide links to substantiate your assertions.
Finally, I have already posted more than I initially wanted to on this topic and it has run its course. I hope to see you Brett in other parts of the forum as you bring an intelligent aspect to the discussion.
A later reply.
August 26, 2007 - 22:28 ET by Brett Paatsch"Brett seems to not want to go on his own to look at other perspectives
and instead relies on my limited knowledge and time to provide links to
sources."
That
is absolutely right - I don't want to go reading the Constitution, and
the Federalist Papers and cases you offer just for the heck of it - I'm
not that starved for things to do with my time - my interests are
practical and my agenda is political (just not party or narrowly
political).
You are a citizen of the United States (I assume) Contrary, I am
not. I think if you are a capable and a reasonable man then you have a
duty to try to educate yourself - to not leave the running of and
health of your country to priesthoods (like politicians and lawyers),
but to share in the burden of citizenship.
That the SCOTUS has
not ruled on certian matters does not mean that you cannot form an
opinion on what would be good policy and what would be the logical
consequences of known facts such as what has already been
decided.
"Your lack of postings in other areas of this forum also leads me to believe you just want to "win" this argument."
I
prefer to be right, but I am willing to be shown to be wrong. However
when the issues are as important as this I don't like to agree to
disagree. The future of the world and of America's place as a leader in
that world for better or worse is at stake.
I am part of
a wider world that feels it has greivances against America - greivances
based on broken promises and a failure to meet common standards of
decencey. And in America the citizen voter is the atom of action. The
voter has representatives - I don't.
" Merely stating you read and believe the US Constitution to mean this or that is not evidence your argument is correct."
I never use the word believe. I use think.
The
text of the US Constitution read on its face and uncontradicted IS
evidence, or should be, it IS the ultimate and primary source of US
law! As a citizen you should be able to see that without having to do a
law degree. Modesty about one's limitations is one thing, abrogation of
one's responsibility to use one's conscience and to make up one's own
mind, or to change one's mind when confronted with new facts is
another. It is fair enough to call a break to attend to other
things one must do in life, but it is not fair enough to assume that
one's duty as a citizen is done because one just wishes it was and so
wants relief.
I
don't rely "only" on you Contrary, but I count you as one citizen. And
I will hold you accountable as one. You are a sample of the
contemporary American voter. There are perhaps 100 million in that
population, but I personally have time to converse with only a few and
I will of necessity draw my conclusions on the rest by those few.
What was your appraisal of
July 25, 2007 - 18:36 ET by contraryWhat was your appraisal of the SCOTUS non-decision then of Goldwater v Carter? Is it your contention President Carter removed the US from a treaty without approval from the Senate and therefore should have been impeached?
My contention is that logically as
July 25, 2007 - 21:13 ET by Brett Paatschany treaty requires both the President and the 2/3rds of the Senate
to ratify it, [Some arguments for why it is sensible to not to leave it
entirely in the hands of one person, the President are in the
Federalist Papers btw - Presidents go back to being ordinary folk at
the end of their Presidency's and there is a chance they could be
bribed into acting against the national interest by wealthy sovereigns
if they could make treaties on their own], it should similarly require
AT LEAST the support of 1/3rd of the Senate to cancel it. Perhaps
2/3rds (thats debateable). Passing revoking legislation with a majority
of both houses also would be, logically, just as valid.
In
the modern world breaking treaties might have financial advantages for
corporations. Eg. Breaking an ABM treaty might increase the market for
weapons, so for the same reasons I would argue that the President
sensibly should not be permitted to act alone to break a treaty.
Bear in mind that a treaty is only signed because a President and 2/3rd
of the Senate have deemed that it is in the national interest to do so.
Therefore breaking it in the absence of some compelling change such as
that they other party has defaulted it, is similiarly against the
national interest.
As for Goldwater vs Carter, I've not
read all of it just bits. I agree with the court of first recourse,
disagree with the appelate court, and think that if the Supreme Court
had ruled on Constitutional grounds it would have had to have ruled
that the President could not break a treaty unilaterally.
Should Carter have been impeached? I don't know the meat of the
case of Goldwater vs Carter, but I suspect that my answer would be YES
impeach any and all Presidents that assume the right to unilaterally
break treaties. Not to do so is to concentrate too much power in
the hands of a single person that would naturally be susceptible to
bribery (say from arms manufacturers) or to individual errors of
judgement.
That the Supreme Court did not rule on
Constitution grounds in Goldwater vs Carter would be enough for me to
push for a ruling on Bush breaking the UN Charter to the Supreme Court
if I could.
I honestly think Bush has done the United States
citizen and the world a great deal of harm by breaking the UN Charter.
I think I am about as fair and as impartial a person as there is on
this matter. I would have agreed with the invasion if the SC had
approved it. And I would have agreed with Bush had he decided to
approach Congress to revoke the Charter in response to Chirac of France
stating France would "never, never go to war".
Most of those who
I have conversed with here are of the view that the United States
should be out of the UN. (I suspect they'd change their view if they
knew how biased in the US's favour the UN Charter is with the veto
power and if they want to have international trade). That is fine but
whilst it is in the UN it has
promises and obligations, and honor and the law demand that those
promises and obligations be acknowledged.
UN 1441 not a treaty
July 22, 2007 - 13:11 ET by Pragmatic-ManAn internet search regarding if UN 1441 is a treaty and you will get one blog entry that says yes. Not enough. Actually, canvasing all of the top links, you begin to see that UN resolutions are passed UPON treaties, but not treaties themselves.
This completely deflates your argument that the resolution is part of the supreme law of the USA.
I didn't say 1441 was a treaty I said the UN Charter was
July 22, 2007 - 14:17 ET by Brett PaatschI think I saw that the UN Charter was a treaty at the State Dept
homepage with a description of the background to when it was formed and
ratified.
If the UN Charter is a treaty under US law as I
assert then the Charters terms become part of US law too but a
resolution doesn't become a treaty any more than say a regulation made
under a statute becomes a statute. Both regulations and statutes are
still laws though as long as neither break the Constitution.
I'm arguing that 1441 is analogous to a regulation under a statute or a treaty (the Charter) under the Constitution.
abided by 51, adhered to 1441
July 22, 2007 - 14:24 ET by Pragmatic-ManBut Brett, we abided by ARticle 51, and adhered to UN 1441. So where's the beef?
Prag
July 22, 2007 - 14:29 ET byyou've said the same thing 5 times now that's not very pragmatic of you for all his talk to the contrary he is not willing to be corrected
pragmatic powers...
July 22, 2007 - 14:36 ET by Pragmatic-Manbotg, I left my cape at the cleaners, so maybe my pragmatic powers are not at their full strength. Yes, repetition is not becoming of pragmatism. True, true.
On this note, it has come time for lunch. I shall disengage the aussie, and be thankful that his PM is our buddy.
The US did NOT adhere to Res 1441
July 25, 2007 - 17:32 ET by Brett Paatschit broke it. Specifically President Bush broke it when he usurped
the Security Council's power to determine when Iraq's "final
opportunity" had ended by ording the invasion.
Article 51 cannot be used in the
circumstances you are trying to apply it. From 8 November 2002,
the US had agreed with the rest of the SC that the SC was "seized of
the matter". 51 only applies UNTIL the SC is "seized of the matter".
As this article from Time magazine from 19
November shows, the Bush administration recognized that firing at US
planes by Iraqis over the no fly zone was not suffient to constitute a
breach of 1441 in the eyes of the Security Council.
http://www.time.com/...
Article
25 of the UN Charter, the Charter which the US Senate ratified and made
a part of US "supreme law" states that "The Members of the United
Nations agree to accept and to carry out the decisions of the Security
Council in accordance with the present charter". The SC had given Iraq
a "final opportunity" and the US was bound by the UN Charter to agree
and to accept that decision.
Brett: 1441 was a UN
July 25, 2007 - 17:40 ET by bassndudeBrett: 1441 was a UN resolution. Not part of the charter. The US is not subject to the laws of the UN.
Resolution 1441 specifically stated:
That Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops in 1991.
That this represented Iraq's final opportunity to comply with disarmament requirements. In accordance with the previous Resolutions, this meant Iraq not only had to verify the existence or destruction of its remaining unaccounted-for WMD stockpiles, but also had to ensure that all equipment, plans, and materials useful for the resumption of WMD programs was likewise turned over or verified as destroyed.
That "...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations".
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Yes 1441 is a resolution BUT still part of US law thus:
July 26, 2007 - 09:34 ET by Brett PaatschResolutions ARE the decisions of the Security Council.
Naturally
the Charter couldn't include decisions in it for events that hadn't
arisen at the time of its creation, just as the Constitution couldn't
include all of the laws later made via Congress.
What happened in both cases was the FORM and process of subsidiary law was prescribed and agreed.
Resolution
1441 was US law, not because it was itself a treaty, but because it was
made validly in accordance with the UN Charter and the US agreed to it
as a Security Council decision.
And by the Charter, (which is a
treaty and part of US supreme law), article 25, the US as a member of
the United Nations agreed to "accept and carry out the decisions of
Security Council in accordance with the present Charter".
The
parts of resolution 1441 that you quote are not wrong they are just not
the whole of resolution 1441. Resolution 1441 also gave Iraq a "final
opportunity" and stated it was "seized of the matter" which meant that
the US and the UK were obliged by article 27 of the charter to make
decisions on when the final opportunity was ended not on their own but
with at least nine of the other SC members without any of France, China
or Russia, exercising a veto.
That Bush knew that was the case
is born out by his attempt with the support of Blair and Spain to get
another resolution passed that would have declared the final
opportunity over. This one.
http://www.cnn.com/2...
He
couldn't get it. He decided to invade anyway and in so doing broke US
law. He broke article 25 of the charter by not "carrying out the
decisions of the SC IN ACCORDANCE with Charter". That is, in accordance
with the voting mechanism of Article 25.
I apologise for the redundancy but I want US citizens to get it.
Obsession is really a problem, Brett
July 25, 2007 - 17:42 ET by dagdaBrett, you are a one note band here. Have you an original thought besides wrongly interpreting the UN Charter, its resolutions and the U.S. Constitution?
Could we have a new subject from you. You are convincing no one and no one is convincing you. Let us move on.
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
I honestly think that your President has rolled
July 26, 2007 - 06:23 ET by Brett Paatschback, on your watch, 50 years of hard won blood paid for progress.
If I seem like a humorless obsessive perhaps on this issue its because
I am.
I'm a technology buff. Technology is too powerful and
spreads around the world too easily nowadays for any country to be able
to be safe without an international system of laws based on the most
fundamental principle of not attacking other countries.
People
who are not safe from attack by your country (or any other) can't be
trusted not to attack your country (or any other). There is zero chance
of winning a war on terror if that war is fought only from the
standpoints of individual countries that don't respect international
law.
When the US breaks international law other countries
see that it does and that gives them an incentive to arm up. How can
you stop say China or Russia or other countries using terrorists or
agents pretending to be terrorist against the US, or corporations
hiring terrorists to act to create profit opertunities if you have no
workable system of international law? Answer - you can't.
If
Americans don't stand up for international law, they will lose their
own liberties at home because their government cannot possibly meet the
threat of asymetric warfare operating alone but will have to clamp down
on liberties to try to.
The boat is full
July 22, 2007 - 14:33 ET by dagdaThe US is not going down alone. If we go down for this a lot of countries join us, like Australia, Japan, United Kingdom, etc. Of course the unwilling were those who had Oil for Food contracts will Iraq and were breaking those UN resolutions. What should happen to them, Brett?
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
Brett, a rebuttal sir
July 21, 2007 - 23:19 ET by Pragmatic-ManIn response to your calls for impeachment...
UN 1441 passed on Nov. 8, 2002. Article 3 in this document allows Iraq 30 days to comply. In article 5, UN 1441 states that inspectors shall be afforded "immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access" to all facilities and personnel associated with any weapons programs.
Article 5 also states that inspectors will be given total access within 45 days, and will report back 60 days thereafter. Nov 8 plus 45 days is the end of December. Two more months is the end of February.
We invaded on March 20.
It is esoterica which day Congress gave the authorization for war, as long as it preceeded March 20.
/deconstruction complete
Pragman... Touche! The
July 21, 2007 - 23:22 ET by Clear thinkerPragman...
Touche!
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
not to mention...
July 21, 2007 - 23:35 ET by Pragmatic-ManNot to mention the fact that if the moonbats in Congress bear teeth over the firing of US attorneys, what sane person would believe they would just absent-mindedly overlook even one single detail concerning UN 1441 as it applies to their never-ending pursuit of impeachment against W?
I always watch what people don't do, their inactions are more telling than their actions.
And if the Reid/Pelosi impeachment machine has not acted on this yet, then I assure you there is nothing there.
Amen! The liberal MSM
July 21, 2007 - 23:41 ET by Clear thinkerAmen!
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
Hey Pragmatic, Nice
July 21, 2007 - 23:27 ET by BlondeHey Pragmatic,
Nice response. But I miss your beta version pic.
Where's the helmet?
Prag's helmet
July 21, 2007 - 23:38 ET by Pragmatic-ManI have misplaced my helmet, but I did remember that my cape is at the cleaners.
Silly man.
July 21, 2007 - 23:39 ET by BlondeSilly man.
Prag... deconstruction
July 21, 2007 - 23:30 ET by bigtimerPrag... deconstruction complete indeed!
Excellent, superb and all that jazz.
BT as we both said
July 21, 2007 - 23:35 ET byBT
as we both said earlier we should be out of the UN anyway
any organization that spends 75% of it's resolutions condemning Israel i really have no respect for
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Exactly botg... I have
July 21, 2007 - 23:47 ET by bigtimerExactly botg...
I have been furious for going on a couple of decades now that we stay in this filthy corrupt org. and we are forced to support the majority of the funding for it too.
This is something that is so important to me that we should have a National Referendum on the ballots and let the PEOPLE vote if we want to exit or no.
Of course some arse legal org. like the dem. party/various trial lawyer sidekicks will come along and file suit, shop around for leftist judge and have that blocked too...as they do time after time.
Precisely why we need a
July 21, 2007 - 23:56 ET byPrecisely why we need a solid majority of strict constructionists on the SCOTUS. It would eliminate much of the judicial legislation if they knew in advance that it won't fly. I don't think it would stop the judges look at the ninth circuit but the money to bring the suits in the first place would not be as available
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Well of course I agree bot,
July 22, 2007 - 00:02 ET by bigtimerWell of course I agree bot, and know this well, the problem we have now is we need at least one more SC Judge that fits that bill.
Can't see that happening with the Senate the way it is now.
Hope springs eternal though...or so they say anyway.
Deconstructing the UN and Impeachment Arguments
July 21, 2007 - 23:27 ET by stratmanI am not aware that the souvereign United States of America must relinquish its matters of security to the United Nations.
Laypeople are typically confused as to the actual functioning of the UN. It is not an altruistic philanthropic association of nation states. To the contrary, is a conglomeration of independent nation states, each attempting to obtain what is in each individual nation state's best interest. That applies to Australia as much as it does for the USA and everyone else.
Sometimes the nation states work cooperatively for the majority well being in the way we all wish it would consistently. Oftentimes, though, nation states don't work cooperatively unless a little "sugar" is spread their way. Sometimes nation state's interest are in direct opposition to the well being of the world. That is why not all nation states are involved with G8 and other cooperative institutions.
What you postulate is not novel. As such, if it were true, Democrats would have used your line of thinking to begin impeachment proceedings months/years ago. I imagine many Republicans would support impeachment along these lines as well if it were true. Americans rejected your monarchial system years ago and have no intention of reinstating one anew.
Making an agreement on security isn't relinquishing it
July 22, 2007 - 00:51 ET by Brett PaatschJust as individuals can contract between themselves so can sovereign nations.
You
and I don't HAVE to make a contract with each other on anything but if
we chose to then we are obliged on our honor, and if the contract is
written we will be obliged by a court with appropriate jurisdiction, to
do what we say we will do and to not do what we promise not to
do.
The UN Charter was not anything that the US was
OBLIGED to ratify, it CHOSE to ratify it and could only chose to ratify
it because it was a sovereign nation.
Having chosen to
ratify it, I say it must honor its promises it has made or be seen to
be in default. Not just in default with Iraq, but in default with all
the other nations that ratified the treaty. If the US wants to argue
that the contract is void because, say France voided it by saying "they
would never, never go to war" on the matter of Iraq then that is a
different matter. Bush almost went that way but he tried to do it
peicemeal - picking and chosing when he, when America would be bound by
its word on the Charter and when it would not. There is no honor in so
cherry picking which promises one will keep and which one will
break.
There principles are fundamental to having a civilization.
Promises publicly made must be kept lets all promises fall into disrepute and no cooperation become possible.
The rule of law must apply to all.
In
the case of the UN Security council, it is the 5 victorious powers from
world war 2 that are the permanent security council members. If the US
is seen to be breaking the UN Charter, China, and Russia to name just
two powers will factor that the US will break the Charter into their
planning. Breaking the Charter sends a message to the world - it says
get ready for more war as existing promises can't be relied on.
God save us from bar room
July 22, 2007 - 06:37 ET by Jack BauerGod save us from bar room "lawyers".
Please I'm begging you, stop making an ass of yourself in public, rambling into asinine similies about "contract" law.
The fact that you would even attempt to talk of "contracts" between individuals and so-called "international law" shows you aren't really that serious. Where's the "consideration"? What's the bargain?
But let's just imagine (for your dumb arguments' sake) that there is indeed a "contract" between a sovereign nation (the US) and a supranational "body" (the UN).
Clearly it could be quite easily shown that the UN has repeatedly broken its contract over the years, therefore voiding the so-called contract.
In fact, it is the US which should SUE the UN in a US court for repeated and flagrant violation of its contracted duty.
Except of course, that when the US won its breach of contract suit, it would end up having to pay itself.
Where's the consideration?
July 22, 2007 - 10:30 ET by Brett PaatschJack you've got to be kidding me.
FDR, Truman and Churchhill
are three of the leaders behind the UN. They wanted to avoid world
wars. The consideration is that they wanted to avoid world wars like 1
and 2 where millions died and the military draft was a matter of
course.
They also saw it as prudent to secure for the US and the UK a
permanent security council member status which gave their countries the
power of veto. The power to be amongst the first in a club ostensibly
about equals.
But the UN is a multilateral contract not a bilateral one between the US and the UN as you seem to see it.
The
United States is strong currently but not strong enough to stand
against all the other countries united against it. And temporary
strength is no guarantee of future strength.
Law is the only alternative to war and international law has
been the only alternative to international war. It isn't perfect but
the UN was a start.
Security, security on basic things like not
having your country invaded tends to be good for trade (except perhaps
the arms trade). Having an international law body like the UN means
that you can hook other sorts of international law into it, using it as
a sort of a hub. You can hook trade law and IP law etc into it. By
promising to stay out of other sovereign nations domestic affairs
(however unpalatable their domestic affairs may be to you or me) you
can bring together enough agreement so that hopefully they will stay
out of your domestic affairs as well.
Esotericism
July 22, 2007 - 13:00 ET by stratmanYour arguments on the surface appear logical and sustainable but in practice they are exclusionary and weak.
For the sake of argument, let's take your postulate of sovereign nations desirous of and recognizing in another's sovereignty. Who wouldn't agree with that rationale? The problem is that Saddam chose to not be respectful of another nation state's sovereignty when he invaded Kuwait. (let's not even discuss the Iran-Iraq war) The USA as the major protectorate of Kuwait, under the auspices of the UN for enlistment of and political cover by other UN nation state members via a consensus action, drove the Iraqi military out of Kuwait while stopping at the border not out of UN mandate but due to President Bush's (I) desire to not expand the war and become a nation builder in the dubious political environment of Iraq. (In history, how many times has a tyrant stopped their aggression without being deposed?)
Daddy "W" decided to go along with UN resolutions to isolate Iraq through No-Fly zones and embargoes. Because of corruption in the UN, other nation states of the UN flagrantly ignoring UN resolutions, and the improtant fact that Saddam repeatedly ignored UN resolutions, the UN resolutions lost their power to affect change with Saddam. Now, coupled with the acts of war Saddam's military perpetrated against US and coalition forces in the No-Fly zones (painting our aircraft with SAM radar and actually using AA and SAM's in an attempt to shoot down US jets IS an act of war) PLUS Saddam's presumed continued manufacture and exploration of WMD's (a fact that nearly EVERY Western nation state believed, including our illustrious Democrats-turned-hypocrites-in-hindsight), AND that these WMD's could be used against the sovereign USA (yes, that is what nearly every US politician believed leading up to the war, especially given Saddam's track record of WMD use and his reluctance to allow for WMD inspection) and you have the simplistic version of the basis for US intervention in Iraq.
No matter how you want to frame the argument, the UN does not override US sovereignty in matters of national security. Even using your argument concerning contracts, Saddam invalidated the contract through his actions. In good faith the USA agreed to multiple amended or unique contracts of which Saddam failed to observe. Contracts require at least two parties. Saddam broke the contract(s) and the US was not further bound to the contract. There was no contract. There were acts of war. Either the Rule Of Law is upheld voluntarily or it is applied with force. Saddam's actions forfeited his status of ruler over a sovereign nation state. Saddam's behaviour also threatened the sovereignty of other nation states. Saddam miscalculated and the rest is history.
Recall of House members
July 21, 2007 - 23:53 ET by dagdaThe House of Representatives must lay the charges to bring impeachment. The first time they voted that the President must be impeached because he broke a U.N. Resolution, recall petitions would be going out the doors in droves. The House would be recalled before they even got a chance to vote.
We do not even allow foreign commanders to command our troops or do we dip our flag during the Olympic ceremonies. You think we are going to impeach someone for violating a U.N. Resolution? You are a silly wabbit.
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
dagda... How do you catch
July 21, 2007 - 23:56 ET by Clear thinkerdagda...
How do you catch a unique wabbit?
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
Punchline
July 22, 2007 - 00:06 ET by Clear thinkerdagda...
Gotta turn in for the night so I can't wait for you to ask. Here's the punchline...
"U-nique up on it"
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
I'm coughing so hard from
July 22, 2007 - 00:15 ET by bigtimerI'm coughing so hard from laughter Ct...
You are a riot tonight!
dag, ROFLMAO... I
July 21, 2007 - 23:59 ET by bigtimerdag,
ROFLMAO...
I thought of all of that, but didn't quite know how to present the facts as expertly as you did.
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Proof you are wrong is that Bush has not been impeached.
July 22, 2007 - 08:18 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsThe most simple and compelling proof that you are dead wrong is that Bush has not been impeached. If there was a clear cut violation of law that his enemies (democrats) could seize upon to impeach him, they would have done it already.
Period.
End of story.
Sorry, you lose.
D
I don't support our liberals or their mission.
Thats no proof.
July 22, 2007 - 10:16 ET by Brett PaatschImpeachment is both a legal and a political process. Prior to the
2006 elections Pelosi took impeachment "off the table" for political
reasons.
If the war in Iraq had gone better for the US perhaps the will to impeach might never have been found. Perhaps it won't be yet.
Not all crimes are prosecuted.
I'm
sure you can think of plenty of reasons why the Democrats might decide
not to impeach despite their being a case for it. I suspect a
variety of reasons are in play.
After 9-11 very few
politicians would have wanted to be painted as unpatriotic and whilst
the President is commander in chief and the country is at war, albeit
one that the President invented a new category for, most Americans are
going to be cautious about impeachment - and rightly so.
Democrats like Hillary Clinton might be finding it embarrasing
that they did not read intelligence reports given them before voting
for the Authorisation to Use Military Force. Politicians often
don't have super high opinions of their electorates concentration
spans. She might not feel confident that Republicans would see a big
difference between her vote to Authorise the Use of Force (creating an
option) and the Presidents decision to use it (beyond the constraint to
do so lawfully).
Perhaps the Dems want some of the power that Bush is creating in the Presidency for themselves.
Mostly
I think the Dems just want to see the war do over the the republican
party as well as the President slowly so they can take office
as easily and as risklessly as possible. Its the ultimate in
negative politics in that they want the electorate to chose them over
the smellier more unpopular alternative.
But its not in the interests of ordinary
Americans for that to happen. Nor is it in the interests of the rule of
law. Impeaching Bush and Cheney might be the best chance to get a
Republican President sooner rather than later. Impeaching Bush for the
invasion of Iraq would do a lot of things. It would allow the next
President to come in with a full range of diplomatic options and
renewed trust in Americans - perhaps trust that could be used to reform
the UN. It would suck the oxygen out of Al Quaida recruitment programs
because it is impossible to spin as a weakness a country that is great
enough at the level of the citizen to impeach even its President for
breaking the law.
Brett
July 22, 2007 - 10:39 ET byDemocrats like Hillary Clinton might be finding it embarrasing
that they did not read intelligence reports given them before voting
for the Authorisation to Use Military Force. Politicians often
don't have super high opinions of their electorates concentration
spans. Hillary (and many others) had lots of info prior to 911 and the vote to authorize force yes even before Bush was in office (note the dates on many of the quotes)
Also if you think for a second that there is substantative reason for impeachment and the Dems are not impeaching you simply have little understanding of our politics. The whole Watergate impeachment process is their political wet-dream one they would love to re-live
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Botg - This is a substantial list and I want to look at it more
July 22, 2007 - 15:43 ET by Brett Paatschhowever even on first impression I can offers some comments.
1)
You are helping me with this list to make a case for why impeachment
might not be pursued against Bush given that Iraq constituted a basis
for it. There are three statements there from Nancy Pelosi at the
top. The first one, I thought, fair enough , she at least has political
wiggle room there, but the other two statements coming from a person on
the Senate Intelligence Committee, a person that I expect would have
been given access to what intelligence was made available, those
statements of hers would certainly be readily fired out in support of Bush's most
obvious defence on impeachment on the matter of Iraq. Bush's obvious
defence is that under his Presidential Oath he swore to do "his best"
not the best possible, and that "his best", his good faith
interpretation of Iraqs situation was based on the same sort of
intelligence that Nancy Pelosi saw and her statements show she reached
the same conclusion. So I'd argue, defending Bush, its not reasonable to
expect that the Speaker could claim Bush's best wasn't good enough when
her best would have amounted to the same. Presidents aren't superheros.
Basically, I'm
saying looking at Pelosi's statements I'm not surprised that she is
not pursuing Iraq and the illegal invasion to find no WMDs thing. She might be negligent on the matter herself.
2)
There is a lot of history between the Gulf War around 1991 and the
invasion of Iraq in March 2003. It is as I understand it now part of
the public record that the intelligence provided on Iraq was pretty
poor and wrong. Its part of the public record that US Congress wanted
regime change in Iraq. Its part of the public record that Saddam was a
pretty unsavory guy whose offences included sending money to the
families of Palestinian suicide bombers and trying to assassinate
George H W Bush.
That said none of it really changes anything.
It explains why Democrats as well as Republicans were willing to
believe that Saddam had WMDs and why they did a pretty poor job of
doing the research. It explains but it doesn't condone.
Ultimately the buck has to stop somewhere and the buck stops with the
President when it comes to giving the order to invade with or without
security council endorsement. I would not have done it without security
council endorsement and I would not have allowed Saddam to get off
either and although I am intelligent I cannot seriously countenance
that a person who is President of the United States could be less
capable than I am if they were trying and if they had good staff.
Bottom
line for me is that if the invasion was illegal I would not give Bush a
pass for it. I'd impeach him to get the answer and I'd remove him as an
example to the next
President to do more fact checking or to have better staff if the
answer wasn't satisfactory. There should be no free passes for taking
the country to war on a pretext that did not turn out to be
true. The Presidency is not a job for nice guys or unnice guys
that can't understand the complexity of the job. That don't get how to
be diplomatic. The Presidency is quite simply too serious a job to have
someone in it that is not both of clearly superior intelligence as well
as honorable and with a better than average work ethic.
Before
the invasion of Iraq I was posting questions to my friends on the net
along the lines that the WMDs might be a hoax. I thought I had a
solution that didn't involve either letting Saddam off or invading. I
found it frustrating that I could not find a way to get those ideas
heard let alone actioned.
The Downing Street memos
whilst not proving anything are suggestive of at least the possibility
of bad faith on the matter of Iraq. I would have that possibility
explored because I would want the truth to come out as to whether in
fact the evidence was really being fixed around the policy. If it was
and that was at Bush's instruction then I'd impeach him. It might have
been the view of some that it was when it wasn't. Only impeachment
proceedings with the capacity to subpoena witnesses to testify can get
at the truth on these things I suspect. And there is too much doubt and
too much of a prima facie case to not impeach in my view. I use
myself here not as a high standard but as a low to fair standard to be
measured against. Every US President should be a lot better than
me.
Brett
July 22, 2007 - 15:51 ET bythe link was to dismiss your assertion that the Dems didn't read the proposal and were thus ignorant of the situation. Many of the quotes are from before Bush took office so the Congress had the information ahead of time.
Your assertion of an illegal invasion is absurd, why would i waste time on it? (ht Free Stinker)
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Brett ignores the elephant
July 22, 2007 - 13:58 ET by Pragmatic-ManBrett, you are not front and center of US politics as much as us in the USA are, so let me assure you, if there was an inkling of hard proof that Bush could be impeached, he would already be out the door. The democrats are rabid dogs these days, and will go after the slightest shred of meat. You only need to chum the waters with a piece of bologna to get the sharks to swarm around the White House.
He'd already be out the door? - not so
July 22, 2007 - 15:06 ET by Brett PaatschNot so. Impeachment can be done by a simple majority in the house
which the democrats might do on their own but removal from office
requires the approval of 2/3rds of the senate which means that some
Republicans would have to agree to it.
Knowing that the Dems
would be cagey about when they make their move and they'd quite
sensibly (from the standpoint of practical politics if not ethics) even
consider not making a move at all. They'd want to maximise their
chances of getting the 2/3rds and to minimize their chances of taking
on political damage from a failed attempt that could be characterised
as politics for politics sake.
Vote of no confidence
July 22, 2007 - 15:12 ET by dagdaImpeachment is a huge deal here. It is not like a vote of no confidence. This causes great turmoil in the country and would cause no end of political problems. The problems are great. You can only impeach the President, not the V.P. at the same time. The country would not stand for it. For the Democrats this would mean that if Bush were convicted during an impeachment trial, Cheney would be President. He is allowed to pick a VP. If they tried to then impeach Cheney, even Democrats would revolt. The Democratic Party would be unable to elect a candidate for about 20 years.
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
Taking the country to war to find WMDs that don't exist
July 22, 2007 - 15:57 ET by Brett Paatschis a huge deal too. Even if it was an honest mistake it is still a
very big mistake. And impeachment is the only way to tell whether it
was an honest mistake or whether the whole thing was a scam from the
beginning. I think Americans deserve the truth and so do others. I have
no doubt that the US could survive and even thrive the impeachment of a
President but I do have doubts, serious doubts about it being able to
go on after this President without an investigation of what went wrong,
leaving this President and the peoples failure to investigate as a
precedent for the next Presidents to integrate.
I think you
leave too much scope for abuse by not impeaching. Bush is definately no
Hitler, but 1930's Germany shows that Hitlers can come along in pretty
modern societies and with the use of technology and money and with a
cabal backing them it it now implausible to me that a Hitler like
President could use terrorism or some other Reichstag fire like event
to divide and conquer the people separating them from their rights. And
once gone those rights would be hard if not impossible to win back. The
Office of the US Presidency could become like a seat for a mafiosso
like head operating internationally untouchable by anyone and
accountable to noone.
When did Mr. Bush say that
July 22, 2007 - 16:36 ET by Dave RWhen did Mr. Bush say that the reason we are going into Iraq was because of WMDs. I want a date when he said this as well as the place where he said this. Fact is, Mr Bush never said this, and you know it. This is a lie that the left has been repeating since day one.
A lie that you have just repeated here.
As for WMD's not being found in Iraq is also a lie. First of all, we know he had them because we all saw him using them against his own people following the Gulf War. Not only that they have been popping up all over the place since 2003. We also know Saddam managed to get a lot of them out of the country during the time Mr. Bush was waiting for your prescious UN to get off its duff.
Not that any of this matters, as the purpose of going into Iraq was to carry out the removal of Saddam from power, as was authorized by your favorite body of scoundrels and reprobates, the UN.
Of course, as we found out later, your heroes in the UN were too busy scamming money from the oil-for-food project.
Help Fred defeat everybody.
Dave
July 22, 2007 - 16:40 ET byBrett posted the comment you replied to AFTER he ignored this link which has a plethora of links refuting his assertions
Would you say i have a plethora? Yes el guapo!
botg,
July 22, 2007 - 17:00 ET by Dave RThanks for reminding me, as I had forgotten all about Free's herculean effort there.
Sunday brain fart I guess. LOL.
Help Fred defeat everybody.
botg You have to make your case
July 25, 2007 - 22:38 ET by Brett Paatschin fairness, not just point me at a strawman.
I have laid out
my reasons for why Bush should be impeached for an illegal invasion not
just any old reasons. To refute MY CASE you have to address MY CASE not
rely on someone else's refuting of someone else's case.
Brett
July 25, 2007 - 22:55 ET byjust giving you some facts and links that apply to the overall case. As to your specifics you have been refuted numerous times, i need not waste my time (the SCOTUS needs to approve going to war -- absolutely absurd) i might as well go argue here.
you remind me of this guy, it's not about getting to the truth with you, just denial, avoid, re-assert.
Support our Troops
Well in Monty Python fashion or not
July 26, 2007 - 10:05 ET by Brett Paatschnow that I have been able to respond to the arguments pitched at
multiple times from multiple people I think I have demonstrated.
1)
The UN Charter is part of US supreme law because the US Constitution
itself say so. (This I argued out mostly with contrary).
The
cape crusader guy threw in lots of diversions about article 51 but they
were refuted. A bunch of folk asserted the US didn't conseed no
sovereignty no never! But clearly, in effect, it did, though voluntarily,
and AS a sovereign nation, and only in order to have a multilateral international security contract.
2) That Bush usurped the Security Councils authority which
had been given it by the US signing the Charter in 1945 and Resolution
1441 in November 2002, when he illegally (both US law and international
law) usurped the "final opportunity" determination.
3) That he knew he was doing it as evidenced by the second failed Resolution aimed at declaring the "final opportunity" ended.
4)
The Constitution says (art 2. sec 3) the President shall "take care
that the laws be faithfully executed". Clearly, he did NOT take
care.
5) In breaking US law (the UN Charter) Bush
committed a crime. Its a "high crime" because in part of the
consequences that followed which include the losses of American
servicemen and women. More indeed than died in the illegal immoral acts
of 9-11.
Finally, article 2, section 4 says "the
President ...SHALL BE removed from office on impeachment for, and
conviction of, treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors".
SHALL BE. The constitution makes it a matter of honor and of law.
After seeing more comments
August 26, 2007 - 17:01 ET by contraryAfter seeing more comments on your zeal to get Bush impeached on another thread, I came back here. And lo and behold, another post with unadulterated opnion with little facts and links to back it up. What is it with you? I ask that in a serious tone.
You have not proven anything but your inability to link to credible sources to actually show evidence of your argument.
1. Treaties become enforceable to the States when they are ratified. You argue this treaty is now a litmus test for impeachment? Not in this country. That logic would indeed be good to convince the United States to never sign another treaty again.
2. and 3. Yes, Bush did not wait for the UN Security Council to make up its mind. Just as many other nations (like France during the Oil for Food scandal, or the Soviet Union on invading Afghanistan) have not followed UN procedures. If the United States desolved membership with the UN before invading Iraq, would you still cry for impeachment? Isn't this really about a lack of faith in your life and a desire to control other sovereign nations that do not conform to your world view because of that lack of faith?
In your post I have detected an arrogance that comes with limited experience of American politics. Combine that with a lack of desire to learn, and it really belies your own self-righteousness while you claim "victory" in this little legal game.
4. You have not proven this, and it is purely opinion.
5. "In breaking US law (the UN Charter) Bush committed a crime." You did not show this. Perhaps in a world where any slanderous comment can be construed as evidence in a court of law you would have a case. Your weak link, however, this is Earth.
Therefore, I have just proven you to be agenda-driven instead of concerned about due process and US law. Rebuttal? Probably not since this is an old topic, but I wouldn't be surprised if another opinion piece with the same tired old assertions pops up below this post.
That equals a pretty loud
July 22, 2007 - 22:06 ET by BDThat equals a pretty loud "Shack!!!"
When and where?
July 25, 2007 - 22:33 ET by Brett PaatschIn the State of the Union, 28 Jan 2003
http://www.whitehous...
"The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not
accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends
and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council
to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing
defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present
information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal
weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors,
and its links to terrorist groups.
We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam
Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the
peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him."
Dave,
I have not, and will not knowingly lie to you. I am not getting
my arguments from some leftist political position but have arrived at
them independently and through doing my own research.
Donald
Kay (for the US not the UN) eported on the WMD (or lack of it)
situation. He said words to the effect of 'we were all mislead'
and included himself in that.
Dave, WMD's is a fuzzy term
that people could include a lot of things under especially if they
wanted to preserve a pretext. Even chemical and biological
weapons are broad categories. Being reasonable about things WMD's means
significant weapons not any old chemical or biological bit of left over
junk. If you know of any WMDs that were in Iraq that are more dangerous
than the depleted uranium shells the US used in Iraq to attempt to
conquer it, then maybe I'd have to conceed you have a point. Do you?
Trying for Payback
July 22, 2007 - 17:05 ET by PawpawNSeems Bill Clinton was impeached by the House, but the Senate failed to follow thru. Did it put the country in turmoil? Hey, you can't even blame that on Pres Bush! All this talk is just trying to find a way for Payback to what action was taken against Bill Clinton. They're hoping Pres Bush or VP Cheney reacts in a way similar to the way Libs react, then they'll get them to say or do something so outrageous, but the Libs just don't get what morals mean!
Variety of
July 21, 2007 - 22:57 ET by fitzfongVariety of contexts?
Well, we're waiting...
takingmyconstit... says
July 22, 2007 - 05:46 ET by DontFeedTheTrollstakingmyconstit... says I certainly hope more conservatives will recognize that on this issue,
all Americans--right, left, and in-between---should rise up and say
"enough."
On the issue of Islamist extremism and violence, yes we should all say "enough".
On the issue of intolerance of free speech (fairness doctrine), yes we should all say "enough".
On the issue of abortion, yes we should all say "enough".
On the issue of taxes, yes we should all say "enough".
On the issue of affirmative action, yes we should all say "enough".
On the issue of public education, yes we should all say "enough".
On the issue of foriegn aid, yes we should all say "enough".
I could go on.
D
I don't support our liberals or their mission.
Bill Moyers interesting as a dead mouse
July 21, 2007 - 21:22 ET by Lame CherryHonestly, I do not know how anyone can watch the mousey Bill Moyers. He is beyond boring and even liberals tune out.
Apparently he never got the memo that the Plamegate coup which was intended to set up the Bush impeachment failed when Alberto Gonzales wouldn't take a briefing offered by Dick Armitage the plumber in the operation.
No wonder Moyers was drinking a few years ago as to go from the White House to the hole of PBS is like Dan Rather going to electrodanivsion. Now all Moyers can get on is Jon Stewart only if Bill agrees to shine his shoes by drooling on them.
That was the last rant I viewed and it will last me like being offered a meal of dead mouse.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Moyers of course was one of
July 21, 2007 - 22:52 ET by Del DolemonteMoyers of course was one of Lyndon Johnson's closest aides going WAY back. Someone should ask Bill about Lyndon's dealings with Halliburton, which date back to 1936.
Being a Republican IS a crime.
July 21, 2007 - 22:36 ET by w0tmAs the Scooter Libby trial so shocked us all -- it is now a crime to be a Republican in Washington. If the "crime" is a memory issue of "he said -- he said", the Democrat is believed and the Republican goes to jail. This travesty of justice was only the beginning.
Assuming Hillary and Bill win next year, expect blanket "investigations", kangaroo courts and mass imprisonments after pre-determined outcome show trials. We have held onto our freedom longer than any other democracy in history. Freedom is so precious, so hard to attain and so easy to lose. Will it ever return? I'm sorry to be pessimistic but I don't believe so. Writing a blog such as this several years from now will be considered "hate speech" and grounds for imprisonment. Let us all speak truths one last time. Time to do so is running out.
Brett, you repeat yourself needlessly
July 22, 2007 - 01:30 ET by Pragmatic-ManBrett, I already informed you that firing at US warplanes over the no-fly zone gave the USA the latitude to use force against Iraq, in accord with the UN charter verbage you have posted.
But you ignore this and restate your point that the US violated the UN, and did so in an "in-your-face" manner. Ignoring your errors will not make them go away.
Afghanistan might be a stretch
July 22, 2007 - 05:54 ET by Brett Paatschbut it is a stretch that I am making in W's favour.
Not so Iraq.
I want a refund
July 22, 2007 - 12:27 ET by regimeofterrorIf this is the garbage that my taxes are paying for I want a refund.
Saddam Hussein and terrorism. The rest of the story...
http://www.regimeoft...
For those of you STILL
July 22, 2007 - 15:33 ET by Space CowboyFor those of you STILL confused as to the grounds for impeachment - who can't seem to get your head around the idea that Bush and Cheney have done anything out of the ordinary in their use of the powers of the presidency - here's a question to ponder: are you OK with a Democratic president taking over the office and assuming the powers that Bush/Cheney have accumulated?
If you don't think that this is an "imperial" presidency, unprecedented in U.S. history, you simply aren't paying attention. If the powers Bush/Cheney have asserted to be the proper domain of the presidency remain unchallenge, they will pass to the next president as they currently stand. Doesn't mean that they will be used by the next president the way Bush/Cheney did, but it doesn't mean they won't either. But, do you seriously think that, when given the opportunity, won't be tempted to use and even expand these powers ?
If you're OK with a Democrat doing what these guys have done then, by all means, let's ignore the impeachment option. But, if you agree with Moyer's conservative guest, Bruce Fein, ignoring impeachment will be a big mistake. Bruce Fein is a nationally and internationallyrecognized expert on Constitutional law. an adjunct scholar with theAmerican Enterprise Institute, a resident scholar at the Heritage Foundation, alecturer at the Bookings Institute, and an adjunct professor at GeorgeWashington University.
Fein, who wrote that article of impeachment against Bill Clinton, believes Bush's crimes (Fein's word) are more worrisome than Clinton's "because he is seeking more institutionally to cripple checks and balances and the authority of Congress and the judiciary to superintend his assertions of power."
As Fein notes in the interview with Moyers, these powers will pass to the next president. If that happens, and that president is a Democrat that abuses the office like Bush/Cheney, don't come crying to me. You will have gotten exactly what you deserve.
Clinton went to Kosovo, not the UN
July 22, 2007 - 15:38 ET by Pragmatic-ManClinton went to Kosovo, bypassing the UN.
So I would say that you must first determine how BJ's disregard for the UN is okay, while Bush's repeated appeals to the UN and subsequent resolutions, which were abided, but is somehow a horrid transgression.
Didn't BJ Billy also do a
July 22, 2007 - 15:44 ET byDidn't BJ Billy also do a whole bunch of presidential decrees and bypass the Congress?
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
executive order post-it notes
July 22, 2007 - 15:50 ET by Pragmatic-ManBJ wrote executive orders like they were post-it notes.
botg & Prag,
July 22, 2007 - 16:03 ET by Dave RHere's a list of Billy Jeff's executive orders broken down by year.
Interesting reading.
Help Fred defeat everybody.
Thanks Dave
July 22, 2007 - 16:10 ET byit has been logged in my Libs folder right next to this
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
botg,
July 22, 2007 - 16:49 ET by Dave RBeing a FOB could be darned dangerous.
BTW-That list of body guards was interesting, as I had never seen that one before.
Help Fred defeat everybody.
thanks Dave
July 22, 2007 - 16:21 ET by Pragmatic-ManThanks, Dave. I'll put it in one of the pockets in my cape.
I assume you're making the
July 22, 2007 - 15:50 ET by Space CowboyI assume you're making the case that the Iraq invasion was "legal" because Bush "appealed to the UN" before invading or cited UN resolutions as cause?
First, this isn't even close to the central theme for impeachment. You're nibbling on one small piece of the possible impeachment pie and one that is very minor.
Second, Bush played the UN like a fiddle in the leadup to the war. He'd made up his mind long before he even appeared at the UN that he was invading Iraq (see the Downing Street Memos) and that appearance was only at the insistence of Tony Blair and some in his administration worried that he needed to appear to be pursuing a peaceful resolution. How truely bizzare that you would even raise the issue of the UN after the way Bush pissed on them.
Iraq legal because of 1441
July 22, 2007 - 15:54 ET by Pragmatic-ManSpace, take a gander at the entire thread on this topic. The thrashing of this topic is rather comprehensive. Yes, Bush invaded legally, with Congressional approval, UN 1441 resolution abiding, and in accord with Article 51 of the Un Charter.
Now, how about addressing BJ's complete bypass of the UN regarding Kosovo. Or are you going to ignore this point AGAIN.
Sorry guys. Don't have
July 22, 2007 - 16:08 ET by Space CowboySorry guys. Don't have time for a full-on discussion at this time. I'll leave you, once again, with the question I wanted you to contemplate: are you comfortable with a Democrat inheriting the powers that Bush/Cheney have accumulated? Contemplate how it's going to feel with the shoe on the other foot.
Got to go. Sorry to post and run but I don't have the time or inclination to argue the minutia of Clinton/Kosovo etc. etc.
no inclination = no argument
July 22, 2007 - 16:12 ET by Pragmatic-ManNo inclination, space? So inclination to argue that your boy BJ stepped WAAAay overboard when he invaded Kosovo (with respect to the UN).
No inclination = no plausible argument.
glad to have dhimmicrats inherit powers
July 22, 2007 - 16:18 ET by Pragmatic-ManSpace, if the dhimmicrats win the Presidency, then yes, they should inherit all of the powers of the office. Why would I not want them to have the full power of the US Presidnecy at their disposal?
If the shoe were on the other foot, then dhimmicrats would have invaded Iraq, sewn the seeds of democracy throughout the mideast, and pursued with zeal the inclusion of the UN towrads these ends.
But will you address BJ? No, and it is because his transgressions were indefensible. His presidency was a case study in what not to do as President of the USA.
Broderick, Kosovo, nuke secrets to China, Vince Foster, Ron Brown, MacDougal, Whitewater, Lewinsky.
What a complete lack of character this man has, this Bill Clinton.
nibbling impeachment pie?
July 22, 2007 - 15:56 ET by Pragmatic-ManSo, space, what other ingredients would you put into your impeachment pie?
Space,
July 22, 2007 - 15:48 ET by Dave RLike I've said before, you libs need to be really careful what you ask for. You just may get it.
You guys are engaging in what has to be some seriously painful mental gymnastics to come up with all kinds of convoluted reasons that Messrs. Bush & Cheney, who have only 18 months remaining in their terms, should be removed from office. Yet, in your fanatical zeal to condemn them you, like most zealots, are forgetting one very important fact: The standards that you guys set can, and most likely will, be used against a democrat president somewhere down the line. Perhaps even as soon as two years from now.
By the standards you guys are advocating, the next democrat president that finds him/herself with a republican congress had best not so much as step on a crack in the sidewalk.
Remember, it's all on the wheel, and it all comes around.
Help Fred defeat everybody.
So, your "it's all on the
July 22, 2007 - 16:01 ET by Space CowboySo, your "it's all on the wheel" reasoning would argue for the impeachment of Bush/Cheney BECAUSE Clinton was impeached? That would at least be consistent - although I don't think consistency is your strong suite here or your intention.
As Fein points out, what Clinton did didn't strike at the foundation of our constitution. There is actually NO comparison to what Clinton did and what Bush/Cheney have done. And, if a Democratic president had done what Bush/Cheney did, I would want him/her impeached!
But, most Democrats agree that impeachment is off the table. That is strictly a strategic decision. They don't want the distraction and they do want the presidency in '08. The last thing they want to do is unite the Republicans.
I personally think they owe it to the country and the constitution to impeach - as Bruce Fein does. At least Fein is philosphically consistent. He argued for both Clinton's and Bush/Cheney's impeachment althouth pointing out the more serious nature of the crimes of Bush/Cheney. Very few Republicans currently are consistent and I think they - as well as the cowardly Democrats - are a disgrace.
a disgrace...
July 22, 2007 - 16:09 ET by Pragmatic-ManDisgraceful is lying to a grand jury. If this is not disgraceful, then free Libby. Argue that perjury to a federal grand jury is not a disgrace.
Now, argue that defending this country in a time of war is a disgrace. And you already have done so. So it is not a stretch that you are supporter of surrender. If you would impeach a President over his lawful actions to defend the country, then you must be trying any way possible to surrender.
I am waiting for your list of impeachment pie ingredients. So far the pan is empty.
See my comment above. Got
July 22, 2007 - 16:15 ET by Space CowboySee my comment above. Got to go.
Spacely
July 22, 2007 - 16:18 ET bysee my LINKS above but don't stay on my account
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.