Things that Bush could be charged with.

Tom_Aurum · Post by **Tom_Aurum** » 2005-01-27 12:59am

Suspending the writ of Habeas Corpus

(Constitution section I: 9)

As much as people want to say that this does not apply for outlanders, it does. The only time it can be suspended is in cases of "rebellion and invasion." While for a short while the president may have been able to claim it, he ran out of that fast. In fact, some prisoners held in guantanamo bay from england were recently released, in Bush's second term!!

(Ammendment I )?!

Call me crazy but I think that his faith based initiatives funded by federal money smell like an attempt to establish religion myself. I'm sure this has been hashed back and forth.

Slander, of some sort:

Although bush and cheney were very frigging careful about not lying under oath (there was that whole thing with the 9 11 commision where they refused to testify, or at least refused to take oath.) I beleive that lead ing a country into war under knowingly false premises could be seen as a crime.

Just a few here, I'm sure there's more.

Rihannsu Science Officer · Post by **Rihannsu Science Officer** » 2005-01-27 05:43pm

Not that Saddam Hussein should have been left to murder and torture at will, but the claims of him having WMD's appear to be false. He had to go, but not for the reason Bush claimed.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2005-01-27 06:28pm

Charged with what? It's a long established legal principle that government officials can't be sued or criminally charged for policy decisions. There's no criminal penalty for passing a law that violates the first amendment in the United States code.

The only thing on that list that could THEORETICALLY be a basis for a charge is Bush and Cheney's testimony to the 911 commission. If they'd lied under oath, that would be purjury, an impeachable offense. The rest might be bad government, but not a basis for civil or criminal proceedings.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2005-01-28 12:58am

war crimes are a popular charge. attacking a sovriegn nation with no justification, et al.

"we're saving them from themselves!"

didnt we hear that for checkslovakia?

"they are a clear and present danger!"

poland. .

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2005-01-28 01:41am

Yeah but I think if it's not impeachable, you usually have to wait till afterwards.

Unless that's not how US presidency works

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2005-01-28 07:07am

Enforcer Talen wrote:war crimes are a popular charge. attacking a sovriegn nation with no justification, et al.

"we're saving them from themselves!"

didnt we hear that for checkslovakia?

"they are a clear and present danger!"

poland. .

And perhaps they'll send the security guard from the United Nations gift shop to arrest him.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2005-01-28 02:26pm

the op was charged, not prosecuted

Tom_Aurum · Post by **Tom_Aurum** » 2005-01-29 03:49pm

I almost forgot.

Breach of Contract:
You should know about the stupid stop loss policy by now, but if you don't here's a rundown. Soldiers are being kept in their posts for longer than the amount of time that they signed up for. Much longer.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2005-01-29 03:53pm

Tom_Aurum wrote: Breach of Contract:
You should know about the stupid stop loss policy by now, but if you don't here's a rundown. Soldiers are being kept in their posts for longer than the amount of time that they signed up for. Much longer.

Its not breach of contract because the Defense Deparment holds the right to REWRIGHT military service contracts and MAKE you sign the new one

Tom_Aurum · Post by **Tom_Aurum** » 2005-01-29 03:59pm

A contract cannot be signed lawfully under duress or force, pure and simple. Not that I think any of these soldiers signed such a thing. Oh, and spell rewrite correctly, please.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2005-01-29 04:07pm

Tom_Aurum wrote:A contract cannot be signed lawfully under duress or force, pure and simple. Not that I think any of these soldiers signed such a thing. Oh, and spell rewrite correctly, please.

Know what? I don't give a shit as long as you can understand me. Mastery of the english word is not a goal in my life.

As for your comment its PART of the existing contract that the Defense department has the ability to re-right your contract at behest of Congress to whatever the hell pleases them

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2005-01-29 09:21pm

Tom_Aurum wrote:I almost forgot.

Breach of Contract:
You should know about the stupid stop loss policy by now, but if you don't here's a rundown. Soldiers are being kept in their posts for longer than the amount of time that they signed up for. Much longer.

1) Breach of contract is a civil, not criminal matter

2) Every military contract contains a stop-loss clause. It might be a dirty trick to use it as a backdoor draft, but it's legal

Give it up, would you? Bush isn't going anywhere unless he commits Watergate level tomfoolery, and that's just the way it is. It would be a lot more productive to figure out ways to block his and his allies' agenda in Congress than sit around fantasizing about the Bush impeachment that wouldn't happen anyway with large Republican majorities in both houses.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2005-01-29 10:38pm

Is it a crime to violate an oath of office? Purjury perhaps?

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2005-01-29 10:48pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:Is it a crime to violate an oath of office? Purjury perhaps?

Under the Constitution, the oath of office is legally binding. However, what "preserve, protect, and defend the Constituion of the United States" actually means is undefined. So no dice on a purjury charge there. And would you really care to open that particular can of worms anyway? A chief executive worried about getting impeached for purjury every time he took actions which are consitutionally ambiguous (or appear to be so) would not be particularly effective. This side of staging a coup or committing another crime, there's not much a President could do to get charged with violating his oath.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2005-01-29 10:51pm

RedImperator wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:Is it a crime to violate an oath of office? Purjury perhaps?
Under the Constitution, the oath of office is legally binding. However, what "preserve, protect, and defend the Constituion of the United States" actually means is undefined. So no dice on a purjury charge there. And would you really care to open that particular can of worms anyway? A chief executive worried about getting impeached for purjury every time he took actions which are consitutionally ambiguous (or appear to be so) would not be particularly effective. This side of staging a coup or committing another crime, there's not much a President could do to get charged with violating his oath.

Damn it all to hell...

*sigh* I am pretty sure pissing on the constitution applies.. but you are right, there is no way they could be charges

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2005-01-29 10:55pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:
RedImperator wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:Is it a crime to violate an oath of office? Purjury perhaps?
Under the Constitution, the oath of office is legally binding. However, what "preserve, protect, and defend the Constituion of the United States" actually means is undefined. So no dice on a purjury charge there. And would you really care to open that particular can of worms anyway? A chief executive worried about getting impeached for purjury every time he took actions which are consitutionally ambiguous (or appear to be so) would not be particularly effective. This side of staging a coup or committing another crime, there's not much a President could do to get charged with violating his oath.
Damn it all to hell...

*sigh* I am pretty sure pissing on the constitution applies.. but you are right, there is no way they could be charges

You know, part of living in a democratic republic is accepting when the other guy wins.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2005-01-29 11:02pm

You kidding? There are times when I want the entire CONGRESS arrested on those charges.

consequences · Post by **consequences** » 2005-01-29 11:25pm

Tom_Aurum wrote:A contract cannot be signed lawfully under duress or force, pure and simple. Not that I think any of these soldiers signed such a thing. Oh, and spell rewrite correctly, please.

I don't recall ever insisting that there was a clause in the contract saying they wouldn't change it at their whim, so I really don't see any point in bitching. I takes their money, I takes my chances.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2005-01-29 11:32pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:You kidding? There are times when I want the entire CONGRESS arrested on those charges.

Part of living in freedom is accepting that other definitions of freedom do apply.

Bushy has his bad parts, but no worse than Billy's bad parts. Or George the 41'sts or Reagan's or Carter's, ect....

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2005-01-29 11:44pm

Knife wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:You kidding? There are times when I want the entire CONGRESS arrested on those charges.
Part of living in freedom is accepting that other definitions of freedom do apply.

Bushy has his bad parts, but no worse than Billy's bad parts. Or George the 41'sts or Reagan's or Carter's, ect....

True(which is why I am joking)

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2005-01-29 11:52pm

Granted, though (I'm not a bush supporter) it does get tiresome of the 'bush hateres'. I didn't vote for Bush in 2004. But damn, he got it fair and square. Deal, and vote differently in 2008.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2005-01-30 12:05am

Knife wrote:Granted, though (I'm not a bush supporter) it does get tiresome of the 'bush hateres'. I didn't vote for Bush in 2004. But damn, he got it fair and square. Deal, and vote differently in 2008.

Yeah, he did win both popular and electoral votes. he is in... crying about it cant help.

Tom_Aurum · Post by **Tom_Aurum** » 2005-01-30 01:50pm

I'm sorry, a president who has a stated goal of denying a certain section of the population civil rights is a president that I would like to see become useless. And we're talking about his stupid gay marriage crusade, in case you're wondering.

Tom_Aurum · Post by **Tom_Aurum** » 2005-01-30 01:57pm

Excuse me, I'm talking about his stupid gay marriage crusade. Not meaning to be inclusive.

Post by **Beowulf** » 2005-01-30 04:17pm

Here's an idea: try doing something useful. No charge that you could think of would make it to impeachment anyways, so daydreaming isn't going to help anything.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Things that Bush could be charged with.

Things that Bush could be charged with.

So what more would it take to impeach Bush?

Re: Things that Bush could be charged with.