| Author | Message | | Guest | | Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2003 3:03 pm Post subject: SCOTT RITTER CALLS FOR US TO IMPEACH GEORGE BUSH |
| As WorldNetDaily reported yesterday, Ritter is calling for the ouster of President Bush for what he feels are unnecessary and murderous actions in the conflict with Iraq.
"I would be in favor of the impeachment of President Bush for high crimes and misdemeanors," the 41-year old former Marine told WND. "Murder is a high crime and misdemeanor, and I can't think of any better definition than murder when he talks about American service members and putting them in a war which is not only illegal but is based on a foundation of lies."
"When you go to war you open up a Pandora's box, the results of which cannot be predicted," he said. "Therefore, there better be a darned good reason to go to war. It's got to be worth the sacrifice that you're asking others to make."
WorldNetDaily recently interviewed Ritter via telephone as he drove from his New York home to appear on Fox News. Throughout the interview, he contended that media have consistently missed his primary concern regarding the proposed military strike against Iraq.
Ritter said the issue is the abrogation of the rule of law, which he views as setting the U.S. up for a particularly nasty potential scenario – U.S. troops cornered in Iraq, subject to chemical attack, which then prompts the use of nuclear weapons by the U.S.
"The Bush administration has put forward a nuclear policy planning document which clearly states a scenario in which nuclear weapons can be used pre-emptively and that scenario is tens of thousands of troops in a hostile land, threatened by the potential of chemical and biological weapons," he said. "And clearly, Iraq could evolve into such a situation.
"What's wrong with diplomacy, what's wrong with inspectors, what's wrong with the rule of law?" he asked.
WorldNetDaily asked Ritter whether he agreed with the contention that Bush's foreign policy constituted a violation of the United Nations and Nuremberg charters.
Ritter reiterated that the U.S. is a signatory to the U.N. Charter, which "stipulates that war is rejected as a means to resolve disputes and conflicts," although he allowed that there are exceptions, as "when the collective, the U.N. Security Council, finds a situation exists that threatens international peace. Then under chapter seven of the charter, it can be resolved by use of force."
Still, Ritter does not find the current situation in Iraq to meet this criteria, and therefore views the idea of a pre-emptive strike as unconstitutional and a violation of American law.
"It has no grounds in legality," he said.
"This is a constitutional issue," he continued. "I think there can be no doubt his policy is a violation of the Constitution, except that constitutional lawyers will say that judicial system will not get involved in matters of national security … There are interpretation issues – what are the limits of executive authority? … I think that it's not so much the legality of his actions. I view it as being unconstitutional … I'm sure many will say the president has these authorities regarding national security."
Ritter also said that impeachment and indictment were legitimate issues.
"What I would find to be grounds of impeachment is the president lying to the American people," he said. "I believe the president has lied to the American people. I believe the vice president has lied to the American people.
"And if we go to war where American service members are killed, I think the president should be held accountable for this judicially," Ritter stated.
"I would be in favor of the impeachment of President Bush for high crimes and misdemeanors," said Ritter. "Murder is a high crime and misdemeanor, and I can't think of any better definition than murder when he talks about American service members and putting them in a war which is not only illegal but is based on a foundation of lies."
WND also asked Ritter about comments he made in an interview with William Pitt, appearing in the book "War on Iraq: What Team Bush doesn't want you to know."
In that interview, Ritter said that "Donald Rumsfeld was politically dead. No one thought of Donald Rumsfeld as having any potential. Paul Wolfowitz was seen as a raving lunatic of the far right. Richard Perle is not called 'The Prince of Darkness' without cause."
Ritter characterized the leaders as "sniping from the fringes," and said "suddenly they're running the show," adding that for this reason, these are "extremely dangerous times."
WND asked Ritter whether he viewed these people as having taken this turn since taking office, or always having been that way.
"Well, they were always this way," he said. "Wolfowitz was always a very dangerous man. He is a walking affront to the Constitution of the U.S. He is a walking affront to international law. The same with Richard Perle . He was openly boastful how President Bush has no other choice but go to war because he's committed too much political capital."
Ritter concluded, "If Richard Perle thinks [that's] a reason to go to war then he might as well remove the American flag from outside his building and put on a swastika and call himself what he is, which is a Nazi. This is the rule of law, not about going to war for political convenience of any single individual."
WorldNetDaily then asked Ritter why, if these political figures were always this way, he voted them into power by voting for President Bush. The former U.N. inspector argued that he didn't vote for them, just for Bush, adding that Gore was a "known commodity – a liar," and that he had actually initially supported Sen. John McCain. | |  | | Guest | | | | Guest | | Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2003 3:13 pm Post subject: IMPEACH PRESIDENT BUSH! |
| IMPEACH PRESIDENT BUSH!
Subj: FW: IMPEACH PRESIDENT BUSH!
Date: 1/17/03 12:27:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: FBOYLE@LAW.UIUC.EDU
Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign, IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954(voice)
217-244-1478(fax)
fboyle@law.uiuc.edu
(personal comments only)
Impeachment Resolution Against President George W. Bush
by
Francis A. Boyle
Professor of Law
January 17, 2003
108nd Congress H.Res.XX
1st Session
Impeaching George Walker Bush, President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors.
_______________________________________________
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January __, 2003
Mr./Ms. Y submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
________________________________________________
A RESOLUTION
Impeaching George Walker Bush, President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors.
Impeaching George Walker Bush, President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors.
Resolved, That George Walker Bush, President of the United States is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the Senate:
Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of all of the people of the United States of America, against George Walker Bush, President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.
ARTICLE I
In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, George Walker Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has attempted to impose a police state and a military dictatorship upon the people and Republic of the United States of America by means of "a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations" against the Constitution since September 11, 2001. This subversive conduct includes but is not limited to trying to suspend the constitutional Writ of Habeas Corpus; ramming the totalitarian U.S.A. Patriot Act through Congress; the mass-round-up and incarceration of foreigners; kangaroo courts; depriving at least two United States citizens of their constitutional rights by means of military incarceration; interference with the constitutional right of defendants in criminal cases to lawyers; violating and subverting the Posse Comitatus Act; unlawful and unreasonable searches and seizures; violating the First Amendments rights of the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, peaceable assembly, and to petition the government for redress of grievances; packing the federal judiciary with hand-picked judges belonging to the totalitarian Federalist Society and undermining the judicial independence of the Constitution's Article III federal court system; violating the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions and the U.S. War Crimes Act; violating the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; reinstitution of the infamous "Cointelpro" Program; violating the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the Convention against Torture, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; instituting the totalitarian Total Information Awareness Program; and establishing a totalitarian Northern Military Command for the United States of America itself. In all of this George Walker Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.
ARTICLE II
In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, George Walker Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. U.S. soldiers in the Middle East are overwhelmingly poor White, Black, and Latino and their military service is based on the coercion of a system that has denied viable economic opportunities to these classes of citizens. Under the Constitution, all classes of citizens are guaranteed equal protection of the laws, and calling on the poor and minorities to fight a war for oil to preserve the lifestyles of the wealthy power elite of this country is a denial of the rights of these soldiers. In all of this George Walker Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.
ARTICLE III
In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, George Walker Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has violated the U.S. Constitution, federal law, and the United Nations Charter by bribing, intimidating and threatening others, including the members of the United Nations Security Council, to support belligerent acts against Iraq. In all of this George Walker Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.
ARTICLE IV
In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, George Walker Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prepared, planned, and conspired to engage in a massive war and catastrophic aggression against Iraq by employing methods of mass destruction that will result in the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians, many of whom will be children. This planning includes the threatened use of nuclear weapons, and the use of such indiscriminate weapons and massive killings by aerial bombardment, or otherwise, of civilians, violates the Hague Regulations on land warfare, the rules of customary international law set forth in the Hague Rules of Air Warfare, the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Protocol I thereto, the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles, the Genocide Convention, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956). In all of this George Walker Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.
ARTICLE V
In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, George Walker Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has committed the United States to acts of war without congressional consent and contrary to the United Nations Charter and international law. From September, 2001 through January, 2003, the President embarked on a course of action that systematically eliminated every option for peaceful resolution of the Persian Gulf crisis. Once the President approached Congress for consent to war, tens of thousands of American soldiers' lives were in jeopardy - rendering any substantive debate by Congress meaningless. The President has not received a Declaration of War by Congress, and in contravention of the written word, the spirit, and the intent of the U.S. Constitution has declared that he will go to war regardless of the views of the American people. In failing to seek and obtain a Declaration of War, George Walker Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.
ARTICLE VI
In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, George Walker Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has planned, prepared, and conspired to commit crimes against the peace by leading the United States into aggressive war against Iraq in violation of Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles, the Kellogg-Brand Pact, U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956), numerous other international treaties and agreements, and the Constitution of the United States. In all of this George Walker Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.
(In memory of Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez - R.I.P. - and H. Res. 86, 102nd Cong., 1st Sess., Jan. 16, 1991.) | | | | Guest | | Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2003 7:38 pm Post subject: |
| | Quote: | | "The Bush administration has put forward a nuclear policy planning document which clearly states a scenario in which nuclear weapons can be used pre-emptively and that scenario is tens of thousands of troops in a hostile land, threatened by the potential of chemical and biological weapons," he said. "And clearly, Iraq could evolve into such a situation. |
Once again evidence of Ritter lying, losing his mind - or both.
You told us those weapons don't exist, Scott. How can Iraq "evolve into such a situation" if those weapons don't exist? | | | | Guest | | Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2003 8:21 pm Post subject: |
| | Hes probably talking of friendly fire. | | | | Guest | | Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2003 10:13 pm Post subject: Beyond Regime Change, new 'old' Sykes-Picot agreement |
| Beyond Regime Change, new 'old' Sykes-Picot agreement
The Bush administration doesn't simply want to oust Saddam Hussein. It wants to redraw the Mideast map.
Key policymakers are motivated by twin hopes: to control oil and to protect Israel.
cached at http://www.khilafah.com/home/category.php?DocumentID=5717&TagID=2
available at LATimes (free registration)
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq6dec06.story
By Sandy Tolan
BERKELEY -- If you want to know what the administration has in mind for Iraq, here's a hint: It has less to do with weapons of mass destruction
than with implementing an ambitious U.S. vision to redraw the map of the Middle East.
The new map would be drawn with an eye to two main objectives: controlling
the flow of oil and ensuring Israel's continued regional military
superiority. The plan is, in its way, as ambitious as the 1916 Sykes-Picot
agreement between the empires of Britain and France, which carved up the
region at the fall of the Ottoman Empire. The neo-imperial vision, which
can be ascertained from the writings of key administration figures and
their co- visionaries in influential conservative think tanks, includes not
only regime change in Iraq but control of Iraqi oil, a possible end to the
Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and newly compliant
governments in Syria and Iran -- either by force or internal rebellion.
For the first step -- the end of Saddam Hussein -- Sept. 11 provided the
rationale. But the seeds of regime change came far earlier. "Removing
Saddam from power," according to a 1996 report from an Israeli think tank
to then-incoming Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, was "an important
Israeli strategic objective." Now this has become official U.S. policy,
after several of the report's authors took up key strategic and advisory
roles within the Bush administration. They include Richard Perle, now chair
of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board; Douglas Feith, undersecretary of
defense; and David Wurmser, special assistant in the State Department. In
1998, these men, joined by Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz (now the top
two officials in the Pentagon), Elliott Abrams (a senior National Security
Council director), John Bolton (undersecretary of State) and 21 others
called for "a determined program to change the regime in Baghdad."
After removing Hussein, U.S. forces are planning for an open-ended
occupation of Iraq, according to senior administration officials who spoke
to the New York Times. The invasion, said Iraqi dissident Kanan Makiya,
would be "a historic opportunity that is as large as anything that has
happened in the Middle East since the fall of the Ottoman Empire." Makiya
spoke at an October "Post-Saddam Iraq" conference attended by Perle and
sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute.
Any occupation would certainly include protecting petroleum installations.
Control of the country's vast oil reserves, the second largest in the world
and worth nearly $3 trillion at current prices, would be a huge strategic
prize. Some analysts believe that additional production in Iraq could drive
world prices down to as low as $10 a barrel and precipitate Iraq's
departure from OPEC, possibly undermining the cartel. This, together with
Russia's new willingness to become a major U.S. oil supplier, could
establish a long-sought counterweight to Saudi Arabia, still the biggest
influence by far on global oil prices. It would be consistent with the plan
released by Vice President Dick Cheney's team in June, which underscored
"energy security" as central to U.S. foreign policy. "The Gulf will be a
primary focus of U.S. international energy policy," the report states.
Some analysts prefer to downplay the drive to control Iraqi oil. "It is
fashionable among anti-American circles ... to assume that U.S. foreign
policy is driven by commercial considerations," said Patrick Clawson, an
oil and policy analyst with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy,
in an October talk. Rather, Clawson said, oil "has barely been on the
administration's horizon in considering Iraq policy.... U.S. foreign policy
is not driven by concern for promoting the interests of specific U.S. firms."
Yet Clawson, whose institute enjoys close ties with the Bush
administration, was more candid during a Capitol Hill forum on a post-
Hussein Iraq in 1999: "U.S. oil companies would have an opportunity to make
significant profits," he said. "We should not be embarrassed about the
commercial advantages that would come from a re-integration of Iraq into
the world economy. Iraq, post-Saddam, is highly likely to be interested in
inviting international oil companies to invest in Iraq. This would be very
useful for U.S. oil companies, which are well positioned to compete there,
and very useful for the world's energy-security situation."
Indeed, Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmad Chalabi, whose close ties with
Perle, Wurmser, Rumsfeld and Cheney predate the current Bush
administration, met recently with U.S. oil executives. Afterward, Chalabi,
the would-be "Iraqi Karzai" and the hawks' long-standing choice to lead a
post-Hussein Iraq, made it clear he would give preference to an American-
led oil consortium. He also suggested that previous deals -- totaling tens
of billions of dollars for Russia's Lukoil and France's TotalFinaElf --
could be voided.
Next month, key Iraqi exiles will meet with oil executives at an English
country retreat to discuss the future of Iraqi petroleum. The conference,
sponsored by the Center for Global Energy Studies and chaired by Sheik Zaki
Yamani, the former Saudi oil minister, will feature Maj. Gen. Wafiq
Samarrai, the former head of Iraqi military intelligence, and former Iraqi
Oil Minister Fadhil Chalabi, now executive director of the center.
Fadhil Chalabi estimates that total oil reserves in Iraq could exceed Saudi
Arabia's and that daily production one day could reach 10 million barrels,
making it the world's largest producer. Hence, on the center's conference
agenda is a discussion of Iraq as a "second Saudi Arabia," and the prospect
of a world without OPEC. Oil executives and analysts heading to the country
retreat will also be able to purchase the center's 800-page analysis of the
prospects for exploration in Iraq. The cost: $52,500.
But taking over Iraq and remaking the global oil market is not necessarily
the endgame. The next steps, favored by hard-liners determined to elevate
Israeli security above all other U.S. foreign policy goals, would be to
destroy any remaining perceived threat to the Jewish state: namely, the
regimes in Syria and Iran.
"The War Won't End in Baghdad," wrote the American Enterprise Institute's
Michael Ledeen in the Wall Street Journal. In 1985, as a consultant to the
National Security Council and Oliver North, Ledeen helped broker the
illegal arms-for-hostages deal with Iran by setting up meetings between
weapons dealers and Israel. In the current war, he argues, "we must also
topple terror states in Tehran and Damascus."
In urging the expansion of the war on terror to Syria and Iran, Ledeen does
not mention Israel. Yet Israel is a crucial strategic reason for the
hard-line vision to "roll back" Syria and Iran -- and another reason why
control of Iraq is seen as crucial. In 1998, Wurmser, now in the State
Department, told the Jewish newspaper Forward that if Ahmad Chalabi were in
power and extended a no-fly, no-drive zone in northern Iraq, it would
provide the crucial piece for an anti-Syria, anti-Iran bloc. "It puts Scuds
out of the range of Israel and provides the geographic beachhead between
Turkey, Jordan and Israel," he said. "This should anchor the Middle East
pro-Western coalition."
Perle, in the same 1998 article, told Forward that a coalition of
pro-Israeli groups was "at the forefront with the legislation with regard
to Iran. One can only speculate what it might accomplish if it decided to
focus its attention on Saddam Hussein." And Perle, Wurmser and Feith (now
in the Pentagon), in their 1996 Israeli think tank report to Netanyahu,
argued for abandoning efforts for a comprehensive peace in favor of a
policy of "rolling back" Syria to protect Israel's interests.
Now, however, Israel is given a lower profile by those who would argue for
rollback. Rather, writes Ledeen, U.S. troops would be put at risk in order
to "liberate all the peoples of the Middle East." And this, he argues,
would be virtually pain-free: "If we come to Baghdad, Damascus and Tehran
as liberators, we can expect overwhelming popular support."
Perle concurs on Iraq -- "The Arab World ... will consider honor and
dignity has been restored" -- as well as Iran: "It is the beginning of the
end for the Iranian regime."
Now, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has joined the call against
Tehran, arguing in a November interview with the Times of London that the
U.S. should shift its focus to Iran "the day after" the Iraq war ends.
The vast ambition of such changes to the Middle Eastern map would seem an
inherent deterrent. But it is precisely this historical sweep, reminiscent
of Sykes-Picot and the British arrival in Iraq in 1917, that many close to
the administration seek. Publicly, Perle and Ledeen cling to the fantasy
that American troops would be welcomed in Baghdad, Tehran and Damascus with
garlands of flowers. Yet they are too smart to ignore the rage across the
Arab and Muslim worlds that would surely erupt in the wake of war on
multiple Middle Eastern fronts.
Indeed, the foreshadowing is already with us: in Bali, in Moscow, in Yemen
and on the streets of Amman. It's clear that even in Jordan, a close ally
of the U.S., the anger at a U.S. attack on Iraq could be hard to contain.
Indeed, the hard-liners in and around the administration seem to know in
their hearts that the battle to carve up the Middle East would not be won
without the blood of Americans and their allies. "One can only hope that we
turn the region into a caldron, and faster, please," Ledeen preached to the
choir at National Review Online last August. "That's our mission in the war
against terror."
Sandy Tolan, an I.F. Stone Fellow at the Graduate School of Journalism at
UC Berkeley, reports frequently on the Middle East. Jason Felch, a student
in Tolan's "Politics and Petroleum" class, contributed to this article.
Source: Los Angeles Times
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | | | | Guest | | Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2003 10:18 pm Post subject: Ledeen is a JINSA Zionist Extremist... |
| Ledeen (who is mentioned above) is a JINSA (Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs) Zionist extremist who wants an attack on Iran as well (as mentioned via the following article which is a MUST READ):
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020902&s=vest&c=1 | | | | Guest | | Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2003 10:43 pm Post subject: |
| Nice, smooth topic transition.
Where's that "guest" who chooses to enfore that just for me? | | | | Guest | | | | Guest | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
