What is Digg?188 Comments
- TheLastProphet, on 10/12/2007, -10/+79"cites" violations. Sorry. Silly mistake.
- rebrad, on 10/12/2007, -10/+66I'm surprised only 97% of the dailykos think Bush should be impeached considering the clientele.
- chrono13, on 10/12/2007, -13/+68No.
- chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -15/+4697% of DailyKos users - this is like saying 100% of NAMBLA members think men should be able to have secual relations with boys.
- paintist, on 10/12/2007, -7/+38The article unfortunately follows the form "allegation and specific law violated" (for the most part) instead of the more important form of "allegation, evidence to support allegation, and specific law violated."
- daldredge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+27Since when does the US Army Field Manual have the force of law?
Law violated:
US Army Field Manual, Chapter 5, section 3. - ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -8/+34It's not a trap.
If you violate the law in office, you should be brought before impeachment. If you are guilty, then you should be removed from office. If you believe they are guilty of ANY of the accusations cited, then you should vote "Yes," whether or not you agree with all of them. If you can sit there and say, "I think they're guilty of the torture thing and the extradition thing, but not the other 12, so I guess 10 out of 12 is a pretty good job," then you're sorely confused. Any one of these crimes is impeachable, 2 of them is painful and 14 is disgusting. - redmaxx, on 10/12/2007, -5/+26No, to impeach him sends the message to future presidents that the American public will not tolerate these things. To not impeach him sends the message that we don't care, as long as you are fighting something that is scaring us.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -15/+29They are not going to get impeached. Get over it. Enough already!
- ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15A really heavy poisonous rock with low levels of radiation that causes cancer. But, still, a really heavy rock.
- ramaz, on 10/12/2007, -16/+30I support impeachment, but I don't necessarily agree with each of the 14 accusations. A number of these "violations of law" will remain mired in the ambiguity of whether or not we are in a real war, or a war in any sense.
However, the use of torture as an interrogation method is a violation of human rights by any measure, wartime or no.
I wish the poster of this webpage had used a little more common sense in the wording of the poll. I voted "no" just for accuracy, and to make my point: don't trap people into voting all or none. - quandrum, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19dylanrush -
The power to declare war, as defined by the US Constitution lies solely with the Congress. I believe it was refined during Vietnam to allow the President to respond to military situtations for 90 days before the President needs the Congress' permission, but the President does not, and has never had, the power to declare war.
And since Iraq posed no immediate threat, there is on reason Bush shouldn't have gotten that permission besides his obvious problems with limits on his authority. - Richjt92, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15musicmantrs...
The Impeachment actually happens in the House of Representatives (with a Majority vote on the Article of Impeachment) and the Senate has the trial for removal on those articles with a 2/3 Majority vote for removal...
From the Cornell Website (http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/impeach/impeach.htm) the process is as follows:
The Impeachment Process in a Nutshell
1. The House Judiciary Committee deliberates over whether to initiate an impeachment inquiry.
2. The Judiciary Committee adopts a resolution seeking authority from the entire House of Representatives to conduct an inquiry. Before voting, the House debates and considers the resolution. Approval requires a majority vote.
3. The Judiciary Committee conducts an impeachment inquiry, possibly through public hearings. At the conclusion of the inquiry, articles of impeachment are prepared. They must be approved by a majority of the Committee.
4. The House of Representatives considers and debates the articles of impeachment. A majority vote of the entire House is required to pass each article. Once an article is approved, the President is, technically speaking, "impeached" -- that is subject to trial in the Senate.
5. The Senate holds trial on the articles of impeachment approved by the House. The Senate sits as a jury while the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the trial.
6. At the conclusion of the trial, the Senate votes on whether to remove the President from office. A two-thirds vote by the Members present in the Senate is required for removal.
7. If the President is removed, the Vice-President assumes the Presidency under the chain of succession established by Amendment XXV.
Just to clarify...and it would be futile since the Democrats will not get 67 votes for impeachment... - rebrad, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14musicmantrs Government paralysis is a good thing. The less the government can ***** with you the better. Considering the crazies on both sides I'm all for paralysis.
- molsen311, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16interesting collection of articles, but the poll is useless. most of the people who visit the link oppose the bush/cheney administration due to the description of the link....so of course they'd want to impech them.
- diggduggjoe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Unfortunately, the Constitution was changed to allow the Senate to be elected and not appointed by the state legislatures. This makes it hard for Senators to make a stand. They now are at the whim of those who vote based on TV ads. The original goal was to have the House represent the people, while the Senate represented the sovereign state governments. That is why the house is based on population, while the the senate is 2 per state. With such a system, smaller states have better representation than a pure democratic system where majority rules.
People have to understand that our founding fathers were not stupid. They did not want a pure democracy. They wanted the people to be heard, but they also wanted some voice for the leaders of each of the states.
I do not believe any impeachment will occur, for the dems do not wish to waste any momentum on it. I still think that the Bush administration is a disaster. I am not a Democrat. I am libertarian in my beliefs and feel Bush does not support human rights, be it those of foreign nationals or his own citizens. He does not believe in freedom. - Gtitian, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10DU or Depleted Uranium is used in our armor, and tank shells. Actually any of our large bore anti-tank vehicles can be fitted with it. The 30mm cannon on an A-10 usually fires it, the 25mm on the Bradley carries a good deal of it, and the 72mm on the M1A2 tank fires it. It's almost always fired in a salvo type round. Now some facts about DU
-Depleted uranium comes from the process of enriching uranium. Uranium in it's natural state is not suitable for use in reactors, and so 98% of it must be removed before the remaining 2% can be used in a reactor. That 98% portion is what is used in DU ammunition.
-While it may be considerably less radioactive than reactor grade uranium it is equally as poisonous.
-In a battle involving any of the vehicles I mentioned above (and probably quite a few others) countless rounds of DU can be fired. Upon impact with a hard target friction causes the DU to heat up considerably, reducing it's overall structural integrity (it is a metal not unlike like lead after all) the resulting friction from penetration will cause large portions of the round to atomize into a dust which will remain on site until remove by some other force.
-Use of DU is not prohibited by any treaty I know of, though I may be misinformed.
Yep. It's very toxic stuff, yes our soldiers breath it. It's not terribly radioactive. It scares the hell out of me. - CoachZed, on 10/12/2007, -10/+19Huge second. I oppose basically everything this administration has done, but I don't see the grounds for impeachment in those allegations. Some are just legally without basis, *if* everything on that list were true, maybe half of the allegations would be grounds for impeachment (a violation of the Army Field Manual, are you kidding me?). For the remaining allegations, it would almost certainly be impossible to prove the requisite knowledge or intent necessary to even state a claim. Any executive branch must be entitled to rely on intelligence reports that they receive. If they fear personal liability for relying on intelligence presented to them, the ability of the executive to act on his powers would essentially be destroyed.
Now, commence digging this comment down because it could be interpreted to defend Bush. - wvdavis, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13@ TheLastProphet - You should have quit while you were ahead.
- tmm3k, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10"it will also set a president that if you act contrary to the will of the people, the people will act."
No. Impeachment is not a means to express dissatisfaction with the president. An impeachment is not a recall. Impeachment is only to be used when the president has clearly committed acts of "treason, bribery, and other high crimes or misdemeanors." - HP844182, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11"No, to impeach him sends the message to future presidents that the American public will not tolerate these things. To not impeach him sends the message that we don't care, as long as you are fighting something that is scaring us."
I think that's the problem though...most American's DON'T care... - ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Where's this in the "Be an American" field manual? The only person whose civic duty it is to protect the President from bodily harm is a Secret Service agent, a soldier in the military, or anyone whose actual role in the government is protect the President from bodily harm.
The only one supposed to protect the President from political harm is his Advisor and, again, the Secret Service. It's a pretty twisted world you live in where the duty of citizens is to reinforce hegemony and not the duty of elected officials to reinforce their citizens. - ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Some of you people need to listen to yourselves.
"Impeachment? What a waste of taxpayer money when all it will do is kick them out three months before elections."
Translation:
"So what if they committed war crimes and violated human rights? Impeachment costs money, I don't really care what they did, and I'm not particularly eager to hear about it. Maybe next time we'll catch the guy who inevitably will try something like this again, and if he's a lame duck when we finally figure it out, maybe I'll be in the mood to see him swing ... maybe I won't ... depends on what I had for dinner. Besides, the last time impeachment was used it was a joke, and now the very idea of impeachment, by the same party whose leader would be impeached this time, should be seen as distasteful by everybody no matter how necessary. Get over it."
Right. This is exactly how we should treat our political leaders. - cavendoja, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12"1. Leaking classified information by disclosing the identity of Valerie Plame to reporters.
...
Law violated:
National Security Act of 1947."
Not to degrade the value of this overall story--which is nicely organized--but the President has the authority to declassify information at any time for any reason. It's obviously not a good idea to leak the secret identity of a CIA operative, but the point is...the President can do it. So this article may be lost on that technicality...but there are still 13 others! - xGORDOx, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14Flernk -
Allen was the Republican, I'm pretty sure Kos didn't suppport him.
Webb is a true Democrat? really?
Put his views on paper and place them next to any random Republican, they are virtually the same.
Kos supported Webb because Allen, prior to "Maccacagate", had a chance at the Whitehouse. Kos would have supported Trent Lott in that race if Lott was running as a Dem. - cypher303, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10I agree, it's obvious (by the latest elections) that the American people aren't happy with the way Bush and Cheney have been handling things lately. We are not the people who Bush would have the world believe we are. And I think that impeaching Bush would send that message out loud and clear.
Sure, it wont make a huge difference on how long he'll be in office since he's on his way out now, but the message that it sends to the world would be worth every one of my tax dollars.
It could be seen as a sort of apology to the world... which I think the world deserves from us right now. - Gtitian, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Army Field Manual's aren't actually legal documents. They reference bigger ones, like the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions. That said, the white phosphorus things is weak and impossible to prove one way or the other. I know people who when educated on the use of the .50 cal machine gun (which you are not allowed to fire at personnel) who were told to shoot at those peoples guns and clothing, because you are allowed to fire on equipment. Unfortunetly most of the rules of engagement are enforced only by honor.
- SpazticChips, on 10/12/2007, -24/+31They need impeachment, unless the U.S. wants to continue being the laughing stock of the world. You can't ignore these issues, I want their impeachment next to their violations in history books, not that the American people rolled over for them.
- deesnutz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Impeach both Bush and Cheney. That means 3rd in line would House Speaker elect, Nancy Pelosi. She would be the first female President in U.S. history. And she would most likely do a better job than our current option. Plus, she would only hold office for less than 2 years. Then major election in 2008. I think it would be a good test run for a woman president in the United States.
Let's do it. Impeach Bush and Cheney today!
http://www.democratgiftshop.com/cgi-bin/store/store.cgi/1585028665/left/842507 - flernk, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10You're right, I'm an idiot. What I meant to say was, Kos supprted Webb and TESTER.
The rest of your comment is meaningless nonsense. - dimension128, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@thespace
I think you have our type of government confused with a Monarchy. - tmm3k, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@quandrum
That was called the War Powers Act, and Nixon vetoed it. 2/3 of both houses then ratified it, but its constitutionality is in question. - WackyT, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10It doesn't.
- cypher303, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8It's true that terrorist do not abide by the Geneva Conventions. But by disregarding those conventions on a technicality, we are placing ourselves in grave danger of being viewed as the same type of terrorists that we originally set out to stop.
One day we're going to wake up and realize that the US isn't the top dog anymore... even more frightening, it's very possible that we ourselves may become occupied one day (after our economic/politiosocial infrastructure collapses after a few well placed nuclear bombs bring us to our knees as easily as it would any other country (not only possible but probable if you're honest with yourself) and I would hope that our occupiers would show us the mercy that the Geneva Conventions bring.)
Yes, these are terrorists that America is fighting. Many of them... but even if just one of those "terrorist" is a father trying only to protect his family... does he deserve to be tortured? I think that is as legitimate of a soldier as you can be. Protecting what you've spent your entire life building. And those people will ALWAYS be caught in the cross fire. And so the Geneva Conventions should NEVER be disregarded as they are being disregarded now. I only hope your children are not the ones who pay for this mistake. - anonym41414, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7When you build an armor-piercing munition, you have precisely two choices: depleted uranium and a tungsten alloy. Nothing else is hard enough to do the job.
Both uranium and tungsten are heavy metals, and as such they're both poisonous. You wouldn't want to chown down on a delicious bowl of either of them.
While naturally occurring tungsten is less radioactive than depleted uranium, the distinction is purely academic. Naturally occurring tungsten has a half-life of about ten-to-the-eighteenth years, but depleted uranium (that is, nearly pure U238) has a half-life of four-times-ten-to-the-ninth years. Neither one of them is radioactive enough to me harmful, and for all intents and purposes they can both be considered stable.
But of the two metals, tungsten is more dangerous. It's more highly toxic, and it has been closely (albeit not conclusively) linked to leukemia.
Given the choice between wandering around a battlefield filled with uranium dust and one filled with tungsten dust, I wouldn't be overjoyed with either, but I'd pick the uranium before I chose the tungsten any day. - Ajajadude, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Yeah, but, is the president above the law? It's a federal offense to release the identity of a CIA agent and I don't think even the president has the power to get around a law like that one.
- simX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6... as opposed to the conveniently conservative way of getting to the White House by losing the popular vote, and appealing to the Supreme Court to block recounts that would have established the validity of highly questionable results in a state that would have swung the results.
Riiiight. - phogasmic, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10impeach Bush! I am all for it. There are plenty of reasons to do so, the biggest reason for me is that his administration manipulated evidence and made exaggerated claims to get us into a Iraq, and he didn't even follows the rules that congress set forth by getting the Security Council to authorize it.
- musicmantrs, on 10/12/2007, -22/+27ALL MOONBATS THAT THINK BUSH WILL BE IMPEACHED:
I know in your middle school/high school classes you might not have gotten to this as of yet but 2/3 of the Senate (that is the one with 100 seats) must vote for impeachment to impeach a President. Even if you keep these two contested seats you will have at most 49, even if all of them vote for impeachment you also have to get the two independents and 16 Republicans to cross party lines. Sufficed to say, the next two years will not result in impeachment but most likely will result in governmental paralysis. Not to mention articles of impeachment being brought about would directly contradict what next Speaker of the House Pelosi has said over the past few months on the issue.
Digg down the truth!
P.S. Will they provide evidence of these accusations or just leave them there to float? - Benzido, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11@ CoachZed:
I dug you down not because you're defending Bush, but because your comment is stupid. If, as you suggest, half the terms are grounds for impeachment, that would mean there were 7 impeachable crimes. SEVEN. It only takes ONE.
Furthermore, it should be obvious that with intelligence reports, the buck stops at the top. The intelligence guys provide reports to the administration, then the administration 'cherry-picks' the evidence to support a particular case, and presents it in Congress and at the UN. If the presented evidence turns out to be mistaken, then a whole lot of soldiers and a whole lot more civilians die on false pretenses.
Somebody needs to be made accountable for this - and it's sure as hell not the hard-working intelligence goons who provide a balanced account of the evidence to the president. - anonym41414, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Which, if the President were a member of the United States military, might mean something.
Civilians aren't under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ. - Ellsass, on 11/05/2008, -0/+5What if ~70% of the population dislikes Bush? (According to his approval ratings, that's about right). Then 97% of people who dislike Bush is still a majority of the public as a whole.
- squeedgie4me, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11Most of these accusations are completely distorted. For example, about the whole "detentions without trial" thing. The constitution was for U.S CITIZENS not for some random guy in a turban throwing grenades at our soldiers. The Geneva Convention does not protect the rights of terrorists, only POW's, which they are not.
Also, the whole "making war with Iraq before approval by Congress" is extremely distorted. If the president had to go through Congress for every tactical mission, how could it be tactical? If I am not mistaken the president may do tactical missions without approval by Congress for up to 90 days.
This is like only watching Al-Jazeera for news about what is happening in Iraq/Afghanistan, the news is DISTORTED and BIASED. The same goes for every news outlet, it is impossible to be completely unbiased. Multiple Sources = More truthful answers. - KazamaSmokers, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Kos is left-wing but generally not whacko in the same way that RedState is right-wing but generally not whacko. The whacko sites are DU and Freep.
- lobofanina, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6The US Military's M1A2 uses depleted uranium armour.
- wburglett, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11@everything that vexter has ever or will ever say
lets analyze your post from an educated centrist's standpoint:
If you want Bush impeached, I suggest you sell your car, and stop heating your home || Being cold and unable to drive is NOT going to help our cause very much
because THAT is what this is about. || Do you really think so?
You cant have both and not be a hipocrit. || Brilliant spelling, and do explain
For the less intellegent || And that wouldn't happen to include... yourself? And please if you are going to make a statement, spell intelligent right
ill spell it out: Iraq = 16% of the worlds oil = $$$$ = owned by terrorist(saddam) || Whoa have you been living under a large, irregularly shaped rock for the last 4 years? We have long since disproved the relation between Saddam and terrorism. In addition shouldn't we be trying to cure our addiction to oil instead of invading territories
= Ability blow up World Trade Center and kill 5000 American Civilians = BAD = best defense is good OFFENSE... || MY UNCLE DIED IN THE 9/11 TERRORIST ATTACKS AND HE WOULD BE ASHAMED TO KNOW THAT PEOPLE LIKE YOU ARE MISUNDERSTANDING WHO KILLED HIM, EVEN THOUGH THE REAL MURDERER IS STARING YOU IN THE FACE. HE NEVER HAD THE ABILITY, HE NEVER DID IT. HE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. I AM SCARED THAT THERE ARE STILL PEOPLE OUT THERE WITH YOUR LOGIC. ARE THEY AFRAID OF SUNLIGHT AND SILVER BULLETS TOO?
OK, thats it gentlemen. From this post I have concluded that said vexter has been living the deep dungeons of the Internet for some time, I say we bring him out. I have also compulsively proved his relation to a vampire. Using that as evidence I have decided to go to war with UIRAQ (Under a rock). Sounds familiar?
Real quote:
"It's important for us to explain to our nation that life is important. It's not only life of babies, but it's life of children living in, you know, the dark dungeons of the Internet."
-- Not sure what he's driving at here, but it sounds sufficiently scary, Arlington Heights, Illinois, Oct. 24, 2000 - xofc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@ Gtitian - The .50 cal prohibition against personnel is pure urban legend. How it started, I don't know, but I challenge you, or anyone, to find a treaty to which the United States is signatory that prohibits the employment of a .50 caliber round in an anti-personnel role. For your enlightenment:
The principal provision relating to the legality of weapons is contained in Art. 23e of the Annex to Hague Convention IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land of 18 October 1907, which prohibits the employment of "arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury."
Art. 35, para. 2 of the 1977 Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949, states in part that "It is prohibited to employ weapons [and] projectiles . . . of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering."
The Hague convention prohibits the use of open or soft tipped bullets in most cases. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Right here. It's better than the psychopaths we have in office now! And if you still support the Shrub and Five-Deferments Dick, well, you're a real freakin' moron.
- HP844182, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8I dugg you down because you said "stay the course"
- anonym41414, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Let's drag this back on point: Neither the President nor the Vice President did that. We now know exactly who did that. It was Richard Armitage, Deputy Secretary of State.
If you want to argue that the President should be held ETHICALLY responsible for the actions of his subordinates, go right ahead. I'll agree with you. But to claim that he should be held LEGALLY responsible is pretty silly. -
Show 51 - 100 of 181 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is