Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 82

Thread: Can you smell impeachment?

  1. #31
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    berlin
    Posts
    8,477

    Default

    what's going on with this? seemed like there was no media coverage this week?

  2. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vimothy View Post
    What I really want to know though is the detail - how has international law been broken, where, what are the consequences, what are the precedents, etc - anyone know any good links to any laywers working in the field writing blogs, for instance? Anyone here got a background in international law or just law generally?
    Just to give one example out of hundreds: The nonprofit American Society of International Law, consisting mainly of scholars, has laid out the case against President George W. Bush as a war criminal in article after article in a dispassionate fashion.

    But very briefly:

    Any law scholar will tell you that pre-emptive self-defense is unlawful under international law – from Article VI of the Nuremberg Charter to the UN Charter. In fact, the United States was the guiding force behind both the Nuremberg trials and the establishment of the United Nations. At the end of the second world war, with the Nazis defeated and discredited, the United Nations Charter, a treaty binding on the U.S., prohibited nations using preventive force in Article II, Section 4. Only the Security Council has the authority to take measures against “threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression.”

    The only exception to this is the right of individual and collective self-defense that the U.S. and Britain invoked under Article 51. The key, of course, is that you have to be attacked or that an enemy must be in the process of attacking you. Under the UN Charter, you cannot simply say here’s a list of “rogue nations” who may at some undefined time in the near future pose a threat to you because they may harbor weapons of mass destruction, which we have in abundance, and they are not allowed to have. Nor is there anything under international law that says simply developing a weapons program amounts to an armed threat or attack. If this were true, every country on Earth would be justified in attacking the U.S., the country with the greatest number of WMD’s, at any time.

    But that's only the beginning ...

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    16,529

    Default

    Does this mean that, under current law, it would have been illegal for the UK to declare war on Germany in 1939?

    I'm not trying to be deliberately provocative, I'm just curious.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    532

    Default

    That was quite different. On Sept. 1, 1939, Germany invaded Poland. France and the UK gave Germany two days to withdraw their troops. They did not withdraw, and so France and the UK declared war on Germany. This a response, very specifically, to Germany's infringing on Poland's sovereignty, and I suppose is roughly analogous to America's causus belli (sorry, couldn't help using that!) in the first gulf war, and nothing like whatever rationales were used for this one.

    I'm no expert on whether the WWII declarations of war would have been legal under the UN charter, but I strongly suspect they would have been.

  5. #35
    nomadologist Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Guybrush View Post
    The war notwithstanding, it does seem like the administration has been involved in a lot of shady dealings over the last couple of years, so I’m sure there are impeachment counts galore.
    Show me a president who couldn't have been impeached. They're all corrupt.

  6. #36
    nomadologist Guest

    Default

    *chuckle@self*

    impeaching Bush would just force us into a slightly worse mess for a year. we should just let them live out their legacy of terribleness, and then let the dems get the credit for fixing the mess when they get elected next fall. no need to waste more tax dollars on a token "impeachment" trial. it's, in fact, the worst mistake the democratic party could make right now: it would be seen as pointlessly divisive in a time when unity is needed more than every...

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    646

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shudder View Post
    That was quite different. On Sept. 1, 1939, Germany invaded Poland. France and the UK gave Germany two days to withdraw their troops. They did not withdraw, and so France and the UK declared war on Germany.
    Of course, as imperial powers, France and the UK had invaded a rather large number of other countries themselves (especially those with natural resources) and with no intention of leaving. I guess it's a case of: "Do as we say not as we do!" Not to mention the fact that soviet union had just killed probably over 20 million citizens and had been arming for invasion of western europe on a massive scale since 1929.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Kvarngärdet
    Posts
    1,057

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nomadologist View Post
    Show me a president who couldn't have been impeached. They're all corrupt.
    Sure. But some are more corrupt than others. Some are deadly corrupt.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    berlin
    Posts
    8,477

    Default

    may not be entirely good idea in terms of repercussions, but i would fucking LOVE to see it happen.





    http://beachimpeach.com/

  10. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Tea View Post
    Does this mean that, under current law, it would have been illegal for the UK to declare war on Germany in 1939?

    I'm not trying to be deliberately provocative, I'm just curious.
    No, it means nothing of the sort. Why don't you peruse the international conventions and rulings, most of which were formulated as a direct response to the circumstances and the outcome of that war, as Shudder alludes, instead of being deliberately provocative.

  11. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hundredmillionlifetimes View Post
    Just to give one example out of hundreds: The nonprofit American Society of International Law, consisting mainly of scholars, has laid out the case against President George W. Bush as a war criminal in article after article in a dispassionate fashion.

    But very briefly:

    ....
    And what about where said nation is in continous violation of UN regulations (shooting at planes in the no-fly zone, etc)? What is the legally allowed response? What happens when a dictator turns on his own people and starts murdering them with chemical weapons?

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    62

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vimothy View Post
    And what about where said nation is in continous violation of UN regulations (shooting at planes in the no-fly zone, etc)? What is the legally allowed response? What happens when a dictator turns on his own people and starts murdering them with chemical weapons?
    This is all a bit beside the point, isn't it? Considering that there basically is no such thing as international law proper. International law, without a legislatively supreme international government, is little more than a facade (as current affairs are making clear to the average observer). All we have right now is the UN, and a web of treaties that each country can choose to ignore at their own convenience. The idea that a U.S. president could be impeached based on international law for waging an "illegal war" is quite simply laughable. President Bush will NEVER EVER IN A MILLION YEARS be impeached based on international law.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    62

    Default

    personally I think they should go after Cheney. He calls the shots anyways, and he's incriminated up to his neck in the Scooter Libby case. Even the jurors were asking when the other charges against Cheney and co. would be coming. I have a feeling he will die (perhaps on purspose) before ever testifying.

  14. #44

    Default

    Why should Cheney get impeached? Is it because of the murderous theo-fascists in Iraq? Is it because of something specific, or just because you don't like him?

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    62

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vimothy View Post
    Why should Cheney get impeached? Is it because of the murderous theo-fascists in Iraq? Is it because of something specific, or just because you don't like him?
    Personally I would like to see him impeached for incompetence, but sadly that's not a felony. He should go down for the CIA leak though. Any way you look at it, it was a major crime that fully deserves impeachment.

    So while I have many other reasons for wanting to see him impeached, they are besides the point, because he has already committed an almost treasonous act.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •