When is the Death Penalty a death threat?
I already knew that members of the Bush regime were clearly breaching international agreements like the UN Charter and the Geneva Convention, and thereby violating the United States Constitution. Until I read Bush War: Military Necessity or War Crimes?, however, I did not know that breaking some parts of the Geneva Convention are war crimes potentially punishable by death.
If the authors of that article argue that Bush has committed crimes that, according to the laws Bush was meant to uphold, may be punishable by death... then are the authors of that article indirectly making a death threat against the President? Actually it's more like our laws are an ongoing death threat towards anyone who commits capital crimes (or anyone who can be convincingly argued to have committed capital crimes).
For the record, I do not support the death penalty in any case, because a state cannot kill people in order to teach that killing is wrong. Execution was wrong for Timothy McVeigh and it would be just as wrong for Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, Powell, Rumsfeld, et al. Impeachment and trial for their participation in war crimes would be appropriate, but humane nations should not execute people. I would like to see Bush and his accomplices treated with justice, which would be a change from their policy of indiscriminate, ineffectual revenge.
So no FBI needs to knock on my door, right? I'm just pointing out an article. If there is any way to interpret that article as a threat towards the president, then I am hereby disagreeing with it. Peace is such a good thing, even Bush deserves it! In the immortal words of Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?" I'm not sure if Mr. King is in jail at the moment, but if he is, it would be wonderful if he could have Bush or Powell or Rumsfeld as cellmates to discuss the idea.
Dems decide impeaching Bush
might harm their chances in 2004
from counterpunch, U of Illinois Professor of Law Francis A. Boyle wrote:
"...[O]n Tuesday 11 March 2003, Congressman John Conyers of Michigan...convened an emergency meeting of forty or more of his top advisors...to discuss and debate immediately putting into the House of Representatives Bills of Impeachment against President Bush Jr., Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and Attorney General Ashcroft in order to head off the impending war...."
"Suffice it to say that most of the 'experts' there opposed impeachment on the grounds that it might hurt the Democratic Party get their presidential candidate elected in the year 2004. As a political independent, I did not argue that point--it was not for me to tell Democrats how to get their candidates elected. Rather, I argued the merits of impeaching Bush Jr., Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft under the United States Constitution, U.S. Federal Laws, U.S. Treaties and other International Agreements to which the United States was a contracting party."
You thought the Greens were bad? At least we don't have a Congressman, Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, dropping the idea of impeachment because it could hurt Dems' chances for election in 2004. Green-haters who still bow to the Democrats as the only "viable" party can explain that betrayal to me before they say another bad syllable about Nader.
Worse than that, can we get an explanation from the major media why this shit did not make news? It's only in the last two or three months that I've heard anyone other than Ramsey Clark suggest that Bush should be impeached. Why the hell didn't we hear on every friggin news outlet that a powerful Democratic Congressman held a pow-wow about the pros and cons of impeachment in MARCH 2003? Where has this story been hiding??? I guess Conyers spoke out about impeachment during protests in March, but this debate among advisers seems like a bigger thing. Did I miss the story, or is this the first anyone has heard of it?
Bullhorn announcement to all major media: Put down your credibility as journalists, drop the Laci Petersen video tape and back away slowly. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be regarded as lacking in real news value, because you've dropped the ball too many times in the past.
I already knew that members of the Bush regime were clearly breaching international agreements like the UN Charter and the Geneva Convention, and thereby violating the United States Constitution. Until I read Bush War: Military Necessity or War Crimes?, however, I did not know that breaking some parts of the Geneva Convention are war crimes potentially punishable by death.
If the authors of that article argue that Bush has committed crimes that, according to the laws Bush was meant to uphold, may be punishable by death... then are the authors of that article indirectly making a death threat against the President? Actually it's more like our laws are an ongoing death threat towards anyone who commits capital crimes (or anyone who can be convincingly argued to have committed capital crimes).
For the record, I do not support the death penalty in any case, because a state cannot kill people in order to teach that killing is wrong. Execution was wrong for Timothy McVeigh and it would be just as wrong for Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, Powell, Rumsfeld, et al. Impeachment and trial for their participation in war crimes would be appropriate, but humane nations should not execute people. I would like to see Bush and his accomplices treated with justice, which would be a change from their policy of indiscriminate, ineffectual revenge.
So no FBI needs to knock on my door, right? I'm just pointing out an article. If there is any way to interpret that article as a threat towards the president, then I am hereby disagreeing with it. Peace is such a good thing, even Bush deserves it! In the immortal words of Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?" I'm not sure if Mr. King is in jail at the moment, but if he is, it would be wonderful if he could have Bush or Powell or Rumsfeld as cellmates to discuss the idea.
Dems decide impeaching Bush
might harm their chances in 2004
from counterpunch, U of Illinois Professor of Law Francis A. Boyle wrote:
"...[O]n Tuesday 11 March 2003, Congressman John Conyers of Michigan...convened an emergency meeting of forty or more of his top advisors...to discuss and debate immediately putting into the House of Representatives Bills of Impeachment against President Bush Jr., Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and Attorney General Ashcroft in order to head off the impending war...."
"Suffice it to say that most of the 'experts' there opposed impeachment on the grounds that it might hurt the Democratic Party get their presidential candidate elected in the year 2004. As a political independent, I did not argue that point--it was not for me to tell Democrats how to get their candidates elected. Rather, I argued the merits of impeaching Bush Jr., Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft under the United States Constitution, U.S. Federal Laws, U.S. Treaties and other International Agreements to which the United States was a contracting party."
You thought the Greens were bad? At least we don't have a Congressman, Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, dropping the idea of impeachment because it could hurt Dems' chances for election in 2004. Green-haters who still bow to the Democrats as the only "viable" party can explain that betrayal to me before they say another bad syllable about Nader.
Worse than that, can we get an explanation from the major media why this shit did not make news? It's only in the last two or three months that I've heard anyone other than Ramsey Clark suggest that Bush should be impeached. Why the hell didn't we hear on every friggin news outlet that a powerful Democratic Congressman held a pow-wow about the pros and cons of impeachment in MARCH 2003? Where has this story been hiding??? I guess Conyers spoke out about impeachment during protests in March, but this debate among advisers seems like a bigger thing. Did I miss the story, or is this the first anyone has heard of it?
Bullhorn announcement to all major media: Put down your credibility as journalists, drop the Laci Petersen video tape and back away slowly. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be regarded as lacking in real news value, because you've dropped the ball too many times in the past.
posted by Robert T. Northrup @ 7/27/2003 01:47:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home