Obama's 13 impeachable offenses

[Freewill]

Wouldn't that be true of every president who killed civilians and called it collateral damage?

We are not talking about the conduct of war or even military action such as Iraq or Bosnia. We are talking the targeting of Americans in another country. There is no doubt Obama has the ability to pick the targets. Granted, we send in special ops to kill people such as OBL, if that was actually him, but in those cases usually there is positive identification or the shooter made a mistake. Under such conditions it would be hard to find fault. But in the case of our drone program it appears that the targets are selected by someone else placing a GPS device.

That also is not exactly what they've said about the criteria for targeting our enemies is it?

Not sure what criteria you are talking about. The constitution sets the standard for whom they are suppose to target and kill. An immediate threat is certainly one criteria.

Here is the criteria set by the WH at: Fact Sheet: U.S. Policy Standards and Procedures for the Use of Force in Counterterrorism Operations Outside the United States and Areas of Active Hostilities | The White House

Standards for the Use of Lethal Force
Any decision to use force abroad – even when our adversaries are terrorists dedicated to killing American citizens – is a significant one. Lethal force will not be proposed or pursued as punishment or as a substitute for prosecuting a terrorist suspect in a civilian court or a military commission. Lethal force will be used only to prevent or stop attacks against U.S. persons, and even then, only when capture is not feasible and no other reasonable alternatives exist to address the threat effectively. In particular, lethal force will be used outside areas of active hostilities only when the following preconditions are met:
My words: Do you think this was followed in ANY of the killings of the Americans overseas? Be honest, you have to admit they did NOT.

First, there must be a legal basis for using lethal force, whether it is against a senior operational leader of a terrorist organization or the forces that organization is using or intends to use to conduct terrorist attacks.

How could they say they did this when there was no due process at all, even they admit as much.

Second, the United States will use lethal force only against a target that poses a continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons. It is simply not the case that all terrorists pose a continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons; if a terrorist does not pose such a threat, the United States will not use lethal force.

Third, the following criteria must be met before lethal action may be taken:

1.Near certainty that the terrorist target is present;

Obviously not the case in the with the 16 year old boy. According to Obama's administration and we only have their word for it.

2.Near certainty that non-combatants[1] will not be injured or killed;

His cousins were blown up with him.

3.An assessment that capture is not feasible at the time of the operation;

Was an assessment done? After all the killings were done in an ally country with their permission, except for Pakistan supposedly.

4.An assessment that the relevant governmental authorities in the country where action is contemplated cannot or will not effectively address the threat to U.S. persons; and

There was no imminent threat to U.S. persons.

5.An assessment that no other reasonable alternatives exist to effectively address the threat to U.S. persons.

Again, was there an assessment made?

Finally, whenever the United States uses force in foreign territories, international legal principles, including respect for sovereignty and the law of armed conflict, impose important constraints on the ability of the United States to act unilaterally – and on the way in which the United States can use force. The United States respects national sovereignty and international law.


His age, name and looks have nothing to do with it. More like his proximity at the time of the explosion made all the difference.

Thus manslaughter.

The ACLU also teamed up with the the GOP to fight against the stringent anti-terrorist measures the Clinton Administration originally proposed. That turned out to be a real good deal for the people in the WTC on 9-11 didn't it?

Again your history is incorrect the GOP did not team up with the ACLU the Clinton administration did and they put up the walls between the agencies which directly lead to 9/11.

In 1995, while America’s intelligence agencies were still investigating al Qaeda's 1993 terrorist bombing of the World Trade Center, the Clinton administration strengthened FISA to a degree that was unprecedented. Specifically, Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick called for increased restrictions on information-sharing between intelligence (CIA) and law-enforcement (FBI) agencies. In a 1995 memo to then-FBI Director Louis Freeh and U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White, titled “Instructions on Separation of Certain Foreign Counterintelligence and Criminal Investigations,” Gorelick wrote the following:



“We believe that it is prudent to establish a set of instructions that will more clearly separate the counterintelligence investigation from the more limited, but continued, criminal investigations. These procedures, which go beyond what is legally required, will prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation.”

The Wall of Separation between Law-Enforcement and Intelligence - Discover the Networks

Congress has authorized the President to conduct the war on al Qaeda where ever they are, who ever they are. Anyone, Americans included, who pledges to fight for their cause is an enemy and considering the asymmetrical type of warfare al Qaeda uses, should be considered a deadly threat, but especially American Citizens.
http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/aclu_statement.txt

I do believe the resolution stated those responsible for 9/11. Which I suppose we are to assume all of Al Quada was responsible. Ok. Do we then check their voter id to see if indeed they are a paying member? Besides I thought, at least in Afghanistan, that it was the Taliban that was the problem. So I guess what the resolution meant was any brown skinned person in the ME that the CIA and the President decides is Al Quada.

The bolded above really is a justification I am not willing to hand over to the President, Republican or Democrat ESPECIALLY when it comes to Americans. I am not sure what the problem is with due process and killing Americans who are NOT an immediate threat or are NOT on a real battlefield. Did any of those Americans killed actually take up arms against Americans? Or were they just spouting off against America? If the latter then certainly you don't believe that people should be killed because of first amendment rights? You or I liking their rhetoric or not.

 

[Bush92]

The Obama cover-up of IRS scandal is impeachable. During the Nixon years not one individual was targeted by the IRS. Idea was kicked around but never acted upon. Article 2 of House committee impeachment recommendation stated that Nixon "endeavored" to use audits against political enemies. Obama DID use IRS against political opponents.

 

[MarcATL]

It was off the table because they never had any grounds for it.

Obama should be charged.

He won't, but he should.

Outing Valerie Plame was a crime.

That..was grounds for impeachment and removal from office.

In the far RW RepubliCON world, non-crimes deserves the individual should be put to death, if they are a Democrat, but ACTUAL crimes should be dismissed, swept under the rug, and never spoken of again if the individual is a RepubliCON.

lol, this poster has just declared that no one 16 years of age was killed in the Iraq War.

LOL the poster just declared no 16 year old were killed in Bosnia, Libya or Syria.

BTW we are talking about the targeting, and killing, of Americas especially a 16 year old boy.

Obama did not target that 16 year old American. That is your fantasy that you're obsessed with.

If he doesn't lie about it, he has no argument you see.

You want to impeach Obama for what? Killing an American citizen in a drone attack?

Why only Obama? Why not Bush?

What American did the Bush administration target and kill? If they did without due process, breaking even their criteria then YES both should be on trial.

Since I've told you several times before, why do you keep lying about not knowing that Bush killed an American with a drone strike in Yemen in 2002?

Again, if he doesn't lie, he'd have nothing to say. It's the RepubliCON way.

 

[rightwinger]

The Obama cover-up of IRS scandal is impeachable. During the Nixon years not one individual was targeted by the IRS. Idea was kicked around but never acted upon. Article 2 of House committee impeachment recommendation stated that Nixon "endeavored" to use audits against political enemies. Obama DID use IRS against political opponents.

First of all, you need to prove that a crime was committed. In four Congressional hearings you have not even come close

Then, once you have established that a crime was committed, you need to directly link it to Obama

Good luck

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Valerie the mere analyst Plame speaks UP for Obumbler. When Bushies blew a CIA cover, it was 'treason'; now, it's a mistake | WashingtonExaminer.com

That should tell you all you need to know.

 

[MarcATL]

I think these far RW bastards just need something to complain about...it makes them feel good somehow.

The self-proclaimed party of "personal responsibility" has an INNATE and INSATIABLE need to blame others for all the ails, woes and troubles in their life. Somebody has to be blamed you see, SOMEBODY. Obama is the perfect moving target for that.

It's elementary you see.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Such tripe. When W who had committed no crimes (high or otherwise) did anything to which the left wing fubars objected, they often responded with a chorus of demands for his impeachment.

I happen not to believe that President Obumbler has done anything that warrants impeachment (yet).

But it's suddenly offensive to these libbies to make an unfounded call for an impeachment?

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Aug. 14 2013: Delayed provision in Obamacare to cap out-of-pocket costs, picking and choosing which laws to enforce, which is to exceed authority (per Article 2 Section 3 of the Constitution).

June 17 2013: Obama's National Labor Board recess appointment deemed unconstitutional by the courts. Thus far, Obama has ignored this ruling. .

And there are many more.

'Article 2, Sec. 3 of the Constitution charges the President “shall take care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” It doesn’t say that he “should” execute the laws of the United States; it uses the imperative “shall.”
Nor does the Constitution say that the President can pick and choose to enforce some of the laws, or just the ones he likes.
Nor does the Constitution give the President the authority to create new laws. Article 1, Sec. 1 is clear on that point; “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

Obama's 13 Impeachable Offenses​

​

NOTE TO RIGHTWINGERS: A blog (such as the reference above) is not a news agency. They do not have to uphold any journalistic standards such as Reuters, AP, and major newspapers.

So PLEASE stop using them as corroborative evidence to bolster your semi-illiterate and uninformed opinions.

All you need to do is subscribe to WSJ and you'll get plenty of red meat and much more cred for your incipient battle against Obama.

Who determined that information only counts as *evidence* if it's provided by a left-sanctioned propaganda source? As a journalist, I understand, as does anybody with a shred of education or intelligence, that ANY source is potential gold.

So thanks, I'll continue to present information from the sources I approve...

Potentially. But without verification it's just another fucking rumor.

You're not a journalist then, you're just another blogger who presents blogs as *evidence*.

 

[koshergrl]

Aug. 14 2013: Delayed provision in Obamacare to cap out-of-pocket costs, picking and choosing which laws to enforce, which is to exceed authority (per Article 2 Section 3 of the Constitution).

June 17 2013: Obama's National Labor Board recess appointment deemed unconstitutional by the courts. Thus far, Obama has ignored this ruling. .

And there are many more.

'Article 2, Sec. 3 of the Constitution charges the President “shall take care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” It doesn’t say that he “should” execute the laws of the United States; it uses the imperative “shall.”
Nor does the Constitution say that the President can pick and choose to enforce some of the laws, or just the ones he likes.
Nor does the Constitution give the President the authority to create new laws. Article 1, Sec. 1 is clear on that point; “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”​

Obama's 13 Impeachable Offenses​

​

NOTE TO RIGHTWINGERS: A blog (such as the reference above) is not a news agency. They do not have to uphold any journalistic standards such as Reuters, AP, and major newspapers.

So PLEASE stop using them as corroborative evidence to bolster your semi-illiterate and uninformed opinions.

All you need to do is subscribe to WSJ and you'll get plenty of red meat and much more cred for your incipient battle against Obama.

Well, they have every right to use them...you guys are using lefty blogs all the time to support your inane statements. "What's good for the goose is good for the gander" and all that....

I'd love to know exactly which part of the piece he thinks is questionable.

Does he argue that the constitution doesn't say what it does?

Does he maintain the president didn't do the things that are attributed to him?

It's just garbage meant to distract and trivialize what is a huge issue.

 

[jillian]

I'd love to know exactly which part of the piece he thinks is questionable.

Does he argue that the constitution doesn't say what it does?

Does he maintain the president didn't do the things that are attributed to him?

It's just garbage meant to distract and trivialize what is a huge issue.

all of it... since none of it comports with what an actual impeachable offense is.

things that rankle the radical right don't constitute impeachable offenses.

 

[koshergrl]

NOTE TO RIGHTWINGERS: A blog (such as the reference above) is not a news agency. They do not have to uphold any journalistic standards such as Reuters, AP, and major newspapers.

So PLEASE stop using them as corroborative evidence to bolster your semi-illiterate and uninformed opinions.

All you need to do is subscribe to WSJ and you'll get plenty of red meat and much more cred for your incipient battle against Obama.

Who determined that information only counts as *evidence* if it's provided by a left-sanctioned propaganda source? As a journalist, I understand, as does anybody with a shred of education or intelligence, that ANY source is potential gold.

So thanks, I'll continue to present information from the sources I approve...

Potentially. But without verification it's just another fucking rumor.

You're not a journalist then, you're just another blogger who presents blogs as *evidence*.

Er..verification of WHAT? What is it exactly that you think isn't true?

Are you contesting the contents of the Constitution?

Do you maintain Obama didn't do any of those things?

What? It's an opinion piece. If you disagree with it, state what you disagree with. Just to say "it's from a blog" in no way is a comment about anything at all, except your own ignorance of what constitutes a discussion or debate.

 

[koshergrl]

I'd love to know exactly which part of the piece he thinks is questionable.

Does he argue that the constitution doesn't say what it does?

Does he maintain the president didn't do the things that are attributed to him?

It's just garbage meant to distract and trivialize what is a huge issue.

all of it... since none of it comports with what an actual impeachable offense is.

things that rankle the radical right don't constitute impeachable offenses.

Sorry, you're wrong. While breaking the law does rankle the right much, much more than it rankles you, it isn't the fact that it rankles, but the fact that the action is ILLEGAL, that makes it impeachable.

But we already knew that. Can we move past this now?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I'd love to know exactly which part of the piece he thinks is questionable.

Does he argue that the constitution doesn't say what it does?

Does he maintain the president didn't do the things that are attributed to him?

It's just garbage meant to distract and trivialize what is a huge issue.

all of it... since none of it comports with what an actual impeachable offense is.

things that rankle the radical right don't constitute impeachable offenses.

Sorry, you're wrong.

But we already knew that. Can we move past this now?

Kosher thinks you can impeach a president because he wore red socks, to play golf in.

 

[BlindBoo]

Again your history is incorrect the GOP did not team up with the ACLU the Clinton administration did and they put up the walls between the agencies which directly lead to 9/11.

In 1995, while America’s intelligence agencies were still investigating al Qaeda's 1993 terrorist bombing of the World Trade Center, the Clinton administration strengthened FISA to a degree that was unprecedented. Specifically, Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick called for increased restrictions on information-sharing between intelligence (CIA) and law-enforcement (FBI) agencies. In a 1995 memo to then-FBI Director Louis Freeh and U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White, titled “Instructions on Separation of Certain Foreign Counterintelligence and Criminal Investigations,” Gorelick wrote the following:



“We believe that it is prudent to establish a set of instructions that will more clearly separate the counterintelligence investigation from the more limited, but continued, criminal investigations. These procedures, which go beyond what is legally required, will prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation.”

The Wall of Separation between Law-Enforcement and Intelligence - Discover the Networks

Congress has authorized the President to conduct the war on al Qaeda where ever they are, who ever they are. Anyone, Americans included, who pledges to fight for their cause is an enemy and considering the asymmetrical type of warfare al Qaeda uses, should be considered a deadly threat, but especially American Citizens.
http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/aclu_statement.txt

I do believe the resolution stated those responsible for 9/11. Which I suppose we are to assume all of Al Quada was responsible. Ok. Do we then check their voter id to see if indeed they are a paying member? Besides I thought, at least in Afghanistan, that it was the Taliban that was the problem. So I guess what the resolution meant was any brown skinned person in the ME that the CIA and the President decides is Al Quada.

The bolded above really is a justification I am not willing to hand over to the President, Republican or Democrat ESPECIALLY when it comes to Americans. I am not sure what the problem is with due process and killing Americans who are NOT an immediate threat or are NOT on a real battlefield. Did any of those Americans killed actually take up arms against Americans? Or were they just spouting off against America? If the latter then certainly you don't believe that people should be killed because of first amendment rights? You or I liking their rhetoric or not.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When al Qaeda flew passenger jets into the Twin Towers they expanded the battlefield. The President had every right in targeting that SOB who joined al Qaeda in their hideout in Yemen. He helped to target American citizens. Fuck him and his camel too. Americans have every right to spout off against the government. They do not have the right to join al Qaeda in Yemen and recruit suicide bombers to attack America, or actively plan to kill Americans.

 

[koshergrl]

No, I think you can impeach a president for failing to uphold the constitution, for engaging in illegal activities, for administrative incompetence, and deliberately taking action meant to undermine the welfare of the American people.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

No, I think you can impeach a president for failing to uphold the constitution, for engaging in illegal activities, for administrative incompetence, and deliberately taking action meant to undermine the welfare of the American people.

Yes we know that you think that, but you'd be wrong, as usual.

 

[rightwinger]

No, I think you can impeach a president for failing to uphold the constitution, for engaging in illegal activities, for administrative incompetence, and deliberately taking action meant to undermine the welfare of the American people.

So now we can impeach based on conservative opinion and hyperbole

 

[BlindBoo]

The Obama cover-up of IRS scandal is impeachable. During the Nixon years not one individual was targeted by the IRS. Idea was kicked around but never acted upon. Article 2 of House committee impeachment recommendation stated that Nixon "endeavored" to use audits against political enemies. Obama DID use IRS against political opponents.

If anyone has proof that President Obama ordered the IRS to target his opposition they would be filing the motions necessary for impeachment. But they don't because the proof doesn't exist. What you have is a clusterfuck created by the CU case. Where there was a huge influx of suspicious applications for 501 c organizations and career bureaucrats were trying to sort out the ones that looks suspicious, without any directions from Congress on the criteria they should be using to audit the applications.

 

[Siete]

No, I think you can impeach a president for failing to uphold the constitution, for engaging in illegal activities, for administrative incompetence, and deliberately taking action meant to undermine the welfare of the American people.

speaking of he constitution ....


The Constitution, Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

 

[koshergrl]

That's right!