Impeach Bush & Cheney!
"Google" your Voter Registration
Register to Vote
Visit the Democratic Party
American Court of Justice
I propose organizing a national American Court of Justice, to consider bringing formal charges against, Bush, Cheney, Gonzalez, Ashcroft, Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, and others (including Senators and Representatives, both Republican and Democrat) for acts of treason against the United States, Crimes against Humanity, War Crimes, Terrorism and conspiracy. Th purpose of such charges and a highly public trial on such charges is to get the facts and truth before the American Public, inasmuch as the media has failed/refused to do so. Those formally charged will be given the opportunity to appear and defend themselves before the Court, or be tried in absentia, gratuitous political speeches will not be accepted as testimony, only personal appearance, and testimony given under oath will be accepted. Let the chips fall where they may and the truth be known.
- Login or register to post comments
Printer-friendly version- Send to friend
Join us & contribute
Proud members of the Democratic Party
Copyright 2006 Democrats.com. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy
Nice concept, but extralegal
Nice concept, but extralegal and most likely unconstitutional (unless a new law is passed by the Congress, signed by the president, and survives any Constitutional challenges in the SCOTUS).
Unless we abide by the established laws of the U.S. Constitution, and the legal system it establishes, we will further destroy the basic American foundations that we so desperately need to protect for future generations. The Constitution of the United States of America does not need to be amended -- it needs to be upheld and defended.
The World Court provides much of what you propose, but unfortunately the U.S. Government does not recognize it as a "legitimate" entity -- not since WWII anyway.
It i not intended to replace
It is not intended to replace or destroy the legal system, it is intended to get to the truth, expose the lies and get people involved. It is intended to let the criminals know that the American public is aware of their lies and crimes even if the legal processes are broken and not working.
By the way, the Boston Tea Party and the Declaration of Independence were illegal at the time also.
Under our Constitution, there is no provision for such a...
quasi-legal instutition. What would be the mechanism to put such a polyglot court in place? What would be it's legal standing vis-a-vis the Supreme Court?
Such a court is better placed at the International level, perhaps a wing of the United Nations. But then, the problem is, who would/could/should be the enforcer?
Perhaps it is time for the US to recognize the World Court along with most of the other countries occupying space on the planet.
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.
The Boston Tea Party and the
The Boston Tea Party and the Declaration of Independence were only "illegal" to the Crown -- there was no United States or Constitution at the time. We have since become a nation of laws supported by a representative form of government.
What you are describing is the impeachment process as set forth by the Constitution, and any subsequent criminal prosecutions if the facts warrant them.
proposing
What I am proposing is the constitutionally protected right to peaceably assemble and to speak in public, if you oppose those as you seem to, it is probably because you do not have the slightest idea of the contents and purpose of the Constitution. What I propose is neither in contravention of the constitution nor illegal. Thank you for your unsolicited and free legal advice, I'll take it for what it's worth.
Glenn A Altman,
No need to be testy. Questions are being asked and one would think they need to be answered.
I'm certain Bill knows we can all meet and form our own "schools", "churches", "police forces", "courts", etc. protected by our rights of free speech and assembly.
The problem is the quotation marks, not only when pressing the matter too far (e.g. neighborhood watches morphing into vigilantism) but also from the point of view of the spirit of a united Nation.
Are you sure you want to splinter this way?
Would you like to start a precedent?
I can see it now, heavenly bliss:
-Right Wing "courts" trying Homosexuals in absentia.
-etc.
Free assembly. Free speech. Free publicity. Free rabble rousing. Get the mob into it. Sort of an adolescent ra ra ra.
Do I think we could do justice to justice infinitely better than the Right? Of course, but besides the legal issues (defamation of character, etc.) there is the precedent to be thought of. Also, I do not want to be like the far Right and take my ball and run. I believe in a United States.
I understand if the points I made do not dissuade you, but you can expect more guff than you're getting here if you are going to try to establish a court to try the President and his ilk.
I am not challenging your
I am not challenging your right to propose anything, and yes I know a little about the Constitution. I am merely pointing out that what you propose is extralegal, not specifically authorized by the Constitution, and would require special and specific legislation to enact.
Being "testy" is always the last stance of those who have nothing to add to their arguments, and is childish. As I said in my first post, your points are well taken, but there are established procedures to accomplish what you propose, without forming yet another "fact finding" body. Typical of today's "instant gratification" mindset, you are not satisfied with the pace of our legal and legislative systems as they stand, and are unwilling to work from within the systems for change. What you seemingly fail to realize however, is that the US Constitution is the foundation of all of our laws, and has its own set of procedures for change.
You never took the time to answer Grinch's questions below:
1) Who would convene such a court, and under what authority?
2) What would be the relationship of such a body to the SCOTUS, and the Congress?
3) Which arm of government would enforce the decisions and penalties of this "court?"
4) And finally, who would decide the Constitutional ramifications of the decisions of such a quasi-court?
You would do well, my friend, to do more research -- especially about the meaning of the term "sedition:" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition
Of course, if you are only proposing a "show trial" with no legal teeth, then it becomes a matter of organization, participation, and sponsorship. In the end, however, the American People have been conducting an on-going "Truth Trial" for over 200 years, and it's called the Electoral Process.
Sorry, but there is a need
Sorry, but there is a need to be testy, the right wing is already doing as you said, they are trying homosexuals, free speech, religion etc. in the laws, in speeches, in Congress, the White House and in the mediawithout regard for the Constitution. While the Democrats fold like paper dolls. It is time to be testy, to stand up and be heard. Quiet contemplation is for those who have nothing worth saying. But, thanks for the dialogue, I always enjoy that.
I think your definition of
I think your definition of quiet contemplation and mine are different.
And no, the Right is not doing what you suggest. They are doing the version in quotation marks I alluded to. You want to formalize this.
The rub for you is this:
-Go ahead and try.
-Report back what it requires.
I think I already know what the outcome you desire requires and it is not a parallel US government or court.
Ultimately, it is for the
Ultimately, it is for the People to decide through the electoral process, however, that presumes that the truth is known (available) to the people. What I propose is to organize a public forum to bring forward the truth, whatever it might be. The House and the Senate are unwilling to conduct a meaningful debate, I propose that we, as citizens, conduct that debate. The "punishment" would be left up to the electoral process. I only advocate peaceful means, as I did in the 60's. As far as my knowledge of the Constituition, I am a University Professor and teach Constitutional Law among other subjects.
You have moved a bit to where we can move forward.
I'm happy to discuss the entities I alluded to, but with one caveat: my quotation marks need to be set firmly in place. This may not satisfy you, but perhaps it might provide some interest.
Clearly "courts" have been convened throughout the land: They occur in living rooms, near water coolers, on blogs, in a tiny subset of media, amongst academia, etc. I believe what you are actually looking for is a means to CONVINCE.
Even the courts proper have no real power except via PERSUASION. They are of course blessed with great advantages which transcend any individual judgement they may hand down and hope to have enforced: they have the mythos of their institution. The inertia of their past. Their broader association with other institutions which carry mythic weight. Etc. It is this which compels the long chain of command to enforce a particular judgement.
You are going to be lacking most all of the above and therefore, in my opinion, you must go about PERSUASION in a different way than a parallel court proper. My suggestion, for what it is worth, is to restrict yourself to something far more narrow but tied to the mythos of OTHER institutions.
Could this be structured in a provocative enough way to gain the ear of the press? I think so, and without the full structure of a court. E.G. Asking retired MILITARY folks to vote on whether we are f@@@@@ AND counting down to the moment when the votes will be counted would provide some suspense.
Clearly the above is not meant to flesh out a damn thing. I can think of counter arguments immediately, but I think my most general point stands: the goal is persuasion and a "court" is not a slam dunk per se.
Had you presented your case
Had you presented your case in this way with your initial post, you would have had agreement from almost everyone on this site. Our goals are the same, and aimed at achieving a common purpose.
Democrats.com, and other netroots sites, provide forums for getting at the truth on a continuing basis. Your participation is both welcomed, and appreciated.
As to Impeachment, I'm at
As to Impeachment, I'm at odds with my usual self. It often takes me an inordinate amount of time to truly prove something to myself. In the case of Bush however, I do not believe any more evidence is needed.
I believe he should be impeached because:
---the reckless endangerment of our National Treasure, Military Defense Posture, and Military rises to the level of a "misdemeanor" on the face of it.