I want him impeached too.

IMPEACH BUSH
tulle


J Young wrote:

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/rightangle.php



What further proof does one need to realize that the ACLU is
trying to undermine the United States?




ACLU Wants Bush Impeached




By: Robert B. Bluey

The ACLU is -- not very subtly -- promoting impeachment of
President Bush in an expensive, full-page ad it has placed in today's New
York Times (page A19) that says President Bush "breaks the law" just like
Richard Nixon did in Watergate.

In a clear prelude to impeachment, the ad calls for a special
counsel to be appointed "to determine whether oaths of office were broken
and federal laws violated through the Bush NSA spying program."

The ACLU, you'll remember, is leading the campaign against
renewal of the Patriot Act.

Posted 12/29/05 2:59 PM












begin 666 space.gif
K1TE&.#EA`0`!`( ``/___P```"'Y! 'H`P``+ `````!``$```("1 $`.P``
`
end

I want him impeached too.

IMPEACH BUSH
tulle


J Young wrote:

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/rightangle.php



What further proof does one need to realize that the ACLU is
trying to undermine the United States?




ACLU Wants Bush Impeached




By: Robert B. Bluey

The ACLU is -- not very subtly -- promoting impeachment of
President Bush in an expensive, full-page ad it has placed in today's New
York Times (page A19) that says President Bush "breaks the law" just like
Richard Nixon did in Watergate.

In a clear prelude to impeachment, the ad calls for a special
counsel to be appointed "to determine whether oaths of office were broken
and federal laws violated through the Bush NSA spying program."

The ACLU, you'll remember, is leading the campaign against
renewal of the Patriot Act.

Posted 12/29/05 2:59 PM

In <VZydnQsQV9YZVSnenZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@giganews.com>, "J Young"
<youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:

What further proof does one need to realize that the ACLU is
trying to undermine the United States?

You mean breaking the law with impunity is not undermining the US? Gee, I
dunno. I always kinda thought the rule of law applied to everybody.

So, when are you people planning on installing Bush as President for Life?

In News VZydnQsQV9YZVSnenZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@giganews.com,, J Young at
youngopinions@aol.com, typed this:

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/rightangle.php



What further proof does one need to realize that the ACLU
is trying to undermine the United States?

Bush should be impeached. Here's why. The following is something my
cousin recently wrote to a local newspaper. I agree with it.

I consider myself a conservative, but Bush has gone too far. I voted for
him in 2000, I went for the war in Afghanistan as the Taliban was harboring
a very dangerous criminal who was responsible for 3,000 deaths on U.S. soil.
I felt that he, and anyone that harbored him, was fair game, I think most
Americans felt the same way. (Never mind that we haven't actually caught the
guy, and by appearances we aren't looking very hard for him now either.), I
even skeptically went for the war in Iraq because Saddam was a *****, and
I, like many Americans thought that the WMD's were a clear and immediate
threat, (Never mind that we the only WMD that we found was one decayed
chemical shell that was a leftover from the Iran/Iraq war.), I voted for him
again in 2004, not so much because I still thought that he was a good man,
but because I thought he was marginally better than Kerry. I've stuck with
him through the over 2,100 deaths of U.S. Military personnel, and an unknown
number of Iraqi citizens, not counting the insurgents, but this is it, I'm
done with him. As much of a clown as I thought Kerry was, I still made a
bad decision.

George Bush has crossed a line that we haven't seen crossed since the days
of the Kennedy/LBJ administrations who authorized the FBI to conduct
unwarranted wiretaps, in a covert operation called "Window W" to uncover
"communist" and other "fringe group" activities in the United States, a
paranoia that was left over from the McCarthy years. J. Edgar Hoover was
more than willing to comply.

Not even Richard Nixon went this far, so far as anyone knows, in his
dealings. Nixon developed enemy lists, and externally monitored political
rivals and potential political rivals, but never ordered electronic
surveillance without judicial approval. (Again, not to anyone's knowledge)

Bush has recently been the "victim" of an internal leak, a leak that has
made him extremely angry. He has accused the "leaker" of being
anti-American who has seriously jeopardized national security.

I call that "leaker" a national hero.

Bush has openly admitted to conducting wire taps without the approval of the
court in which our democratically elected legislature created for just that
purpose. To examine the evidence and determine whether there is probable
cause to issue a wiretap order. Our president decided that the legislature
was unimportant, he decided that he didn't need the approval of the courts,
and by extension, decided that he didn't need the will of "The People".

In other words, he took our beloved Constitution, and wiped his ***** with it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against wiretapping, per se, I believe that are
a very valuable investigative tool, but the idea that one man should be able
to order a wiretap without authorization from the judiciary is anathema to
the way our government is supposed to operate. Further than that, our duly
elected legislature specifically, and without qualification made such
operations illegal, and set up a special court to deal with federal
wiretapping. The FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) of 1979
specifically says that any federal wiretap must be approved by the FISA
Court.

Bush has countered by claiming that the Homeland Security Act granted him
the power to conduct unwarranted wiretaps. But does it? I have personally
read the act, and no such verbage exists. However, lets look at a comment
from General Counsel Joe Whitley to the National College of District
Attorneys (Mr. Whitley was appointed as the first General Counsel to the
department by President Bush himself.)

_______________________
"The Patriot Act of 2002 allows federal agents to follow sophisticated
terrorists trained to evade detection. For years, law enforcement has been
able to use "roving wiretaps" to investigate ordinary crimes, including drug
offenses and racketeering. A roving wiretap can be authorized by a Federal
judge to apply to a particular suspect, rather than a particular phone or
communications device. Because international terrorists are sophisticated
and trained to thwart surveillance by rapidly changing locations and
communication devices such as cell phones, the Act authorized agents to seek
court permission to use the same techniques in national security
investigations to track terrorists."
_______________________

What does the Whitehouse have to say?

White House fact sheet - June 9, 2005:
The Patriot Act extended the use of roving wiretaps, which were already
permitted against drug kingpins and mob bosses, to international terrorism
investigations. They must be approved by a judge. Without roving wiretaps,
terrorists could elude law enforcement by simply purchasing a new cell
phone.
_______________________


There certainly doesn't seem to be much ambiquity there. But what does
Bush have to say about it?

Quotes from President Bush:

President Bush -- April 19, 2004:
For years, law enforcement used so-called roving wire taps to investigate
organized crime. You see, what that meant is if you got a wire tap by court
order -- and, by the way, everything you hear about requires court order,
requires there to be permission from a FISA court, for example.

President Bush -- April 20, 2004:
Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any
time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it
requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the
way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about
getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow
citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional
guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect
our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

President Bush -- June 9, 2005:
One tool that has been especially important to law enforcement is called a
roving wiretap. Roving wiretaps allow investigators to follow suspects who
frequently change their means of communications. These wiretaps must be
approved by a judge, and they have been used for years to catch drug dealers
and other criminals. Yet, before the Patriot Act, agents investigating
terrorists had to get a separate authorization for each phone they wanted to
tap. That means terrorists could elude law enforcement by simply purchasing
a new cell phone. The Patriot Act fixed the problem by allowing terrorism
investigators to use the same wiretaps that were already being using against
drug kingpins and mob bosses.

President Bush -- July 20, 2005:
The Patriot Act helps us defeat our enemies while safeguarding civil
liberties for all Americans. The judicial branch has a strong oversight role
in the application of the Patriot Act. Law enforcement officers need a
federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone, or to
track his calls, or to search his property. Officers must meet strict
standards to use any of the tools we're talking about. And they are fully
consistent with the Constitution of the United States.

President Bush -- December 10, 2005:
The Patriot Act is helping America defeat our enemies while safeguarding
civil liberties for all our people. The judicial branch has a strong
oversight role in the application of the Patriot Act. Under the act, law
enforcement officers need a federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign
terrorist's phone or search his property. Congress also oversees our use of
the Patriot Act. Attorney General Gonzales delivers regular reports on the
Patriot Act to the House and the Senate.

______________________

More from trhe White House.

White House fact sheet -- July 20, 2005:
The judicial branch has a strong oversight role in the application of the
Patriot Act. Law enforcement officers must seek a federal judge's permission
to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone, track his calls, or search his
property. These strict standards are fully consistent with the Constitution.
Congress also oversees the application of the Patriot Act, and in more than
three years there has not been a single verified abuse.


End of quotes.


Well, Bush seems very clear on the matter, until recently. He seemed fully
knowledgeable about the fact that such wiretaps required the authority of
the FISA Court that was created by our duly elected legislature.

If it sounds like I'm angry, it's because I am. I cannot believe that
anyone who could call themselves conservative could act in this manner. No
true conservative would. President George Bush has flaunted our laws, has
operated outside of constitutional strictures, and has basically annointed
himself as King of the United States. I believe that he has committed an
impeachable offense, and he should be treated accordingly.

Thank you for your time.

[end of article]


If the ACLU is seeking Bush's impeachment, then more power to them!

J Young wrote:

<snip crap>

What's with the "space.gif" attachment, mongrel?

Collecting IP addresses?

J Young wrote:

ACLU Wants Bush Impeached

No, no... The ACLU wants Bush on a silver platter, drizzled with a
delicate peace sauce, and placed in the army. Army ants that is.

J Young wrote:

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/rightangle.php

What further proof does one need to realize that the ACLU is
trying to undermine the United States?

ACLU Wants Bush Impeached

By: Robert B. Bluey

The ACLU is -- not very subtly -- promoting impeachment of
President Bush in an expensive, full-page ad it has placed in today's New
York Times (page A19) that says President Bush "breaks the law" just like
Richard Nixon did in Watergate.

In a clear prelude to impeachment, the ad calls for a special
counsel to be appointed "to determine whether oaths of office were broken
and federal laws violated through the Bush NSA spying program."

The ACLU, you'll remember, is leading the campaign against
renewal of the Patriot Act.

Posted 12/29/05 2:59 PM

[Image]

Thank goodness the ACLU is on to Bush.....and helping to stop spying on
American Citizens...

--
Miriam Blaylock
Membre, L' Academie des Femmes
One of the Lesbian Immortals of the Left Bank
We never die....

"You'll be back. When the hunger knows no reason! And then you'll need to
feed, and you'll need me to show you how."