Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

IMPEACH BOTH BUSH AND CHENEY!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
mopinko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 01:01 PM
Original message
IMPEACH BOTH BUSH AND CHENEY!
sorry to scream. but it seems that in just about every thread on impeachment, and every conversation that i have in the real world someone says- but if you impeach bush, you get cheney, waaaawaaawaaaaa.
i think there is not a shadow of a doubt that they must both be impeached together, or they will be free to unleash all manner of subterfuge and dirty tricks.
in many of the resolutions that have been introduced in city and state legislatures both are named. i cannot imagine an investigation into the crimes of the bfee that would not implicate them both. can you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 01:03 PM
Response to Original message
1. 49 Ds+49 Rs+2 Is
How does that add up to removal from office?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
electropop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. By making it a vote about Senators' PERSONAL integrity.
i.e., "Either you're with us or you're corrupt." We can play that game just as well as they have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Senator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. Well, integrity's a tall order ... how about personal protection
i.e., "Either you oppose the war crimes or you're a war criminal yourself." And that's no game. It is exactly how war crimes law works.

It is also the reason Warner, McCain, and Graham stood up to opt out of the "War Criminals Protection Act" (the tribunal-tinkering law). It was a (failed) attempt to make Congress equally responsible for the regime's Geneva violations.

Including Collins, who also publicly opposed, that's 4 GOP Senators already on record who would be bound to convict on a Geneva violations impeachment charge. And as they are the GOP Senate leaders on such military matters, it may well be that many others join them in defending what our "Greatest Generation" fought and died for in WWII.

Or at least defending themselves from being subject to arrest and rendering to The Hague by virtually anyone, anywhere on the globe.

--
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
electropop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. That might work too. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #2
22. Senators' PERSONAL integrity?
:rofl:

Good luck with that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. Even if they can't be convicted, I believe they should be impeached
If the Democratic Party doesn't pursue impeachment in spite of the overwhelming evidence supporting such a measure, then the Democrats have in effect squandered their moral authority. They will have compounded the damage done to our Constitution from the free pass given the Cheney/Bush Maladministration by the mass corporate media.

All the lies, scandals and outright crime will be swept under the rug only to return tenfold just as Cheney, Rumsfield, et al did from the pardoned Nixon Administration.

The only thing I would add to the O.P. is for them to impeach injustice Scalia as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mopinko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. real oversight would mean
looking at so many of the federal judges appointed by these clowns, as well as raygun. it would go a long way to returning to sanity to root out these bfee conspirators who are all over the federal bench.
scalia and roberts should definitely be held accountable for lying to congress during their approval hearings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. Simple. It'd be time for "Let's Make A Deal"
(1) Despite what some might claim while wallowing in partisan hyperbole, many if not most GOP Senators are probably very aware of the impeachability of both Cheney and Bush. I doubt that one of them would tolerate the same behavior from a Democratic administration ... and they know it.

(2) By far, their biggest resistance would be to the ascension of the Speaker of the House if both the President and Vice President were removed. Indeed, such a consequence would also offer a HUGE "talking point" - and the corporatist media would be wallowing in the meme that the Democrats were "attempting a coup."

(3) Therefore, the Senate Democrats would have to "Make a Deal" to schedule the Senate impeachment 'trial' of Cheney BEFORE that of Bush ... with time guaranteed to appoint and confirm a replacement Vice President. It could even be the GOP's "hope" in the 2008 elections.


The FACTS in support of impeachment and removal are so plentiful and abundant that only the most blindly partisan citizens would be unpersuaded. There could NEVER be more than a 75-25 split in favor of removal in the public, no matter what. The justification for impeachment and removal of Cheney/Bush is FAR GREATER than that of Nixon.

If it's not done, we're in a world of hurt ... and future excesses of the Presidency are all but guaranteed. The Republican Senators need only be reminded that a Democratic President could assume the same powers, contrary to the interests of conservatives. I can't see them refusing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mopinko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #1
26. that was not the point of the post, but
so many thugs are so incredibly dirty themselves. i think a couple of rounds of let's make a deal might flush out the necessary votes.
i do approve of the tack of investigate, investigate, investigate until the public is so disgusted that they break the doors down demanding impeachment. i think much dirt will also be found on R members of congress. i think that many in the senate will fear for their electoral futures, if not their very lives IF the light of day is really shown on all that is wrong with our government.
i think you are using a calculus that is not rooted in terra firma. it is rooted in shifting sands.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Senator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 01:10 PM
Response to Original message
3. The "we get cheney" buzz is a propaganda meme
It has no basis in any reality. There's nothing stopping a double impeachment. And obviously both are equally culpable. There's no practical way not to impeach both.

But the meme allows the speaker to dismiss the problem entirely.

It is a mechanism by which any logic, or moral judgement, is banished with a self-satisfied chuckle.

It preys on intellectual and moral cowardice.

Simple, but effective.

--

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mopinko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #3
16. thank you
for exactly understanding my post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maxsolomon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 01:12 PM
Response to Original message
4. impeach cheney first
he's the one that came up with this retarded plan - bush isn't capable of independent thought.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 01:13 PM
Response to Original message
5. We "have" Cheney, anyway!!
Does anybody think that there's anything Cheney would want, that Bush wouldn't do? I think Cheney's running the show anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 01:19 PM
Response to Original message
6. Impeaching just Bush will not make Cheney President
Bush would have to be convicted to actually be removed. Than means that 16 Republican Senators would have to vote to remove him. How likely is that to happen?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WI_DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #6
17. and all democratic Senators and both independents
Would Lieberman? Would Nelson of NE? among others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Independent_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #6
19. Read TahitiNut's post above.
#9
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #6
31. 16 repubs and every Democrat
Heck, at the moment, I doubt you have a majority willing to vote for articles of impeachment in the House. If so, why is it that out of 435 House races in November, the issue of impeachment was part of the debate in no more than a handful and only a couple of open supporters of impeachment were elected?

Oversight. Hearings. And then, maybe (but probably not) impeachment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mopinko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #31
38. not an issue? 2 words- corporate media.
actually, i thought it was very interesting that so many of the talking heads pressed dem candidates about it. it was quite the thing for a while to ask people in the leadership if they planned to impeach. if it wasn't plain as the nose on your face that he ought to be impeached, why was it so often the question?
investigation will no doubt come first. dems will be tossing out the red meat until the people start to wolf it down, and scream for more.
i think pelosi, et al. are just keeping their cards close to the vest. there have been plenty of trickles, like leahy's recent comments on war crimes. and we know conyers will be pushing.
imho, the writing is on the wall for this regime. the only question is how far down the chain can we go. your opinion is duly noted in thread after thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 12:01 AM
Response to Reply #38
44. 435 house races -- where was impeachment?
Virtually none of the Democratic candidates made impeachment a part of their platform or sought to persuade voters to support them rather than their repub opponent on the grounds that they would support impeachment but their opponent wouldn't.

If you don't run on an issue, you can't make it a top priority. Its that simple.
Oversight and investigations were made an issue. So that is the only politically feasible route.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mopinko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #44
46. If you don't run on an issue, you can't make it a top priority.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
what rule book did you take that from? * ran on a platform of bringing honor and dignity back to the white house. and a humble foreign policy.
most dem voters want impeachment. the people clearly voted for change. investigate, and take it where it leads. which is impeachment. it will be a short putt.

and my personal experience- my congresswoman, jan schakowsky, never said the word impeachment on the stump. but when i ran into her in the grocery store, she assured me that if articles were introduced, she would jump on them. you don't get elected if you don't know how to speak so that the media cannot twist your words. when candidates said accountability, and oversight, anyone with 2 brain cells firing in a row knew what that meant. and they voted for that in droves.
i didn't get to vote for a senator this time, but i am quite sure that dick durbin, and probably barack obama, will be thrilled to convict the lying torturers, and pack them of to the hague.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WI_DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 01:31 PM
Response to Original message
10. impeachment may be easier than actual removal from office
remember Clinton was impeached but the Senate acquited him--and with the numbers in the Senate today there is very little hope that we could get 2/3 of the Senate to convict Bush and/or Cheney.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Independent_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #10
18. If we investigate and drag out all the evidence...
they might be able to get the necessary number of Republicans needed for conviction. Read TahitiNut's post above #9.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Independent_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #10
20. What Senator said above:
.e., "Either you oppose the war crimes or you're a war criminal yourself." And that's no game. It is exactly how war crimes law works.

It is also the reason Warner, McCain, and Graham stood up to opt out of the "War Criminals Protection Act" (the tribunal-tinkering law). It was a (failed) attempt to make Congress equally responsible for the regime's Geneva violations.

Including Collins, who also publicly opposed, that's 4 GOP Senators already on record who would be bound to convict on a Geneva violations impeachment charge. And as they are the GOP Senate leaders on such military matters, it may well be that many others join them in defending what our "Greatest Generation" fought and died for in WWII.

Or at least defending themselves from being subject to arrest and rendering to The Hague by virtually anyone, anywhere on the globe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 01:35 PM
Response to Original message
12. It's becoming pretty clear that the Alberto Gonzales
must be impeached first.

But only by a matter of minutes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mopinko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. throw him in the pot, too.
it will be a long haul to cleanse our government. i think this congress could do nothing but undo the things that have been done by these criminals. like go back over 6 years of improperly passed earmarks and no bid contracts.
cut the head off this snake first, tho.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 01:36 PM
Response to Original message
13. Make them both resign
at the same time.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mopinko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #13
27. nope
too easy on them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #27
32. That doesn't exempt them from
Edited on Thu Dec-28-06 05:40 PM by DoYouEverWonder
being indicted.

The big advantage is that the next president will be called Madame President.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mopinko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #32
39. i wish i could get an expert opinion on this.
i have also heard it said that congress will choose, as they did with ford, i believe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. Most likely they will
but if the DEMS play hardball, they just need to release some damning evidence, that will force them to resign effective immediately, and the Speaker of the House will become President.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mopinko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. i dunno. i keep thinking about
richard j daley. when he keeled over from a heart attack, the law said that he should be succeeded by the president pro tem of the city council. that person was a smart and reliable fellow by the name of wilson frost. unfortunately for wilson, he was black. in the dark of night the city council instead elevated alderman micheal bilandic, a mealy mouthed white guy.
so, i don't think of succession rules as set in stone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 01:56 PM
Response to Original message
21. agree. randi rhodes has also said that if bush gets impeached cheney
will too.

check this out though--who wants to bet is something like this starts coming up the fuckhead will pardon HIMSELF!

(this from nixon/ford)

"Haig told Ford that there were three pardon options: (1) Nixon could pardon himself and resign"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Ford

(how's that for a happy thought!:puke: )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xenotime Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 02:15 PM
Response to Original message
23. We are doing a pretty good job by getting them out of Congress
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greg Helmsley Donating Member (75 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 02:26 PM
Response to Original message
24. I agree
if convicted, then we have President Pelosi, if my guess is correct. Tempting. :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mopinko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. i would like a firm answer to this question.
i heard, i think it was thom hartmann, say that this succession is not necessarily what would happen in case of impeachment. (you can see why, i think.) but all the more reason to do them together, otherwise, they would get to appoint a successor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
porphyrian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 04:51 PM
Response to Original message
28. The entire administration is guilty.
The criminals for committing their crimes, and the others for helping them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mopinko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. oh, yeah. by no means should we stop with b/c
i think this congress, and the next, and maybe even the next, can do nothing more important for the future of this country than to focus almost all their efforts on overturning and uprooting the crimes and criminals that are putrefying this entire planet.
sending torturers to the haugue, sending thieves to prison, freezing cayman island bank accounts, impeaching judges who are pissing on the constitution, hosing down k street with a high power stream, i could go on and on. but the most important thing is to decapitate this society of criminals before they can sprinkle pardons on all their co-conspirators.
aside from legislation/actions needed to protect what is left of the planet, i don't think there is any federal action that we really cannot live without until the swamp is drained.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ooglymoogly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 05:30 PM
Response to Original message
30. in my umble opinion i say get crackin immedialy on hearings and articles of imeachment
Edited on Thu Dec-28-06 05:43 PM by ooglymoogly
for * to stay his stroke of the pen, pardoning and marshal law etc...the stench of the dirty laundry will spill out of the congressional hearings and will choke even a rat and the stoutest snout of the pug pigs. then people will scream for blood pulling chaney down the shitter with him and all the rest of the treasonous thugs. conyers has it right, get the hearings going then it is just a matter of time before everything falls into line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mopinko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #30
33. i have no doubt that conyers has them all typed up
if you hear that his laptop is stolen, you will know why.
i think it is unfortunate that we have to drag the crap out into the street until the rabble rise up. but i think that is how it has to happen. me, i would be building the scaffold right now. but then, i would never be elected to congress in a million years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ooglymoogly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. i can't wait for the 4th...pop some popcorne sit back and giggle myself
Edited on Thu Dec-28-06 05:51 PM by ooglymoogly
into a delirious silliness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. I'd have some doubts if I were you
Conyers isn't going to leap into the impeachment fray. He's going to do what Democrats said they wanted to do when they ran in November: conduct the kind of oversight and investigatory hearings that have been lacking the past 6 years. If/when that process builds both the case and the public support for impeachment, you may see articles, but I wouldn't hold your breath.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ooglymoogly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. this is the thing that scares me the most
Edited on Thu Dec-28-06 06:08 PM by ooglymoogly
* has been refining these exec orders for 5 years:

snip
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001 allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11049 assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency has broad powers in every aspect of the nation. General Frank Salzedo, chief of FEMA's Civil Security Division stated in a 1983 conference that he saw FEMA's role as a "new frontier in the protection of individual and governmental leaders from assassination, and of civil and military installations from sabotage and/or attack, as well as prevention of dissident groups from gaining access to U.S. opinion, or a global audience in times of crisis."
FEMA's powers were consolidated by President Carter to incorporate:


the National Security Act of 1947, which allows for the strategic relocation of industries, services, government and other essential economic activities, and to rationalize the requirements for manpower, resources and production facilities;

the 1950 Defense Production Act, which gives the President sweeping powers over all aspects of the economy;

the Act of August 29, 1916, which authorizes the Secretary of the Army, in time of war, to take possession of any transportation system for transporting troops, material, or any other purpose related to the emergency; and

the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which enables the President to seize the property of a foreign country or national.
These powers were transferred to FEMA in a sweeping consolidation in 1979.

HURRICANE ANDREW FOCUSED ATTENTION ON FEMA

FEMA's deceptive role really did not come to light with much of the public until Hurricane Andrew smashed into the U.S. mainland. As Russell R. Dynes, director of the Disaster Research Center of the University of Delaware, wrote in The World and I, "...The eye of the political storm hovered over the Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA became a convenient target for criticism." Because FEMA was accused of dropping the ball in Florida, the media and Congress commenced to study this agency. What came out of the critical look was that FEMA was spending 12 times more for "black operations" than for disaster relief. It spent $1.3 billion building secret bunkers throughout the United States in anticipation of government disruption by foreign or domestic upheaval. Yet fewer than 20 members of Congress , only members with top security clearance, know of the $1.3 billion expenditure by FEMA for non-natural disaster situations. These few Congressional leaders state that FEMA has a "black curtain" around its operations. FEMA has worked on National Security programs since 1979, and its predecessor, the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency, has secretly spent millions of dollars before being merged into FEMA by President Carter in 1979.

FEMA has developed 300 sophisticated mobile units that are capable of sustaining themselves for a month. The vehicles are located in five areas of the United States. They have tremendous communication systems and each contains a generator that would provide power to 120 homes each, but have never been used for disaster relief.

FEMA's enormous powers can be triggered easily. In any form of domestic or foreign problem, perceived and not always actual, emergency powers can be enacted. The President of the United States now has broader powers to declare martial law, which activates FEMA's extraordinary powers. Martial law can be declared during time of increased tension overseas, economic problems within the United States, such as a depression, civil unrest, such as demonstrations or scenes like the Los Angeles riots, and in a drug crisis. These Presidential powers have increased with successive Crime Bills, particularly the 1991 and 1993 Crime Bills, which increase the power to suspend the rights guaranteed under the Constitution and to seize property of those suspected of being drug dealers, to individuals who participate in a public protest or demonstration. Under emergency plans already in existence, the power exists to suspend the Constitution and turn over the reigns of government to FEMA and appointing military commanders to run state and local governments. FEMA then would have the right to order the detention of anyone whom there is reasonable ground to believe...will engage in, or probably conspire with others to engage in acts of espionage or sabotage. The plan also authorized the establishment of concentration camps for detaining the accused, but no trial.

Three times since 1984, FEMA stood on the threshold of taking control of the nation. Once under President Reagan in 1984, and twice under President Bush in 1990 and 1992. But under those three scenarios, there was not a sufficient crisis to warrant risking martial law. Most experts on the subject of FEMA and Martial Law insisted that a crisis has to appear dangerous enough for the people of the United States before they would tolerate or accept complete government takeover. The typical crisis needed would be threat of imminent nuclear war, rioting in several U.S. cites simultaneously, a series of national disasters that affect widespread danger to the populous, massive terrorist attacks, a depression in which tens of millions are unemployed and without financial resources, or a major environmental disaster. snip

THREE TIMES FEMA STOOD BY READY FOR EMERGENCY read full article here http://www.wealth4freedom.com/FEMA.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mopinko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. yeah, i do worry about what this cornered animal will do.
anything is possible, i fear. if i had my way, i would start impeachment on day one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vidar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 07:16 PM
Response to Original message
42. Absolutely right. Toss in Gonzales & Rice.
Edited on Thu Dec-28-06 07:17 PM by Vidar
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mopinko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. can't think of a better way to spend our tax dollars
than shoveling out this shit. toss every last one of them into a privatized texas prison.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Senator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 05:40 AM
Response to Original message
45. k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Th1onein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 11:42 AM
Response to Original message
47. I agree. IMPEACH THEM BOTH.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 10:50 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC