Should Bush and Cheney be arrested?

Post Reply New Topic

The town of Brattleboro, VT voted to include on the ballot after over 5% of the voters petitioned it a question of whether Bush and Cheney should be arrested for crimes against the Constitution.

Here's the question residents of Brattleboro, VT will vote on:
"Shall the Selectboard instruct the Town Attorney to draft indictments against President Bush and Vice President Cheney for crimes against our Constitution, and publish said indictments for consideration by other authorities and shall it be the law of the Town of Brattleboro that the Brattleboro Police, pursuant to the above-mentioned indictments, arrest and detain George Bush and Richard Cheney in Brattleboro if they are not duly impeached, and prosecute or extradite them to other authorities that may reasonably contend to prosecute them?"

Here's a couple comments from the article:
"Be American, not a sniffeling liberal town that sleeps under the shield of safety provided to you by your President"

"Maybe the terrorists will do us all a favor and attack your town next, our country would be much safer with several thousand dead wackjobs in Vermont"

Link to article - http://news.aol.com/story/_a/arrest-bus ... 0000000001

What do you think?

"Be American, not a sniffeling liberal town that sleeps under the shield of safety provided to you by your President"

Comments like these show a complete lack of understanding of the basic principles of our government. The federal government obtains its "just powers from the consent of the governed." In other words, the government gets its rights from the people, not vice versa. Comments like these, while not directly concerning "rights," often bleed directly into your "rights" and how it's the president who is "really" giving you your rights, etc...

there's already a Constitutional remedy (Impeachment only starts the process), so it's kind of irrelevant. Since this is a Federal matter, it would be invalid under the 10th amendment, IMHO..

Considering what kind of disaster the Bush administration has been and, still, no impeachment, I say, throw impeachment out of the Constitution. It just mocks us into thinking we do something about extremely traitorous behaviors.

Yes, Bush had no evidence to go into Iraq and has no evidence to get them out.

No, it will make the Democrats look bad.

Worse than the Republicans?

Bill Clinton got impeached for a BJ but King George II can declare war and invade a country without justification and nothing happens. The president has pretty much taken over. I wouldn't be too surprised if he refuses to leave office next year and declares himself our dictator.

In 2000, Bush was enormously funded, way, way, way over any other candidate. I think that the oil companies knew that global warming was going to be a big issue and unless they pulled out all stops to put an oil puppet in right then, they would be losing a lot of power.

Now the Republican candidates are hardly being funded at all. I think it's because the oil companies have all the power they need now so they don't need to buy anymore presidents.

Maybe if we keep impeachment in the Constitution we should amend it to fit the times and say it's only good for lies about sex.

Did JFK, Lyndon Johnson or Nixon get arrested for their roles in Vietnam?

Just because some politicians have gotten away with criminal behavior doesn't mean we should give up. Nixon was pardoned because Ford said that it would tear the country apart to put him on trial.

Like our country isn't torn apart now, with the crooks getting away with what they do?

Its seems like the citizens of Brattleboro have too much idle time on their hands. Probably not enough of them have jobs and are angry at the Bush administration for not being more generous with the taxpayer's money in the form of welfare and other social handouts. I guess that would give them an excuse to come up with something so frivolous. They say that idle hands are the devil's workshop. I guess this is a good example.

About the only constitutional rights liberals are in favor of are those obtained by twisting the language of the constitution to suit their agenda. Things like the so called right of lazy people to sit on their asses and collect money that they haven't earned. That and the right to do other things, too many to list here, that are either disgusting and/or generally immoral by normal peoples standards. Do that while taking the rights of others that are opposed to them.

The war in Iraq was and is justified. It's something that Clinton knew needed doing but wouldn’t commit to. Why dirty your hands with such a task when it can be passed down to the next guy? And, as a bonus, if he’s someone you don’t like you can criticize the way he does it and even the fact that he’s doing it. Like what we have now. Duh.

As far as justifying the invasion goes in this case you can only go by the intelligence you can get. We would have had a lot better intel if the Clinton administration hadn't gutted our intelligence community.
Just because not enough supporting evidence has been uncovered since the war started doesn’t mean the enemy didn’t move it as the war advanced. Myself and plenty of others are convinced that they did. It’s not like Sadam didn’t have other friends in the region to help hide things.
The war is a dirty task but someone had to step up to the plate and do it.

What country hid Saddam's WMDs? Bush will have to attack that country next for supporting terrorism. How about we start by attacking Iran and if they don't have his WMDs we will keep attacking one country after another in the Middle East (except Israel of course) until we find the WMDs (or until we have wiped out the entire Middle East, other than Israel).