Newsgroup: it.cultura.storia.militare
Titolo: Il generale Clark: Bush dovrebbe essere oggetto di impeachment

WASHINGTON (FinalCall.com) -- The U.S. invasion of Iraq was the most serious
act of aggression in the country's history and it was in clear violation of
the most important provisions of international law, according to former
Attorney General Ramsey Clark.
The "crimes" committed by President George W. Bush and others in his
administration warrant the severest response from an alarmed citizenry:
impeachment, Mr. Clark told a luncheon audience at the National Press Club
May 12.
"I urge everyone who cares about the integrity of our Constitution to take
back the Constitution by insisting that the House of Representatives, which
has the sole power of impeachment, process impeachment proceedings now
against President Bush for launching this war of aggression," Mr. Clark
said.
"It's time that we recognize that the Constitution of the United States, at
length and more than with any other single issue, dealt with the problem of
the imperial presidency, or crimes by officers of the United States
executive," he continued.
The authors of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution
provided the means, he continued, "by which 'We the People' could protect
ourselves from an imperial presidency. There are six separate provisions in
the Constitution for impeachment."
The first grounds for impeachment"or formal legal charges being brought
against the President and others"is treason, bribery or other high crimes
and misdemeanors. In order to be removed from office, federal officers must
first be charged with certain violations by the U.S. House of
Representatives"the impeachment"and then must be convicted after a trial
before the U.S. Senate, with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
presiding.
"It's imperative that we face our duty to process impeachment," Mr. Clark
said, citing his Internet website address - 
www.votetoimpeach.org
 - which
has registered nearly 200,000 people who have signed on to impeach Mr. Bush
since March 19 when the invasion of Iraq was formally launched.
His organization"International ANSWER"has also collected more than 50,000
paper ballots from citizens "voting" to impeach the popular president.
"The numbers of crimes that we have committed beyond the worst crime of all,
the war of aggression, are too lengthy to count, but they include an
absolute disregard for all the international law that sought to protect the
right of prisoners," said Mr. Clark.
"Do we really think the rest of the world believes that our assault on Iraq
complied with international law? Then where are the scholars that say so?
Because they don't say so," he continued.
Popular or not, however, Mr. Clark insisted that the drafters of the U.S.
Constitution and its impeachment clause would be "nauseated" by the "shock
and awe" strategy used by the U.S. military in the opening stages of the
invasion of Iraq.
"What was all that shock and awe? Was it just fireworks like the 4th of
July, or was it killing people"the heavy bombardments?" he asked.
"Tell me the difference, psychologically, between what is intended by shock
and awe, and 9/11? It's sudden, devastating violence against a defenseless
people by surprise, seeking awe that will make them tremble and surrender."
Mr. Clark, who was attorney general from 1967-1969 during the last two years
of Lyndon Johnson's presidency, has traveled often to Iraq, frequently
defying U.S. government regulations, taking humanitarian supplies; and he
has met often with former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
"This country of ours has committed the most serious act of aggression in
its history by engaging in a war of aggression without a declaration of war
by Congress," he said. "We attacked a country that was defenseless, was
known to be defenseless before we attacked. We sent missiles that they never
saw until they hit."
The U.S. news and information media have done a poor job, Mr. Clark said, of
presenting a balanced view of the war. "How many times have you seen concern
about how many Iraqis were killed? The media needs to find out how many
Iraqis died. Don't they matter? Are their lives worth less than ours?"
Fonte: FinalCall.com

 Fonte: FinalCall.com
"The Final Call founded by Minister Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of
Islam"
giusto quella che si dice una fonte indipendente :)
** Free nntp server at 
www.x-privat.org
 **

Attorney General Ramsey Clark.
senza entrare nel merito del post... almeno leggi quello che scrivi
che eviti figure barbine...
il generale si chiama Wesley Clark...
questo, come e' chiaramente scritto nell'articolo, e' l'ex procuratore
generale Ramsey etc...
Iso


Più che altro mi sono confuso, pensavo fosse un generale in pensione... Ciò
non toglie che le accuse siano gravissime.


capita. 
quote
"This country of ours has committed the most serious act of aggression
in
its history by engaging in a war of aggression without a declaration
of war
by Congress," he said. "We attacked a country that was defenseless,
was
known to be defenseless before we attacked. We sent missiles that they
never
saw until they hit."
unquote
nel merito
la prima frase dell'ex procuratore, da molto alla ribalta delle
cronache, puo' essere corretta alla luce della giurisprudenza us. Dico
puo' perche' non so...
quello che come sempre mi infastidisce e' il vuoto ricorso alla
retorica. Una nazione che attacca dovrebbe farlo con armi paragonabili
all'attaccato, cosicche' concede "cavallerescamente" anche agli altri
la possibilita' di vincere? 
Dove sta la logica?
La legittimita' dell'attacco e' sempre parsa dubbia anche a me.
I metodi pero' non sono discutibili. non vorre fare il soldato per una
nazione che mi manda a combattere con le spade solo perche' gli
avversari hanno le spade...
Iso

 Iso
Concordo però sarebbe interessante affrontare il discorso "onoreficenze" in
una guerra del genere... Non pensi che sarebbe il caso di non distribuirle
se non in casi eccezzionali? Io per una guerra dove sono avvenuti blitz
"falsi" come quello per la liberazione di Jessica francamente non me la
sentirei di decorare al valore nessuno.



per le decorazioni al valore in tutti gli eserciti che conosco
esistono regole assai restrittive.
per il "blitz" non decoreranno al valore nessuno, daranno un encomio
(per abilita') a chi l'ha ideato (dal punto di vista psyops e' stata
una furbata).
considerato che cmq combattimenti ci sono stati, in ogni caso qualche
caso da decorare ci sara' stato di sicuro...
Iso

 Iso
Io direi che sembra lo stesso atteggiamento del Papato quando critico gli
inglesi che vinsero i francesi a crecy nel 1346 grazie all'uso 'non
cavalleresco' di centinaia di arcieri che fecero a pezzi la cavalleria pesante
francese, con armi appunto che non potevano nemmeno vedere quando arrivavano (o
quasi)
                                        Andrea 'Cid Highwind'