The Student Room Group

Should Obama Be Impeached?

Obama broke his own law in the release of deserter and national traitor Bowe Bergdahl. Combined with his multiple violations of the constitution, should he be impeached?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/06/04/impeach-barack-obama/

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
He should be executed
Reply 2
Of course not. The only type of people who think so are those who think Obama's a commie (i.e. don't have a clue what a real socialist is).
Reply 3
Yea also for the illegal war in libya and ignoring congress on like 12 different policy matters
Original post by Rakas21
Of course not. The only type of people who think so are those who think Obama's a commie (i.e. don't have a clue what a real socialist is).


What do you think should happen when the president breaks the law?
Reply 5
Original post by TheBritishArmy
What do you think should happen when the president breaks the law?


In this case it's relatively minor and the guys still an American citizen.
Original post by Rakas21
In this case it's relatively minor and the guys still an American citizen.


No it damn well isn't minor. At least five US soldiers were killed in the hunt for Bergdahl. Bergdahl is a deserter who left his post. Five of the most dangerous Taliban militants have been released.

A crime is a crime. The President has broken the law and should be impeached. I'm afraid there is no room for manoeuvre on this one.
Considering I have a Public Law exam in 6 hours I'm just going go say it..


>Muhhh Rule of Law!!
Original post by TheBritishArmy
Bergdahl is a deserter who left his post.


Allegedly.
No, that's ridiculous. Past presidents did far, far worse, if you're outraged at the illegality or the unconstitutionality of this then you're just woefully ignorant of U.S. politics.
Reply 11
No. I've read so many opinion piece that suggest he hasn't broken any law so anyone can twist this anyway they like. I wouldn't use the opinion of a crazy GOP as something to go by.

Anyways, the only impeachable offence is getting a blowjob from a side chick in the Oval Office.


Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 9 years ago)
Reply 12
Original post by DaveSmith99
No, that's ridiculous. Past presidents did far, far worse, if you're outraged at the illegality or the unconstitutionality of this then you're just woefully ignorant of U.S. politics.


It's quite funny really. Even oliver north is getting involved. Even accuses Obama for been to transparent.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by 419
It's quite funny really. Even oliver north is getting involved. Even accuses Obama for been to transparent.


Posted from TSR Mobile


The hypocrisy of the GOP is unbelievable. Less than 12 months ago the same people who are so outraged that he didn't ask congress were outraged because he did ask congress http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/pete-king-obama-show-weakness-syria-article-1.1444099
Original post by thunder_chunky
Allegedly.

A soldier who leaves his unit in the middle of the night minus his weapon, his body armour and his personal equipment and joins the enemy is a deserter for which the proper penalty fairly applied is death by firing squad. There is no allegedly.
Original post by Old_Simon
A soldier who leaves his unit in the middle of the night minus his weapon, his body armour and his personal equipment and joins the enemy is a deserter for which the proper penalty fairly applied is death by firing squad. There is no allegedly.


It could also just be classed as AWOL and death by firing squad is not the proper penalty for desertion, it's the maximum penalty.
Original post by DaveSmith99
It could also just be classed as AWOL and death by firing squad is not the proper penalty for desertion, it's the maximum penalty.

AWOL is not the proper offence. The sole offence for absence in the face of the enemy is desertion. Even if it weren't, then the circumstance of abandoning his personal weapon and the length of the absence would tip it from AWOL to desertion. Insofar as he provided succour to the enemy (voluntarily apparently) it is also treason.
Original post by Old_Simon
AWOL is not the proper offence. The sole offence for absence in the face of the enemy is desertion. Even if it weren't, then the circumstance of abandoning his personal weapon and the length of the absence would tip it from AWOL to desertion. Insofar as he provided succour to the enemy (voluntarily apparently) it is also treason.


In the U.S. desertion and AWOL are both offences and the difference is intent, not time absent.
Original post by DaveSmith99
In the U.S. desertion and AWOL are both offences and the difference is intent, not time absent.

Well I know almost nothing about US military law. I will just say that here at a Court Martial intent is also the key to a desertion conviction but the length of absence is a fact from which the inference of the intent may be drawn. It is of course a military fiction that the soldier was in fact intending to return all along which underpins all extended AWOL cases. Also I might add for info purposes that in the UK once a soldier in the UK receives notice of a deployment to a theatre of operations then all absence is charged as desertion. In general AWOL is not a charge which is used widely during combat operations.
Original post by DaveSmith99
No, that's ridiculous. Past presidents did far, far worse, if you're outraged at the illegality or the unconstitutionality of this then you're just woefully ignorant of U.S. politics.


Whataboutery is not an argument. Breaking the law is an impeachable offence.

Original post by 419
No. I've read so many opinion piece that suggest he hasn't broken any law so anyone can twist this anyway they like. I wouldn't use the opinion of a crazy GOP as something to go by.

Anyways, the only impeachable offence is getting a blowjob from a side chick in the Oval Office.


Posted from TSR Mobile


He broke the NDAA, that's irrefutable. Any breach of the law is an impeachable offence.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending