T Nation

Nader: Impeach Obama



Former presidential candidate Ralph Nader says that President Obama should be impeached for committing war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The consumer advocate and former presidential candidate said in an interview that aired Friday that Obama has committed "war crimes" on the same level as President Bush.

Why don't we say what's on the minds of many legal experts; that the Obama administration is committing war crimes and if Bush should have been impeached, Obama should be impeached," Nader said in an interview with the anti-war Democracy Now! organization.

Nader's comments came before the U.S. launched military strikes into Libya on Saturday but are among the toughest criticisms Obama has endured from the left.

The consumer advocate participated in an anti-war demonstration outside the White House this weekend, during which over 100 protesters were arrested.

The U.S. sought the passage of a U.N. Security Council resolution and commitments from European and Arab nations before taking action in Libya to thwart the country's leader, Col. Moammar Gadhafi, from killing civilians amidst a rebellion against his regime.

Nader's comments, however, were mainly directed at Obama's prosecution of the Afghanistan war. Some liberal activists have objected to Obama's decision to escalate the war and are unhappy with government's treatment of Bradley Manning, the Army private accused of leaking classified documents to the organization WikiLeaks.

"[Bush officials] were considered war criminals by many people. Now Barack Obama is committing the same crimes," Nader said. "In fact, worse ones in Afghanistan. Innocents are being slaughtered, we are creating more enemies, he is violating international law."

Obama appears to be facing growing resistance from the left over his administration's foreign policy.

Anti-war filmmaker Michael Moore sharply criticized the president's authorization of military strikes in Libya and a cadre of liberal House Democrats are questioning the constitutionality of the Libya operation

At around 1:30 he says Obama is doing more war crimes then Bush.


Yeah, I don't like Obama either, but let's face facts. Nader is a nut-bag and stopped being relevant probably two decades ago.


relevant or not, it does not change the fact that unconstitutional use of armed forces has been occurring since Korea.

We are now at a breaking point with our budget and the military. The Libya charade is no more than a proxy by european nations who depend further on middle eastern, and particularly libyan oil to be held less hostage by someone other than ghadafi with the nice pretext of humanitarian intervention. As evidenced by the folly of M-16 operatives, western nations know little about the fragmented opposition and their motives. They could be very similar to any of the supposed enemies we are engaging in the two other unconstitutional inhumane wars.

Governments can only govern on the consent of the people, however bloody the revolution is. The information age and the internet provides a solid method for that to occur, since other methods over the history of time have been nullified by governments. A prime example is "common grounds" in the UK which were then confiscated by the government after they were utilized as an area to sow dissent. Refer to our current masqueraded bill the Net Neutrality Act. The implications in these operations are of a far greater scope than the actions themselves. Ghadafi may brutalize many, but his cause is lost, its just a matter of when. We do not need to step in there, set up more puppet governments that foster illegitimacy and chicanery like our other buffoons.

The war on terror is perpetuated by our follies that lead to more insurgents. If we simply GET THE FUCK out, our problem of terrorism is gone, but unfortunately so is the states fear mongering control apparatus.

Ellenberg and Bradley Manning merely exposed the deception that our country has engaged in.



good point :slight_smile:


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


He stopped talking to me halfway through my comment on his politics when he was here at my school.


So Ralph Nader is still around? Too bad, I thought he had returned to his home planet.


Real lol here. Thanks.


You believe terrorists exist simply because "they hate us" for no reason?

None are justifying violence but to believe that our government doesn't share some blame is simply naive.


I really hate hearing this and usually read it from some 20 year old political science major who has had his brain washed by a left wing professor. Full blown adults usually know better. And this IS a suggestion that we deserved the attack on 9/11.


The CIA refers to it as Blowback, in the bible they call it an eye for an eye. They didn't just decide because they where bored one day to fly a few planes into buildings.


Deserved is a strong connotation, nobody in this country DESERVED to die. This situation applies also to the innocents caught in between the strife in the middle east. What is in debatable is that there is a direct correlation between our nepotistic and maligned involvement in the middle east, and the amount of violence directed towards American servicemen and citizens. There is no reason to have these foreign bases and support corrupt foreign leaders other than imperialistic tendencies.

Zeb, while I respect many of your posts as pragmatic and honest looks at dealing with a situation the way things really are as opposed to an ideal world, I fail to see how you cannot realize that our foreign policy creates more of the state's terror and fear mongering instincts. It is plausible that individuals and states will attack without provocation, but generally rare.

Taking the 9-11 situation into account, who is to say that we could not simply eradicate those responsible instead of engulfing ourselves in a myriad of tribal/nationalistic and religious disputes. I would wager that most of what we are railing against had nothing to do with the initial attacks. Furthermore, why would we then continue to support the Saudis and Pakistanis who knowingly supported or aided in some way those whom we seek to destroy. Once again, the solution is to free ourselves of entangling alliances and engagements that do not directly benefit the liberty and welfare of our own citizenry.

FWIW, I am not 20, nor did I study Political Science, if that was in fact directed at me. I manage a 96 million dollar budget and have a degree in Economics, and am a firm libertarian (not that associations are all that important)though I doubt that would change your presumptions of my supposed left wing naivete.


As difficult as it is for some people to believe, terrorists actually do have political motivations for their actions. I am not addressing the morality of terrorism in the preceding sentence but rather the cause (I mention this because many simply react and think that this is a justification rather than an explanation of terrorist activity).

This would depend on whose mouth it is coming from.


Nice way to spin an argument on its head. You are oblivious and it is your way of thinking that is to blame for the terrorism that takes place upon innocent people.


ZEB conflates the meaning of the ideas justification and condemnation.

Just because I condemn people for the fallacious ideas they hold (and the actions that come about because of them) does not mean I would justify their murders because I condemn their ideas.

ZEB uses this argumentative artifice because he, like the many people in the establishment, think we are too stupid to notice.


And they certainly weren't bored when they began slaughtering African Christians and animists, neither of whom had visited a "foreign policy" on the poor terrorists to create said "blowback".

You'd almost think they had, like, an ideological agenda independent of "reaction" to policies they don't like or something.

You're as bad as the most left-wing Marxist determinist You ought to be ashamed at your sloppiness.


Africa has always been tribal. But we didn't get attacked till we intervined.

If you feel the attack on the African Christians where an attack on you send your money to them or go over there and start fighting them, not America's job to police the world because it leads to blowback.


When you make outrageous statements you must be ready to have them challenged. Tell me what does "our government shares some blame" mean? Blame for what? What is there to blame anyone for but the attacks on our shores?


If you go hit a bee hive with a stick and get stung who's fault is it.


If we applied the same logic the US uses to attack other countries you inarguably did.