Ok....Can Anyone Tell Me Why Congress Does Not Impeach Bush Now? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 06-14-2007, 12:45 AM

I don't think that the US house of representatives can justify waiting any longer to draw up articles of impeachment against president Bush for crimes against the US Constitution.

I think that the house majority sworn in in January, 2007 should have impeached by now, based on the following:

Quote:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...rri/index.html
Wednesday June 13, 2007 09:58 EST
The al-Marri decision

Having now carefully reviewed the Al-Marri <a href="http://gulcfac.typepad.com/georgetown_university_law/files/al.marri.cta4.decision.pdf">decision</a> (.pdf), as well as ample commentary from those defending and criticizing the opinion, there are several points worth making. But the overarching point is how extraordinary it is -- specifically, how extraordinarily disturbing it is -- that we are even debating these issues at all.

Although its ultimate resolution is complicated, the question raised by Al-Marri is a clear and simple one: <h3>Does the President have the power -- and/or should he have it -- to arrest individuals on U.S. soil and keep them imprisoned for years and years, indefinitely, without charging them with a crime</h3>, allowing them access to lawyers or the outside world, and/or providing a meaningful opportunity to contest the validity of the charges?

<h3>How can that question not answer itself? Who would possibly believe that an American President has such powers, and more to the point, what kind of a person would want a President to have such powers? That is one of a handful of powers which this country was founded to prevent.</h3>

Al-Marri was in the U.S. legally, studying at Bradley University, living with his wife and 5 children, and sitting at home in Peoria, Illinois when he was detained and then ultimately charged, in a court of law, with committing various crimes. He was set to have a trial in July 2003 when the President suddenly and unilaterally decreed him to be an "enemy combatant," ordered him put into military custody, had his trial cancelled, and then proceeded to imprison him for the next four years -- including many months where he was denied any contact at all with the outside world, including lawyers -- all without charging him with any crime.

Does that even sound remotely like the United States? If the President has the power to do that to al-Marri -- to arrest him from his home inside the U.S. and keep him locked up forever without due process -- then, by definition, the President can detain anyone in exactly the same way. And all of the <a href="http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_06_10-2007_06_16.shtml#1181679811">high-minded</a> and <a href="http://volokh.com/posts/1181615410.shtml">oh-so-civil</a> lawyerly rhetoric in the world cannot mask the radicalism and profoundly un-American vision which proponents of such powers embrace.

Anyone who objects to the court's decision -- and particularly anyone who seeks to vest the President with powers of indefinite, due-process-less military detention of individuals on U.S. soil -- <b>is, by definition, advocating nothing less than the establishment of martial law inside the U.S. That is the precise point the court made, at page 72 (emphasis added):

"Absent suspension of the writ of habeas corpus or declaration of martial law, the Constitution simply does not provide the President the power to exercise military authority over civilians within the U.S."</b>

Whether we want that is now the locus of respectable debate inside this country. Beyond that general framework, there are several specific points worth making:

(1) Those who want to vest the President with the power to detain suspected terrorists with no due process never address what checks or limits would exist on abuse of that power. Search high and low for defenders of this presidential power and see if you can find a single one who addresses this question.

Allowing the President unilaterally to declare individuals to be "enemy combatants" with no meaningful review process means, by definition, that the President's power to imprison people for life is unchallengeable and unreviewable. No hyperbole is needed to describe that as a core tyrannical power, one of the defining attributes of dictatorial rule. How does that, by itself, not end the debate over whether this is something that ought to be done?

It is just self-evident that vesting the President with this power will result in inevitable and widespread abuse of that power. That is why our system of government does not recognize such a thing as unchecked power generally or executive imprisonment specifically. Those who advocate unilateral presidential imprisonment power willfully ignore that issue and simply pretend (or blindly trust) that the power will only be used against The Terrorists -- exactly the assumption our entire system of government was constructed to reject.

(2) Despite its 77-page length opinion, the court's decision is compelled by one extremely simple and clear proposition. As Anonymous Liberal <a href="http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2007/06/why-al-marri-decision-was-right.html">documents at length</a> -- and as the court's opinion makes clear -- <h3>the reason that the President cannot consign al-Marri to a military prison with no trial is because doing so is against the law.</h3> Just as was true with warrantless eavesdropping and Guantanamo military commissions, the issue is just that simple, yet those who want to vest the President with these powers could not care any less about the law.

As A.L. explains, the court's decision rests on the very simple proposition that Congress, when it enacted the Patriot Act, provided a very clear legal framework for the detention of suspected terrorists inside the U.S. -- namely, it allows temporary detention but requires due process be accorded to the accused suspect. The court rested its decision on a strict statutory reading of the law:
<img src="http://bp2.blogger.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/RnABXFM4pUI/AAAAAAAAAB0/yTJx1jIsP7s/s400/quote5.bmp">
detention.

That law is crystal clear. But yet again, the claim to power of the Bush administration and its followers is reduced to one simple proposition -- namely, that the President is greater than the law, that his powers exist outside of the laws enacted by the American people through their Congress, and that the need to fight The Terrorists means that nothing can limit the Commander-in-Chief's authority.

It is the same argument over and over -- grounded in the now-familiar <a href="http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/ideology-of-lawlessness.html">Ideology of Lawlessness</a> -- which has governed this country for the last six years: namely, the President is not a mere public servant subject to the rule of law, but is the omnipotent Commander-in-Chief who can exercise extraordinary powers such as due-process-less imprisonment even on U.S. soil without any legal authorization, and more amazing still, even in the face of clear statutes prohibiting exactly those powers. The desired power here is not only tyrannical, but completely lawless as well.

(3) As usual, those who seek to vest the President with such tyrannical power rely almost exclusively on scare tactics -- not only that the Terrorists are a grave and mortal threat, but specifically, that if we force the President to prove that individuals are actually guilty before punishing them, then all sorts of horrible things will occur....

.....(6) Finally, the fact that al-Marri is "merely" a legal resident of the U.S. rather than a U.S. citizen should not obscure the fact that the reasoning of the administration and its followers in this case would apply equally to American citizens. Indeed, it is vital to emphasize that the court in this case was constrained by a prior Fourth Circuit ruling which was binding on this court that upheld the due-process-less detention of American citizen Jose Padilla, a decision which was set to be reviewed by the Supreme Court when the Bush administration finally transferred Padilla to a civilian court and charged him with a crime in order to render Padilla's case "moot."

Thus, the administration does not argue that it has the power to imprison al-Marri in a military prison forever, with no charges, because he is merely a legal resident, rather than an American citizen.

Instead, it argues -- and a prior Fourth Circuit court has concluded -- that it has the power to so detain anyone, U.S. citizens included, whom the President deems to be an "enemy combatant." Those who believe the President has and should have this power with regard to al-Marri have no reasonable means to confine that power to non-citizens (and, indeed, the administration argued and the Supreme Court in Hamdi accepted the premise that the administration can detain U.S. citizens captured on a foreign battlefield as "enemy combatants"). Their tyrannical vision -- whereby the Leader can order people imprisoned forever with no trial -- is the very one which the Founders of this country sought first and foremost to avoid. The court undescored how threatening these theories are:

<img src="http://bp1.blogger.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/RnAPp1M4pYI/AAAAAAAAACU/u4WAvyjg6aI/s400/quote3.bmp">
<br>
<img src="http://bp0.blogger.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/RnAP0lM4pZI/AAAAAAAAACc/IcSvxl9BdgU/s400/quote4.bmp">
<br>
Freedoms are virtually always lost incrementally. I know we are supposed to debate these matters soberly and with civility, but it is difficult to treat advocates of tyranny as anything other than dangerous extremists. The very fact that such individuals can and are openly advocating that we vest the President with the power to imprison people inside the U.S. with no charges by itself ought to be causing far more alarm than it is. This 2-1 decision may very well be reversed on appeal and was likely the by-product of a fortuitously assigned panel than anything else. If the possibility of arbitrary and indefinite executive imprisonment does not constitute a true constitutional crisis, then it is hard to imagine what would.

-- Glenn Greenwald

....and, since we're talking about the illegal imposition of "martial law" by the illegal actions of the president, prudence would dictate that we "err", if we even run the risk, in these circumstances, of "erring", is to "err" on the safe side...via articles of impeachment and a swift trial in the US senate.

<h3>How would it be more responsible or prudent to allow illegal detentions ordered by the president, to continue? </h3>

Quote:

http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2007...was-right.html
......First, as a purely factual matter, let's be clear about what the court held. Having determed that al-Marri was being held unlawfully, the court stated the following:

<i>The government can transfer al-Marri to civilian authorities to face criminal charges, initiate deportation proceedings against him, hold him as a material witness in connection with grand jury proceedings, or detain him for a limited time pursuant to the Patriot Act. But military detention of al-Marri must cease. </i>

Why is the government limited to this particular set of options? Well, it's actually pretty simple. As the Court makes abundantly clear, these are the only options currently provided for by U.S. law.
........

Since congress has not even scheduled impeachment hearings, and since the crimes of the president are obvious and in violation of our most cherished and most important former constituional protections, how is it appropriate not to immediately engage in vehement, unrelenting, uninterrupted acts of non violent civil disobedience, without ruling out protests escalating up to, and at least considered, forceful resistance? Is fear of engaging in armed revolt, even an excuse, if what I've read in the above description, is reliable, and I've understood it correctly, for avoiding our obligation and natural reaction to take back, from the president, OUR constitutionally guaranteed, RIGHTS? Are they guaranteed by anything other than our willingness to fight and die to preserve them, under our control?

Didn't 200,000 American troops die fighting in WWII to preserve constitutional protections, for all of us, that the court ruling has now confirmed that the president has illegally transferred away from us, unto himself, alone, to allow us the protections of....or not?

dksuddeth · 06-14-2007, 03:06 AM

the ramifications of the patriot act will take years to straighten out. Congress will not impeach over this because most of them signed and voted for it themselves. That would implicate them by default.

shakran · 06-14-2007, 05:02 AM

Are you kidding Host? You're wondering why a congress that rolled over and gave Bush what he wanted on the war spending bill instead of fighting it like the American people specifically elected them to do isn't impeaching him? The answer's easy. They're a bunch of wimps who don't like to make waves.

aceventura3 · 06-14-2007, 08:14 AM

Host,

Why do you think Congress has not impeached Bush?

Willravel · 06-14-2007, 08:35 AM

I would suggest putting into action a law that give the American people the option of a vote of no confidence in the President. It's clear that, despite the intended separation of the branches of our government, their interests are easily intertwined. This often makes independent action from one branch against another an act against themselves, as dksuddeth pointed out in post #2 (I'm finding myself agreeing with DK!). The best way around that would either find a way to shrink the government back down a bit, or to create a counter power, like a union. Obviously, there's a power imbalance between the government and the people.

host · 06-14-2007, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Host,

Why do you think Congress has not impeached Bush?

...because of this tendency, described by Patrick Henry, in 1775:

Quote:

http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/henry.shtml
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death

March 23, 1775
By Patrick Henry

.......Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, <b>it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts.</b> Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the numbers of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.......

....and dksuddeth, are we yet in a circumstance where we are required to take back our constitutional rights using any and all means, including using the arms that you have so consistently maintained are our right to possess, without restriction....and if not now, with congress unwilling or unable to attempt to remove the president from office, even in reaction to circumstances already abridging our guaranteed "freedoms", described in the OP, when then, and under what further aggravated circumstances?

joshbaumgartner · 06-14-2007, 08:56 AM

Will,

Most of this country doesn't want to take on the responsibility of electing the president once every four years. Do you think they want the responsibility of having to weigh a no confidence motion in between? I mean I'm all for greater democracy, but democracy really puts responsibility on the people, and I don't know if the American people want that responsibility. I think a great number much prefer to put the responsibility on others to make their decisions for them.

aceventura3 · 06-14-2007, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

...because of this tendency, described by Patrick Henry, in 1775:

Host,

Why do you think that did not stop the Republican controlled Congress from impeaching Clinton?

Willravel · 06-14-2007, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshbaumgartner

Will,

Most of this country doesn't want to take on the responsibility of electing the president once every four years. Do you think they want the responsibility of having to weigh a no confidence motion in between? I mean I'm all for greater democracy, but democracy really puts responsibility on the people, and I don't know if the American people want that responsibility. I think a great number much prefer to put the responsibility on others to make their decisions for them.

It's a way to allow people to understand what 'democracy' really means, namely massive responsibility spread out on the whole populace, making corruption and the attack on the rights of the populace much more difficult. I'm sure if you were to poll people, you'd get at least 75% against torture. I'm sure 60% of people don't know what habeas corpus is, which is a disgrace. If we were more involved in affairs of state, more people would have incentive to learn about our responsibility as members of a democracy.

To those who would have others make their decisions for them, I'm sure Omar al-Bashir would love to have a few new citizens in Sudan.

tecoyah · 06-14-2007, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Host,

Why do you think that did not stop the Republican controlled Congress from impeaching Clinton?

Because as a general rule, Republican mindset is far more brutal than democrat.

host · 06-14-2007, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Host,

Why do you think that did not stop the Republican controlled Congress from impeaching Clinton?

My ace, yer full of questions today, aren't you. Here's an answer for you that I could have authored:

Quote:

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/...eone-tell.html

.....Ever since Nixon, the Republicans have been getting away with criminal behavior when they are in power. Nixon was allowed to resign and was pre-emptively pardoned. His minions all took their punishment like men, however, and did their time without complaints. But that was the last time. After the multiple crimes committed in Iran-Contra --- big ones, to do with national security and unconstitutional executive power-grabs --- the Republicans decided they had nothing to lose by pardoning their criminal underlings and so they did.

Once Bill "he's not my president" Clinton was elected, the rules changed of course, and they tried to run him out of office with endless partisan witch hunts and impeachment over consensual sexual behavior. For the coup de grace, they had a full-blown hissy fit over his pardon of Marc Rich --- who was represented by Scooter Libby! Now they are clutching their pearls once again about a Republican being the victim of the long arm of the law and the pundits (and now some Democrats) are whining about how he must never see the inside of a jail because he is such a fine fellow and the horrible Republican appointed prosecutor was out to get him.

I don't know why Scooter is so damned special that everybody in Washington is having the vapors over the fact that he may have to do time. (I know if I were Jack Abramoff, I'd be a little bit miffed that nobody is lifting a finger after the tens of millions I'd funneled to all my good friends.)I mused yesterday that it was because the town elders are circling the wagons around one of their own, and I think that's part of it.

But it appears that this is actually something more and it's beginning to smell very ugly to me. The political and media establishment are making an explicit argument that high level Republicans really should be held to a lower standard than other Americans --- the exact opposite of the argument they made in the Clinton impeachment, where they insisted that a non-material lie about a private sexual matter in a dismissed case was so important that it required a duly elected and successful president be removed from office. Perhaps the problem is simply that the it's a capitol full of lawyers, who tailor their arguments for each individual case. Unfortunately, the only client seems to be the Republican party.

The fact is that the Libby case is simply not partisan. The Democrats were completely out of power and had nothing to do with it, so the cries of witchhunt and prosecutorial misconduct are absurd on their faces. Patrick Fitzgerald is the kind of prosecutor Republicans usually revere --- a by-the-book believer in the letter of the law. Yet they are making these specious arguments anyway and they are quite likely, in my estimation, to make them work, through sheer insider power.

I frankly never cared if Scooter did time or got probation or did community service. But nice people get jail sentences that seem harsh every day in this country and all of Scooter's friends are the first ones to say the judge should throw away the keys. Certainly, George "please don't kill me, please don't kill me" Bush is not known for his compassion when it comes to matters of sentencing. So all this special pleading is especially distasteful coming from these people.

I'm not big on blog triumphalism, but if there is one thing we bring to the table it's that our distance from that milieu brings some perspective to it. And from where I sit we have a decadent elite who rule on behalf of a political party that finds authoritarianism quite appealing --- as long as they aren't personally subject to it. Pardon me for thinking that might not be the best thing for the country.

aceventura3 · 06-14-2007, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

My ace, yer full of questions today, aren't you. Here's an answer for you that I could have authored:

Host,

I am not sure how the quote provided answers the question.

Tacohay, certainly gave a clear answer. My first thought was that I didn't agree with the answer, but after thinking about it, Tacohay may be correct. I know my tendency is to go for the "jugular" much sooner than some of my more liberal acquantances.

Willravel · 06-14-2007, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Tacohay...Tacohay...

aceventura3 · 06-14-2007, 12:29 PM

Sorry, Tecoyah (post #10)

Walking Shadow · 06-14-2007, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Host,

Why do you think that did not stop the Republican controlled Congress from impeaching Clinton?

Because the Republicans had a much larger majority hold on Congress back then than the Democrats do now. While a large number of Republicans are disgusted with Shrub and what he has done, they haven't yet reached the tipping point where they would go along with impeachment proceedings.

That's the simplest reason why there won't be any impeachment.

Also, we are a little more then 18 months away from electing a new President and both Democrats and Republicans who are now running or who may jump in the race later have no desire to be dealing with impeachment proceedings and hearings when they also need to be out on the campaign trail.

aceventura3 · 06-15-2007, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

Because as a general rule, Republican mindset is far more brutal than democrat.

I thought about this some more. I actually think middle-aged female Democrats who wear tailored suits are on the top of the list of being brutal. When I see one walking down the sidewalk, I cross the street. I would never want to be on the recieving end of what a person like Pelosi or even Hilar Clinton can do to you. You won't see it coming and you won't even know what hit you.

Willravel · 06-15-2007, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I thought about this some more. I actually think middle-aged female Democrats who wear tailored suits are on the top of the list of being brutal. When I see one walking down the sidewalk, I cross the street. I would never want to be on the recieving end of what a person like Pelosi or even Hilar Clinton can do to you. You won't see it coming and you won't even know what hit you.

The whole post was just sort of a baseless slam. You don't like Pelosi or Clinton. Okay. How many wars have they started.....

Charlatan · 06-15-2007, 09:25 AM

One could argue that Hilary helped start one, maybe two.

She gave and still gives support for the action in Iraq and one can imagine that she was supportive of Bill's actions in Kosovo.

tecoyah · 06-15-2007, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I thought about this some more. I actually think middle-aged female Democrats who wear tailored suits are on the top of the list of being brutal. When I see one walking down the sidewalk, I cross the street. I would never want to be on the recieving end of what a person like Pelosi or even Hilar Clinton can do to you. You won't see it coming and you won't even know what hit you.

Wow...this one post said more about you than you obviously expected. I sort of knew all along, but damn...such clarity.

aceventura3 · 06-15-2007, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

The whole post was just sort of a baseless slam. You don't like Pelosi or Clinton. Okay. How many wars have they started.....

I was actually giving these women a compliment. If Pelosi wasn't as tough as nails, she would not have become speaker. Not only has she become speaker, but she defiantly took a trip to the middle east against the objections of the White House, she got a jet as big as Cheney, she has already push through her initial agenda. The woman has people jumping in Washington.

I also think she is the reason Congress has not impeached Bush. I think she sees the big picture in ways that others don't. And like I said, I would not want to be on her bad side.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

Wow...this one post said more about you than you obviously expected. I sort of knew all along, but damn...such clarity.

All you ever have to do is ask, and I will always share my view.

host · 06-21-2007, 11:40 AM

....and Bush's approval rating falls to a new low....one point above Nixon's when he resigned in 1974..........

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19354100/site/newsweek/

26 percent approve........

Willravel · 06-21-2007, 11:44 AM

Wow...26%. It's time to impeach now. We all know he's damning our country, and we can prevent another year and a half of this garbage. I'm supporting Kucinich's impeachment articles for Bush and Cheney.

aceventura3 · 06-21-2007, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

....and Bush's approval rating falls to a new low....one point above Nixon's when he resigned in 1974..........

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19354100/site/newsweek/

26 percent approve........

The first poll question from the link provided is:

Quote:

Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States at this time?

So I guess people want higher unemployment, higher inflation, no economic growth, higher taxes, higher interest rates, negative stock market performance, no job growth, no growth in real wages, less internal security, more government, etc.

Since the question did not apply to thing outside of the US, I would assume it does not apply to international issues including Iraq.

On the otherhand I guess the question is so broad, everyone can find some issue to be unhappy about. It makes you wonder about the 26% who said yes, they are satisfied.

dc_dux · 06-21-2007, 02:14 PM

I suspect Host was referring to the second question in the poll:

2. Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?

Approve - 26 percent, Disapprove - 65 percent, Dont know - 9 percent

Most recent other polls of Bush's job performance are not much better and trending down by the month

http://pollingreport.com/

But impeachment is not gonna happen. We're just gonna have to suffer through the next 18 months of the most immoral, secretive and incompetent administration in our lifetime...and hope Congress can minimize any further damage.

Elphaba · 06-21-2007, 03:03 PM

Conyers is building the rationale for impeachment brick by brick, and each one comes closer to the oval office. I recommend patience because the "plausible deniability" built around Bush needs to be eliminated first.

dksuddeth · 06-21-2007, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

...because of this tendency, described by Patrick Henry, in 1775:

....and dksuddeth, are we yet in a circumstance where we are required to take back our constitutional rights using any and all means, including using the arms that you have so consistently maintained are our right to possess, without restriction....and if not now, with congress unwilling or unable to attempt to remove the president from office, even in reaction to circumstances already abridging our guaranteed "freedoms", described in the OP, when then, and under what further aggravated circumstances?

wow, i'm sorry host. I did not realize there was a comment directed to me or I would have responded earlier.
To answer that question directly, no. we are not yet in a circumstance where violence is necessary. We have an executive that is grabbing more power, usurping power that does not belong to that branch but the responsibility for that problem lies in both houses at this point. We can still elect new house members that will force things like censure/impeachment. We can still petition the courts for SOME things. If the house/senate members we elect to represent us, refuse to do those things, we must elect ones that will and THAT will require americans to actually use their brains and vote something other than the major parties. Otherwise, all we are doing is playing around the vicious circle of us v. them politics.
Trust me, you'll know full and well when it is the absolute time for violence and it will most likely start with medium scale violence initiated by the government against fringe groups.

here is a question for people. with the latest polls showing bush at 26%, but congress at 14%, who do we really have issue with? and what should we do about THAT??

Willravel · 06-21-2007, 08:43 PM

DK, would you like to see Bush impeached? I'm just curious, and I'm hoping this is one of those things we agree on.

dksuddeth · 06-21-2007, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

DK, would you like to see Bush impeached? I'm just curious, and I'm hoping this is one of those things we agree on.

actually will, I think censuring would be the best at this point. he's in his last two years and also, do you REALLY want to see cheney in the POTUS spot?

Willravel · 06-21-2007, 09:15 PM

I would think that a Bush impeachment would automatically mean a Cheney impeachment.

ubertuber · 06-21-2007, 09:34 PM

That might not be the good news for Pelosi that one would expect, and it would invite serious backlash from the republican leaning swing voters in 2008.

I'd say that at this point impeachment would be a tactical victory and strategic mistake. Censure now and criminal prosecutions after they leave office.

dksuddeth · 06-21-2007, 11:38 PM

constitutional law and procedure would not allow you to impeach bush and cheney at the same time and automatically propel pelosi to the spot of POTUS. You would have to impeach bush first, let cheney become POTUS, allow the senate to confirm a VP pick by cheney, then impeach cheney.

tecoyah · 06-22-2007, 03:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

I'd say that at this point impeachment would be a tactical victory and strategic mistake. Censure now and criminal prosecutions after they leave office.

100% agreed...we cannot afford an even weaker leadership right now. Damage control unill they are gone, then do with them what you will.

The_Jazz · 06-22-2007, 04:54 AM

dk - you and I actually agree on something almost completely in re a Bush impeachment.

I doubt censur would happen either, if for no other reason than it would distract from the Presidential race next year.

host · 06-23-2007, 04:29 AM

When I read the excuses posted for why it is not advisable...or even a necessity that these two thugs be immediately impeached and tried in the senate for "high crimes against the constitution", framed especially in the context of what is described in this article....a coup by the VP, approved by the de-cider....I have to wonder if these thugs, as well as most of you....have taken leave of your senses.

Have you not lived through the last six years and eight months in this country? They are telling us that they are not accountable, and they have been blatantly acting as if they are not.....and you react with the comments that you've posted? They've tested you....and you confirm their assumptions.....you're giving away....to them....what is not your prerogative to give to them.

You even assume that they'll both give up their offices in early 2009....why?
Even if they do allow elections in Nov., 2008, and routinely leave office the following january, the appointments to the SCOTUS of Roberts and Alito, and possibly one or two more like, them will stand....and the 150 Regents U grads that they've hired are just the tip of the iceberg of what they will leave behind. What of the federalist society???? 34,000 lawyers with no respect for the law....and they same with the permanent hires in the DOJ that these criminals have effected.

Read this, let it sink in.....come back and post something that shows you appreciate the gravity of what they have been doing to us....and then decide to hold them accountable....now.....while they boldly attempt to take what "the people" reserved from themselves in their constitution, for more than 200 years.....away from us....

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...201809_pf.html
White House Defends Cheney's Refusal of Oversight

By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, June 23, 2007; A02

The White House defended Vice President Cheney yesterday in a dispute over his office's refusal to comply with an executive order regulating the handling of classified information as Democrats and other critics assailed him for disregarding rules that others follow.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Cheney is not obligated to submit to oversight by an office that safeguards classified information, as other members and parts of the executive branch are. Cheney's office has contended that it does not have to comply because the vice president serves as president of the Senate, <b>which means that his office is not an "entity within the executive branch."</b>

"This is a little bit of a nonissue," Perino said at a briefing dominated by the issue. Cheney is not subject to the executive order, she said, <h3>"because the president gets to decide</h3> whether or not he should be treated separately, and he's decided that he should."

Democratic critics said Cheney is distorting the plain meaning of the executive order. "Vice President Cheney is expanding the administration's policy on torture to include tortured logic," said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.). "In the end, neither Mr. Cheney or his staff is above the law or the Constitution."

The dispute stems from an executive order, issued in 1995 by President Bill Clinton and revised by President Bush in 2003, establishing a uniform, government-wide system for protecting classified information. Cheney's office, like its predecessor, filed reports about its handling of classified information to the National Archives and Records Administration oversight office in 2001 and 2002 but has refused to do so since. His office also blocked an on-site inspection to examine its handling of classified data.

The Archives' Information Security Oversight Office sent two letters to Cheney requesting compliance but never received a response. The office then asked Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales in January to decide whether Cheney was violating the executive order, but he has not responded either. Instead, according to Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.),<b> Cheney's staff tried to get the oversight office abolished this year.</b>

Perino said the president does not think the office should be eliminated, "and I don't think that anyone has suggested that." Cheney spokeswoman Lea Anne McBride would not comment on the record yesterday about whether the office targeted the oversight office or why Cheney's staff complied with the order in 2001 and 2002 and then decided not to in 2003.

The argument that Cheney's office is not part of the executive branch prompted ridicule by many administration critics. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a group that has been highly critical of the White House, suggested that Cheney is "attempting to create a fourth branch of the government." If he is not governed by executive branch security requirements, the group asked if he is covered by Senate rules.

Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) said he plans to propose next week, as part of a spending bill for executive operations, a measure to place a hold on funds for Cheney's office and official home until he clarifies to which branch of the government he belongs. Emanuel acknowledged that the proposal is just a stunt, but he said that if Cheney is not part of the executive branch, he should not receive its funds. "As we say in Chicago, follow the money," he said.

Staff writer Shailagh Murray contributed to this report.

I don't even feel that some of you are my countrymen....anymore than I feel that decider and Cheney are....when I read your dismissive comments. This must be confronted, halted, rolled back, and result in expulsions from office and criminal investigations. Do you think that any of us know to what extent that these bastards have broken the law and conspired to avoid discovery and investigation of their wrongdoing?

You do not even seem to want to find out...and that is a curious and a unacceptable reaction to events of the last 6 years and 8 months. Your descendants are going to wonder why. Waxman, Conyers, Kucinich, and Leahy deserve your full support through the remainder of this crisis. Give it to them. It is the appropriate thing to do, under these circumstances.

06-14-2007, 03:06 AM	#2 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	the ramifications of the patriot act will take years to straighten out. Congress will not impeach over this because most of them signed and voted for it themselves. That would implicate them by default. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

06-14-2007, 08:14 AM	#4 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	Host, Why do you think Congress has not impeached Bush? __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

06-14-2007, 12:29 PM	#14 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	Sorry, Tecoyah (post #10) __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

06-15-2007, 09:25 AM	#18 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	One could argue that Hilary helped start one, maybe two. She gave and still gives support for the action in Iraq and one can imagine that she was supportive of Bill's actions in Kosovo. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke Last edited by Charlatan; 06-15-2007 at 09:31 AM..

06-21-2007, 02:14 PM	#24 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	I suspect Host was referring to the second question in the poll: 2. Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president? Approve - 26 percent, Disapprove - 65 percent, Dont know - 9 percent Most recent other polls of Bush's job performance are not much better and trending down by the month http://pollingreport.com/ But impeachment is not gonna happen. We're just gonna have to suffer through the next 18 months of the most immoral, secretive and incompetent administration in our lifetime...and hope Congress can minimize any further damage. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 06-21-2007 at 02:17 PM..

06-14-2007, 05:02 AM	#3 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	Are you kidding Host? You're wondering why a congress that rolled over and gave Bush what he wanted on the war spending bill instead of fighting it like the American people specifically elected them to do isn't impeaching him? The answer's easy. They're a bunch of wimps who don't like to make waves.

06-14-2007, 08:35 AM	#5 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I would suggest putting into action a law that give the American people the option of a vote of no confidence in the President. It's clear that, despite the intended separation of the branches of our government, their interests are easily intertwined. This often makes independent action from one branch against another an act against themselves, as dksuddeth pointed out in post #2 (I'm finding myself agreeing with DK!). The best way around that would either find a way to shrink the government back down a bit, or to create a counter power, like a union. Obviously, there's a power imbalance between the government and the people.

06-14-2007, 08:56 AM	#7 (permalink)
joshbaumgartner Insane	Will, Most of this country doesn't want to take on the responsibility of electing the president once every four years. Do you think they want the responsibility of having to weigh a no confidence motion in between? I mean I'm all for greater democracy, but democracy really puts responsibility on the people, and I don't know if the American people want that responsibility. I think a great number much prefer to put the responsibility on others to make their decisions for them.

06-21-2007, 11:40 AM	#21 (permalink)
host Banned	....and Bush's approval rating falls to a new low....one point above Nixon's when he resigned in 1974.......... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19354100/site/newsweek/ 26 percent approve........

06-21-2007, 11:44 AM	#22 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Wow...26%. It's time to impeach now. We all know he's damning our country, and we can prevent another year and a half of this garbage. I'm supporting Kucinich's impeachment articles for Bush and Cheney.

06-21-2007, 03:03 PM	#25 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Conyers is building the rationale for impeachment brick by brick, and each one comes closer to the oval office. I recommend patience because the "plausible deniability" built around Bush needs to be eliminated first. __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

06-21-2007, 08:43 PM	#27 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	DK, would you like to see Bush impeached? I'm just curious, and I'm hoping this is one of those things we agree on.

06-21-2007, 09:15 PM	#29 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I would think that a Bush impeachment would automatically mean a Cheney impeachment.

06-21-2007, 09:34 PM	#30 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	That might not be the good news for Pelosi that one would expect, and it would invite serious backlash from the republican leaning swing voters in 2008. I'd say that at this point impeachment would be a tactical victory and strategic mistake. Censure now and criminal prosecutions after they leave office. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

06-21-2007, 11:38 PM	#31 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	constitutional law and procedure would not allow you to impeach bush and cheney at the same time and automatically propel pelosi to the spot of POTUS. You would have to impeach bush first, let cheney become POTUS, allow the senate to confirm a VP pick by cheney, then impeach cheney. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

06-22-2007, 04:54 AM	#33 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	dk - you and I actually agree on something almost completely in re a Bush impeachment. I doubt censur would happen either, if for no other reason than it would distract from the Presidential race next year. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo