Impeachment Option
Brought up by some of his own party, no less.:helloo:
Printable View
Impeachment Option
Brought up by some of his own party, no less.:helloo:
Hagel just wants to be the antiwar republican candidate.
And if the democrat leadership want to show themselves for the joke they are, let them.
Crazed Rabbit
They wouldn't dare. For 1 reason.
Cheney.
While the terms for impeachment are somewhat broad, no one can really work it out, and I think it is something a little bit impossible.
Never gonna happen. Democrats have too little of a majority in Congress and won't even be able to get an impeachment ready. Also, no one really wants Dick to be president.
Yeah, 'cause impeachment worked out so well for the Republicans in the nineties. I'm sure the Dems want some of that action.
Actually, Cheney could also be impeached for his involvements in the various illegal actions taken by this President's administration.
In the Nov/Dec '06 issue of Mother Jones, Tim Dickinson reviewed a number of books that call for, question/or advicate the need for impeachment, and document the history of its use since parliamentary times. Good stuff.
Heck, young Honest Abe called for the impeachment of James K. Polk for waging war on Mexico. Something they never taught me in the Illinois school system.
One suggestion for impeachment is just plain incompetence - of which this administration abounds. But, in all fairness their ought to be atleast some truely criminal acts against the constitution and the people it protects to truely justify such action.
So what high crimes has this administration committed? (loosely quoted):
1) They "fixed" intelligence to embark on a war of choice, unsanctioned by international law.
2) That the criminally incompetent lack of planning has caused that conflict to drag on longer than WWII.
3) The president authorized the NSA to engage in warrantless wiretaps of American citizens - in violation of the First and Fourth Amendments, the seperation of powers, and the express will of Congress in establishing the FISA courts.
4) The president has authorized the use of torture in contravention of US military law and Article Three of the Geneva Convention. Violations of which Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy observed in the "Hamdan" decision, "are considered 'war crimes,' punishable as federal offense."
5)The president has subjected enemy combatants to unconstitutional trial by military tribunal, and held American citizens in indefinite detention without access to lawyers or criminal courts.
6) [not my favorite, but it does have a point] Whereas the administration's homicidal dithering left more than a thousand of our most vulnerable countrymen to perish, needlessly, under the waters churned up by Hurricane Katrina.
[personally; I know the handling of Katrina was and still remains a national tragedy and demonstrates the complete incompetence of the Bushys - a single incompetence may be forgiven. However, this really points out that this was and is their mode of operendi. They simply cannot do any better, because they are not smart enough, compasssionate enough, or willing to sacrifice enough to do any better. They are incompetent.]
Once Bush and Cheney are out of there - wouldn't we have our first woman president? J/K But, if ever an impeachment was called for .... this is it.
Intelligence regarded as correct by the other country's intelligence.Quote:
Originally Posted by KafirChobee
Very arguable, especially given Bush didn't plan out the war.Quote:
2) That the criminally incompetent lack of planning has caused that conflict to drag on longer than WWII.
As Pindar has said numerous times, within the law.Quote:
3) The president authorized the NSA to engage in warrantless wiretaps of American citizens - in violation of the First and Fourth Amendments, the seperation of powers, and the express will of Congress in establishing the FISA courts.
Geneva conventions don't apply to those we're fighting (terrorists, not soldiers). 'Torture' is highly debatable, given some people's propensity to call everything harsher than nicely asking torture.Quote:
4) The president has authorized the use of torture in contravention of US military law and Article Three of the Geneva Convention. Violations of which Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy observed in the "Hamdan" decision, "are considered 'war crimes,' punishable as federal offense."
Unconstitutional? Bah. Even captured enemy POWs are not entitled to full trials by jury for crying out loud.Quote:
5)The president has subjected enemy combatants to unconstitutional trial by military tribunal, and held American citizens in indefinite detention without access to lawyers or criminal courts.
So, it's Bush's fault the mayor was incompetent, the governor a useless ditherer who delayed sending in the Nat'l Guard? The federal response was not really worse than the 1992 response to Andrews.Quote:
6) [not my favorite, but it does have a point] Whereas the administration's homicidal dithering left more than a thousand of our most vulnerable countrymen to perish, needlessly, under the waters churned up by Hurricane Katrina.
[personally; I know the handling of Katrina was and still remains a national tragedy and demonstrates the complete incompetence of the Bushys - a single incompetence may be forgiven. However, this really points out that this was and is their mode of operendi. They simply cannot do any better, because they are not smart enough, compasssionate enough, or willing to sacrifice enough to do any better. They are incompetent.]
But I encourage you and all...like minded people...to demand, incessantly, an impeachment and nothing else. It'll be funny to watch you try.
Crazed Rabbit
Good responses Rabbit. I don't think there's a good case for impeachment in the points given, and frankly, the bar for removing en elected President should be set pretty darn high. I'm no Bush fan, but impeachment is not the way to go.
Two thoughts on this one: Who makes the determination of a detainee's status? Is the process transparent, and does the detainee ever get to challenge that status, um, ever? If not, does the process not leave itself wide open to rampant abuse?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
As for the "debatability" of torture, I think you've really got to be in denial to think that we are not engaged in practices way outside the bounds of the Geneva Conventions. It's not just peaceniks and tree-huggers who are upset about the way we have ceded the moral high ground on this issue.
The National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), which represents about 45,000 churches across America, endorsed a declaration against torture drafted by 17 evangelical scholars. The authors, who call themselves Evangelicals for Human Rights and campaign for "zero tolerance" on torture, say that the US administration has crossed "boundaries of what is legally and morally permissible" in the treatment of detainees.
"Tragically, documented cases of torture and inhumane and cruel behaviour have occurred at various sites in the war on terror, and current law opens procedural loopholes for more to continue," the NAE said last night.
As the conventions apply only to soldiers in uniform fighting for a country (well, mostly, and that's what's applicable for this discussion), the country we're fighting could be free to challenge that status. Open to abuse? Perhaps, but it's just a piece of paper, so even if we treated, theoretically, every terrorist as an honorable soldier, it could still be abused.Quote:
Two thoughts on this one: Who makes the determination of a detainee's status? Is the process transparent, and does the detainee ever get to challenge that status, um, ever? If not, does the process not leave itself wide open to rampant abuse?
Like I said, 'Torture' is highly debatable, given some people's propensity to call everything harsher than nicely asking torture. Your link is to an anti-American book by a 'scholar' at some leftist department of a university.Quote:
As for the "debatability" of torture, I think you've really got to be in denial to think that we are not engaged in practices way outside the bounds of the Geneva Conventions.
Isolation and sleep deprivation are torture? Puh-lease. Hypothermia wouldn't be quite as nice, of course, but I'd like to see some real evidence.Quote:
Further, the MCA legalised an array of coercive interrogation methods like total isolation, sleep deprivation, induced hypothermia and waterboarding;
As for the idea that this should make Bush impeachable, I do not think that holds any water. Bush did what was legal, as Geneva Conventions do no apply. Ergo, not war crimes.
Crazed Rabbit
If its torture and abuse when Cuba does it then it is torture and abuse when the US does it . Just ask the State department puh-lease:dizzy2:Quote:
Isolation and sleep deprivation are torture? Puh-lease. Hypothermia wouldn't be quite as nice, of course, but I'd like to see some real evidence.
Well, it seems you've really made up your mind on the subject. Just one question: Would your feelings still apply if such treatment were dealt out to captured U.S. soldiers? If a U.S. Marine were subject to isolation and sleep deprivation for 100+ days, would you still dismiss the concept of "torture" as applicable?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
IIRC the UK government was, rightly, castigated for using sleep deprivation and sensory deprivation as forms of torture in the 70s.
That was against terrorists as well.
It just so happened that this particular flavour of terrorist was supported by a vast swathe of the American public.
The thing about torture is that it is pretty useless in gaining any credible information. As the 'informant' will say anything, just to stop the process.
As for the USA using torture, it saddens me to see a great nation resort to barbarity.
You jest, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Bush didn't plan or approve the war plan? Er, he was president - wasn't he? I mean we could simply blame Rummy for ignoring the Pentagon's plan of 300,000 - 500,000 troops needed to secure Iraq and ensure total victory, but Rummy worked for Bush. The buck stopped with Bush, not Rummy.
The intelligence you refer to as being accepted by "other nations intelligence", what nations are you refering to? The Brit falsified documents, that no one but Blair accepted as having any creedance? And that his second resigned over?
Invasion of privacy, illegal wiretapping, and all other similar activities supported by the Bushys were and are illegal. There is not, nor ever was any justification for them, except to gain info on their political enemys at home. You may accept that an imperial presidency is a good thing under Bush, but how will you feel when it is a Democrat employing the same illegal methods?
Torture is torture. If you truely believe that sleep deprivation, constantly blaring music, using cold and heat, stripping detainees naked, leaving them tied in fetal positions for days to live in their own waste, etc. are not forms of torture I suggest you try them. Go to the smallest closet in your home, strip first, shut the door and stand there for 20 hours. Then try to sleep for four hours with music blaring. Repeat for 30 - 100 days, or just do it 'til you begin to grasp the idea of just how cruel it is. Want to make it more real? Invite a few friends over to humiliate you, and maintain your confinement - tell them to ignore your asking them to stop - and tell them to force a confession about anything that comes to their wee minds. Then advise us as to whether it is torture or not.
The Bushys have ignored the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the common decency of basic human rights - things we once waived in the face of tyrants to encourage their compliance to our will - now we are the tyrants.
Blaming the failure of this administrations failures on others is what they do best. They are responsible for none of the inaction or actions they take; it is the fault of those disloyal, unpatriotic, peace loving others that are responsible for their failures - not them.
Since it is obvious that you have bought into their disinformation program, where all their actions have been legal and justified because of 9/11 - there is nothing anyone can demonstrate to you, or any form of reasoning that can be made that will change your mind. That, you will have to accomplish on your own by using the power of reason rather than blind acceptance of the disinformation being fed to the the "true believers".
Personally I blame the pardoning of Nixon on what is happening today. Had the full legal procedures continued against Nixon, the chance for another imperial presidency may have been crushed. Also, had impeachment procedures been brought against Reagan for Iran-Contra, the balance of powers would have been reconfirmed - regardless of whether Reagan was actually involved or not. Why? Because, the excuse "I didn't know" ought never to be allowed by the "decider" of our nation.
Don't say sleep deprivation isn't torture if you never were awake for 40 consecutive hours.
Actually, my first link was to an academic who's doing everything in his power to document what's going on re: the U.S. and torture. Given the secrecy and impenetrability of the current admin, that's a legitimate activity. I don't quite see that his attempt to document equates anti-americanism. If anything, the people who have authorized the torture program are anti-American, because they have betrayed long-held principles of how the U.S.A. conducts itself in a time of war, and they have ceded the moral righteousness of our nation for little gain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
The second link, which you ignored, was to an evangelical congress that believes there is plenty of evidence that this administration is engaging in debasing behavior. My point, to reiterate, was that it's not just Euroweenies and earth-shoe wearers who are angry about this.
[edit]
I guess I'm in the middle of a thread derailment. Rabbit, please feel free to respond, but after this round we should continue in PMs or a new thread.
Our guys face far worse when they are captive by these "people", but its obvious you've already made up your mind as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Dave, I have zero sympathy for the terrorists. If they were all dropped into a meat grinder, I would dance a little happy dance. I am far more concerned with us, as in the U.S. I don't like to see us (a) lose the moral high ground, and (b) alter our military and governmental structure to accommodate torture. The gains are minimal and the costs will be long-term.
[edit]
If you've any real interest in the subject, you might want to read an account written by a guy who served at Abu Ghraib.
Allowing torture won't lead to any gains. You'll get a bunch of misinformation and sooner or later Americans will start to find that their police and security forces have no issues using the same on them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Well if Bush and Cheney take the walk, I wouldn't want Pelosi running the country either... Ugh. I'm going to resurrect FDR's Brain, and Put it in a 20 Foot Tall, 60 Ton Robotic Killing Machine... Just as Soon as my Mobile Opression Unit is Completed.