Principals Meeting on Torture: Can We Impeach Now?

[RTFirefly]

@Diogenes the Cynic

It only took two posts to get to “CLINTON GOT A BLOW JOB!”

To be fair, I mentioned that in the OP.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@mswas

That’s beside the point. It’s about law not morality.

Impeachment doesn’t have to be about either.

[Bricker]

@RTFirefly

Bzzzzzzt! Wrong answer.

For those who were in a cave on Mars during the impeachment summer of 1974, the House Judiciary Committee voted to the contrary by a 28-10 margin.

sigh

Nixon: obstruction of justice, contempt of Congress (disregarding subpoenas). Criminal acts.

[RTFirefly]

@Two and a Half Inches of Fun

If “enhanced interrogation techniques” as used by the administration are legally torture and illegal, please just cite the law that clearly states this and/or case law that states this.

@United States Constitution

all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land

President Reagan signs the U.N. Convention Against Torture, 1988
US ratification 21 October 1994
Text, including the following:

For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.

[Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun]

@Bricker

sigh

Nixon: obstruction of justice, contempt of Congress (disregarding subpoenas). Criminal acts.

Was the contempt of Congress that Nixon was accused of the criminal statute version or the version that is implied by the Constitution (which is not a crime)? Reading Article 3 of the Articles of Impeachment it seems that the committee was referring to the implied constitutional version.

In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, contrary to his oath faithfully to execute the office of the President of the United States, and to the best of his ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, had failed without lawful cause or excuse, to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, on April 11, 1974, May 15, 1974, May 30, 1974, and June 24, 1974, and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas. The subpoenaed papers and things were deemed necessary by the Committee in order to resolve by direct evidence fundamental, factual questions relating to Presidential direction, knowledge or approval of actions demonstrated by other evidence to be substantial grounds for impeachment of the President. In refusing to produce these papers and things, Richard M. Nixon, substituting his judgement as to what materials were necessary for the inquiry, interposed the powers of the Presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, thereby assuming to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by Constitution in the House of Representatives.

In all this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

[RTFirefly]

@Bricker

sigh

Nixon: obstruction of justice, contempt of Congress (disregarding subpoenas). Criminal acts.

See above @13.

Yawn.

[Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun]

@RTFirefly

And it even got fewer votes than the abuse-of-power article.

At any rate, that article was an emphatic statement that abuse of power is indeed grounds for impeachment, even when it doesn’t involve the breaking of specific statutes.

What abuse of power has Bush committed in regard to “enhanced interrogation techniques”?

[BrainGlutton]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Impeachment doesn’t have to be about either [law or morality].

Indeed not. (But it helps, if you want the Senate to convict.)

[Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun]

@RTFirefly

President Reagan signs the U.N. Convention Against Torture, 1988
US ratification 21 October 1994
Text, including the following:

Which is all covered in the Yoo memo.

(I know that memo has been withdrawn, but the arguments are still valid.)

[gonzomax]

Clinton was not impeached for any other reason than politics. The day he got into office the repubs started to investigate his entire life. They were intent on crippling his presidency with sleight of political hand.
That is enough reason to impeach Bush. Anything that keeps the Shrub busy doing other things than practicing his brinksmanship.

[BrainGlutton]

@gonzomax

Clinton was not impeached for any other reason than politics. The day he got into office the repubs started to investigate his entire life. They were intent on crippling his presidency with sleight of political hand.
That is enough reason to impeach Bush.

Why? Do you think it was “enough reason” to impeach Clinton?

[RTFirefly]

@Two and a Half Inches of Fun

Which is all covered in the Yoo memo.

(I know that memo has been withdrawn, but the arguments are still valid.)

I’m glad you think so.

[jayjay]

Hey, I’m fine with Congress not impeaching. As long as there are federal marshals on hand on January 9 to take Bush and his cronies into custody and deliver them to the Hague.

[RTFirefly]

@jayjay

Hey, I’m fine with Congress not impeaching. As long as there are federal marshals on hand on January 9 to take Bush and his cronies into custody and deliver them to the Hague.

I’m all for that, but what happens on January 9?

[jayjay]

@RTFirefly

I’m all for that, but what happens on January 9?

Crap…that’s what I get for trying to calendar things for work at the same time I’m posting here…

I meant Jan. 20th or whatever exact date Obama’s inauguration will be.

[mswas]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Impeachment doesn’t have to be about either.

Thats disconcerting.

[Stranger_On_A_Train]

@BrainGlutton

One argument is that what they have done/authorized is not a crime. I think it is, under international law and U.S. law enacted pursuant to such, but that part is not, in and of itself, a slam-dunk.

Or indeed, at all. “International criminal law” exists only insofar as courts in U.S. jurisdictions are concerned as it is supported by existing relevant statutes; see Missouri v. Holland, Reid v. Covert, et cetera. If you’re going to argue for the legitimacy of impeachment, you need to be able to cite specific code violations, not a general appeal to morality or even international conventions, violations of which are not impeachable offenses, regardless of how reprehensible the act is.

Personally I think the use of waterboarding and other physical intimidation techniques is not only reprehensible and counterproductive (as well as ineffective), but if it occurs under the aegis of valid executive instruction and is not otherwise a violation of U.S. statutes where they enjoy jurisdiction, it’s not even a question. I think various members of the Bush administration have been involved in other potentially impeachable offenses against U.S. federal statutes, but this isn’t one of them.

Stranger

[BrainGlutton]

@mswas

Thats disconcerting.

Bear in mind that impeachment is not a criminal-justice procedure; the official impeached is at risking of losing only his/her office/job, not his/her civil rights. Impeachment is a political procedure; the Constitution places it squarely in the hands of Congress, not of any court of law. And that means only Congress gets to decide, and in a case-specific manner, what is or is not a “high crime” or “misdemeanor” warranting dismissal from office.

[mswas]

@BrainGlutton

Bear in mind that impeachment is not a criminal-justice procedure; the official impeached is at risking of losing only his/her office/job, not his/her civil rights. Impeachment is a political procedure; the Constitution places it squarely in the hands of Congress, not of any court of law. And that means only Congress gets to decide, and in a case-specific manner, what is or is not a “high crime” or “misdemeanor” warranting dismissal from office.

Right. But in this case firing that employee is more work than the benefit. He’s going to be out soon. Impeachment would just be a costly revenge with little tangible benefit.

[Der_Trihs]

@mswas

Right. But in this case firing that employee is more work than the benefit. He’s going to be out soon. Impeachment would just be a costly revenge with little tangible benefit.

It would keep the Bush Presidency from following up the Nixon pardon in underlining the attitude that Presidents are above all laws and restrictions. The NEXT President inclined towards unethical/illegal/power mongering behavior is going to look back at this Presidency and the pardon of Nixon and say “Why not ? No matter what I do, if it’s not sex Congress will let it slide.”