Are you trying to discourage conservatives from staying at SDMB?

The BBQ Pit
361

Not so. When the Senate “tries an impeachment”, Senators render their judgment by voting “guilty” or “not guilty”. The Senate isn’t part of the judicial branch, and the maximum sentence it can render is removal from office and disqualification to hold office in the future.

Nevertheless, an impeachment trial is one type of trial, described as such in the Constitution, and if Senators obey their oath to “do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws”, it is most definitely about guilt or innocence.

Strictly speaking, that’s true. Even if he had been removed by the Senate, I would not describe him as “guilty of perjury” on that basis alone. Those words would imply a judicial verdict finding him guilty of a specific violation of a specific federal perjury law. Rather, I would describe him as having been found guilty of an article of impeachment alleging perjury.

By this time, I’m no longer sure what we’re arguing about. The first article of impeachment accused Clinton of providing “perjurious, false, and misleading testimony”, and on that basis, it’s proper to say that he was impeached for perjury.

He may have been as innocent as the mountain air, and the charge may have been political grandstanding at its worst. Nevertheless, he was impeached on a charge of perjury.

362

The Clinton case opend the unintended loophole that impeachment need not involve guilt of innocence of any bona fide crime. The ‘guilt’ I referred to was that associated with ‘perjury’ which is a bona fide crime. However for the benefit of the interested reader it bears repeating that we agree the impeachment said precisely nothing about Clinton’s guilt or innocence of perjury, or any crime.

This is where the distinction is real and important, although arguably fine. “impeached for perjury” does not equate to impeached on charges including perjury and even the latter is misleading. The best phrasing would eliminate the ambiguity attached to the crime of perjury, such that it was patent no finding of guilt was ever made in relation to that crime: “impeached for conduct which included an allegation of perjury” just about catches it imho. Or … an unproven allegation… if you can bear a little redundancy for the benefit of eliminating doubt.

Which you probably should, as even in this thread it is apparent that there is a popular belief that perjury was somehow proven, which we agree it manifestly was not.

363

You’re a bit too hawkish for that label, Sam. I can’t see a classical liberal endorsing the Iraq War and indeed Milton Friedman (the prototypical American classical liberal of the 20th century) did not. I’ve often said that MF is the one person whose views I agree the most with, and I can’t think of any significant issue I’ve ever disagreed with him on.

364

As for the impeachment thing, the judicially analogy you guys are searching for is an indictment. Clinton was impeached on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice in much the same way Libby was indicted on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice (and making false satements to the FBI). Adding “alleged” to an impeachment is redundant in the same way it would be to an indictment – it’s implied by the very nature of the thing.

Of coures the main difference between an impeachment and a indictment is that you can’t impeach a ham sandwich. :wink:

365

No the analogy does not hold. An indictment leads to a process which tries the charges put.

The Clinton impeachment, and stop me here if I am repeating myself, did precisely nothing to investigate perjury or an obstruction of justice. In the same way the impeachment did precisely nothing to disturb Clinton’s entitlement to the presumed innocence of any crime.

Further “impeached for perjury” has to go because it unavoidably carries the connotation that perjury was in some sense proven.

In fact the only issue remaining is whether the Senators obeyed their oath to “do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws.” I think that is a hard argument to make given that the division was along partisan lines. What do you think John, did the Senators consider the impeachment with impartial justice only in their minds? Or did they perjure their oath to do so?

366

No, it carries the connotation that perjury was in some sense suspected, not proven.

367

And, as has already been pointed out to you, so does an impeachment. A “trial” needn’t be in a criminal court to still be a trial. And the trial in the Senate is presided over by the highest ranking official in the judicial branch. The fact that it is also a political process needn’t rule it out as a trial. In fact, the constitution calls it a trial (emphasis added):

Neither does the grand jury process. The investigation is done in both instances by a prosecutor, and the impeachment/indictment process is simply a review of the facts presented by the prosecutor.

It carries that connotation in preciesly the way that inditctted does-- by people who don’t understand what the terms mean.

They need only consider whether a trial is justified, just like a grand jury does. If someone is indicted and then found not guilty at a trial, do we say that the indictment process was a miscarriage of justice? No. The impeachment process is the beginning of the judicial process in this case, not the end. Same with an indictment.

The Senators don’t impeach the president-- that was done in the House. There were 4 charges brought before the House, and only two passed.

368

That was my first reaction, although a significant minority of classical liberal and libertarian types did support the war. Quite a few libertarian journals (like Liberty, for instance) and websites had internal debates between different writers over whether the war was a good idea or not, with quite a few people arguing in the affirmative.

Just goes to show, i guess, that no political group is immune from internal disagreements over policy and direction.

369

Here’s the essential difference between, say, the neocon position and mine, which I believe IS classically liberal: Neocons think the government and military have a positive role to play by intervening throughout the world to mold it in certain directions. They believe in ‘nation building’ all over the place. They are quite interventionist in that regard.

My position, while sometimes overlapping the neocon position, comes from a philosophically different place - I fundamentally mistrust nation building. My Libertarian roots tell me that it’s doomed to failure, just as ‘nation building’ at home with social programs and economic manipulation is doomed to failure. However, I believe that there are existential threats to Liberty, and that in today’s world you cannot always wait until you are attacked before responding to it.

As an analogy, would a classical liberal support attacking a neighbor that was building a nation-destroying weapon and announcing its intention to attack and wipe you out once the weapon was finished?

If I thought the threat was less severe, I wouldn’t support intervention. And I think to a large extent, the difference in agreement over the war by many classical liberals really doesn’t come down to a fundamental difference in philosophy, but a difference in belief about how important the War on Terror is, and how fundamental Iraq is to it. If I didn’t believe that terrorism was a serious threat to our existence, I would not support the war in Iraq or other interventions in places like Somalia. Neocons, however, might.

370

The problem with that, Sam, is that Iraq was never part of the “war on terror” until we made it so.

371

This isn’t the place to rehash that entire argument. Suffice it to say that opinions differ.

372

Yeah, but some opinions are supported by facts and evidence.

Your whole explanation basically boils down to the fact that you are slightly more concerned than the neocons with rationalizing your interventionism in a different way.

Same shit, slightly different smell.

373

Really? You don’t want to start another Iraq War debate in the Pit? :smiley:

Actually, I think that’s a big part of the problem that is being discussed in this thread. The only time I’ve felt a pile-on was a few times when I was trying to have a rational debate in the Pit. Sure, it’s possible to do so w/o a pile-on, but it’s just too easy to have a Pit thread turn into one. So the best strategy is probably to take any debate out of the Pit and into GD, or at least to do so as soon as you see a pile-on happening. A lot of times the debate in the Pit thread turns out to be only tangentially related to the topic in the OP, and so other people who might be interested in that debate aren’t enticed to join in since they don’t even know it’s taking place.

Usually an OP just want to let off steam about something and isn’t really interested in rational debate on the topic anyway. If he were, he’d probably have started the thread in GD. Me, I’m not much of a ranter, so getting rid of the debate factor in this forum would make it a lot less interesting, but it would also make it less frustrating.

374

On reflection I have to agree that this description is fair.

Particularly the latter paragraph in stating the source of the basic objection to the idea of ‘for perjury’. That is, the complex and unreliable naming in the impeachment process has lead to a popular understanding of the Clinton impeachment that counts it a more severe penalty than in fact it was. It’s this popular understanding, that impeached for perjury shows a guilt of perjury, which is objectionable.

375

Then the right thing to do is to eradicate the ignorance, not propogate it. Tell people that he was impeached for perjury by the House, but found not guilty by the Senate. But don’t tell people he wasn’t impeached for perjury.

376

Yes, the popular understanding of impeachment (and, I believe, indictment) assumes more guilt than should be the case. So, if you want to add “alleged”, it’s not wrong. Just redundant, as I said before. When I mention impeachment in political conversations with my friends, I almost always have to add that impeachment isn’t removal from office, it’s just the first step in allowing the Senate to judge the issue of guilt on the President’s part.

377

I detest Bush II as president (though I thought his dad was more or less ok), deplore his policies, never supported the Iraq war. I’ve voted mainly for democrats since 1992 (when I voted for Clinton). I support protective environmental policies, I’m pro-choice, I support gay marriage. I do not trust the U.S. federal government implicitly, but then don’t trust the global corporate world, either.

When political debates appear in GD, especially those of a legal or foreign-policy type, I skim most comments. When I see a post by Bricker, Sam Stone, Airman Doors, or John Mace, among others, I tend to slow down and read a lot more carefully.

On this board, these guys are more or less considered “conservatives,” although such a label obfuscates the sophistication of their actual points of view.

The majority “Bush suxor” kinds of posts one finds around here are of little or no value. Drive-by sarcastic, asshole comments are of no value to me, either, so I usually ignore posts by someone like Shodan, from whom I’ve never read anything worth the pixel space on my monitor.

As for the others, I am very, very glad they’re here, because a reasoned, contrasting point of view to the majority opinion here is worth much. Without them, I’d learn a lot less, and political debate here would be insipid and boring.

To those “conservatives” who really put out the effort to engage in reasoned debate, bravo. Please don’t go away! The board needs you!

378

Both of you!

379

Come on, elucidator, don’t mischaracterize the situation.

John Mace is more of a libertarian.

380

Oh, hell, they all are, these days. Admitting to being an actual Republican is tantamount to a positive test for leprosy. John-boy is the best of the lot, grant you that…