[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
Look, impeachment is a political nuclear weapon in our system. It strikes at the heart of a democratic republic itself, and is only to be used when that democratic republic is threatened so much more fundamentally by an officeholder’s continued presence in office that it becomes necessary.
[/QUOTE]
I think this attitude is the problem. In a democracy, the head of government can be removed by a vote of no confidence. There’s no reason that impeachment should be considered a “nuclear weapon.” That’s ridiculous.
For the record, I was at the time in favor of Clinton’s impeachment. If Congress & the country found him distractingly offensive enough to be obsessed with his peccadilloes, or morally bankrupt enough to be unworthy of the country’s trust, & enough of them felt it necessary to remove him, then they had the right to remove him for whatever reason they saw fit.
Being the head of government of the most powerful country in the world is not a right. It is a privilege, & it should be easily removable.
Now, if I thought it was justifiable to impeach WJC for being a smarmy, adulterous liar in his private life (or, for the sake of argument, if I were high-minded enough to want him gone for the technical crime of perjury in a civil case unrelated to his policy decisions), even though he did a competent job in the duties of his office; then how much more so I must consider Bush worthy of removal when he has defied the rule of law & declared himself to have absolute authority & immunity to checks by the federal courts, when Bush has ordered the kidnappings & detentions of people outside US jurisdiction, when his lies have led to hundreds of young Americans coming home without any arms or legs, & when innocent schlemiels captured on false intelligence have been tortured to death in detentions under his sole & dictatorial authority.
The argument about how the Democrats would be suicidal to impeach Bush is purely political calculus. But Clinton was, at least officially, impeached for his failure to conform to the strict rule of law. Bush should be held to the same standard.
Some of you will deny that Bush, Cheney, & Gonzales are criminals; let me explain why they are.
There’s an underlying point in all this about jurisdiction. The government of, say, Poland, does not have more right to harrass, attack, or detain persons outside its jurisdiction than those inside its jurisdiction. An Polish police agency can arrest an Polish citizen on suspicion of criminal activity, or anyone in Polish territory on suspicion of criminal activity. But it is unacceptable for the Polish government to kidnap & detain an American citizen in Canada on such suspicion without going through the proper channels, like Interpol. And if somehow the Polish government feels they must, then in that case they must be especially above-board.
But Bush has taken the opposite position–that he has more authority & flexibility against non-Americans than against Americans. He’s not the only person to think this; the idea is endemic in American politics; individual politicians in this country fear their constituencies more than foreign countries that cannot challenge us militarily. But such an attitude puts politics ahead of the rule of law. It makes our government criminal. We need a Congress that recognizes this, a Supreme Court that stands against this, & we need to shut down the renditions & secret detentions one way or another.
That may not require Bush’s removal, & Bush’s removal might not accomplish it. But impeachment, or at least censure, might help. That the GOP isn’t moving to censure friend Bush puts the lie to all the talk about rule of law 8 years ago.
