Um, no, we tried that. Turn over OBL now, we said. No conditions, ifs, ands, or buts, just turn him over. The Taliban wouldn’t, and now they’re gone. So what exactly was there to negotiate?
Yes, we refused to negotiate, and since negotiations never happened, it’s really hard to say what there was to negotiate. There are many reasons the Taliban wanted to negotiate before handing over Bin Laden, but they are OT and far under the bridge.
Anyway back to the OP.
I think that a violation of the Nuremburg Charter should be considered grounds for impeachment.
billy’s going to hold that title for awhile
The problem with any of these is that assuming they actually happened, they happened long before Bush was elected. Somehow I was under the impression that one can only be impeached for crimes one commits in office.
I’m sorry, you must have missed that whole deal back in 1999 when Clinton was impeached for getting a blowjob. The rules have been changed. Now it’s anything you care to make up.
As for the notion that Clinton was impeached for perjury, well, the politest response to that I can come up with is “horseshit.” Perjury may have been the formal charge, but the substance of the charge was “blowjob” and EVERYBODY knows it.
I always though that we could impeach Bush because of the Japanese fishing boat scandal–Ehimu Maru, iirc.
Billionaire Republican donor and Bush friend, John Hall, was at the helm on an American-owned (not Bush Family-owned) nuclear sub. His maneuver killed 19(?) Japanese fisherman.
I’m not a lawyer but I’m sure we can pin a manslaughter charge to both Hall and Bush.
But, most importantly, why was a Bush campain donor joyriding in an American military machine in the first month of this administration’s term.
Just a guess, I’d say it was a so-called “Tiger Cruise.”* I’ve been on two carriers and was once on a submarine which was “being retired,” but was actually converted into spying on the Soviets in the Bay of Okhotsk (found that out over 20 years later).
IMO, Hall’s “maneuver” had nothing to do with the accident. The captain ignoring the sonar warning that there was a surface contact pretty much condemned the fishermen to death. The helmsman on a submarine can’t see anything. The helmsman relies on the captain and sonar.
*Program has been suspended, last I checked.
Polycarp, what party holds the House? The Senate? The Presidency? Which part nominated th majority of sitting Supreme Court justices?
Clearly, the Pubbies didn’t gain a clean sweep of America’s national offices by being nice guys. They were nto and are not afraid to look like fools.
I don’t want to be better than the Pubbies, I am already better than them. I want to BEAT them. Too many Dems have had their heads handed to them while playing nicey-nice with the Pubbies. They’re not nice, or fair or reasonable. They conduct themselves like scum. You have to be willing to bare-knuckle it with them or they’ll mess your face up good.
Nice guys been finishing last in all the elections lately. The Dems have to fight back. I’d support an impeachment of Bush on any terms, just because it would make things difficult for him.
No. Everybody does not know that. Since it is not the case.
The text of the articles of impeachment against Clinton is here. Nary a word about fellatio.
The substance of the charges was 1) perjury, and 2) obstruction of justice.
Judge Susan Webber Wright found, on July 29, 1999, that in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case, Clinton was guilty of giving “intentionally false” testimony, and that he gave “false, misleading, and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process”. Clinton’s lawyer responded on his behalf that he “accept(ed) the judgement of the court”.
Cite.
Again, nary a word about fellatio.
So maybe you “know” it was about blowjobs, but the House, the Senate, and the federal court system disagrees with you.
Saying the Clinton impeachment was “really” about fellatio is like saying the OJ Simpson trial was “really” about racism.
Regards,
Shodan
Blowjobs,shmowjobs.
What do you folks think about treaties being the" supreme law of the land"?
I’d like to see a good rebuttal of this before I write off this impeachment attempt.
Of course, that ignores the bigger question of why Clinton was even placed under oath and asked about his personal sex life in the first place.
The answer, of course, is that he shouldn’t have been. But when the OIC couldn’t find anything in Whitewater to incriminate Clinton with, it broadened its mandate to look at the Vince Foster suicide. When that revealed nothing, it broadened its mandate to look at allegations of rape and assault; when that revealed nothing, it… well, let’s just say that the Independent Prosecutor was anything but, and the vast right-wing conspiracy was certainly tenacious.
Because he sexually harassed Paula Jones.
Since the episode to which Ms. Jones objected happened in the course of her employment, and since Clinton was, at the time, indirectly her boss, it can hardly be described as “personal”. He did so in the course of his duties as governor.
Again, he was not impeached for blow jobs. Nobody was out to get him because he likes head.
He was impeached because of the lies and obstructions of justice he was found to have committed in the course of trying to cover up the facts in a sexual harassment case.
It is like saying that Nixon was forced out of office because he committed burglary. It is untrue. Nixon was kicked out for lying (NOT under oath) about a cover-up. Clinton was impeached for lying about a cover-up. He just got away with it.
Unless you are arguing that sexual harassment is not something of which the justice system should bother taking notice. Or that it is perfectly acceptable to lie if someone accuses you of sexual harassment.
Clinton was compelled to pay some $90,000 in penalties, and was suspended from the practice of law in Arkansas for five years (and from arguing before the US Supreme Court) for doing exactly what he was accused of doing - lying.
Saying that he was impeached for blowjobs is a false statement, and making such statements is a bad habit to get into.
Regards,
Shodan
Change that to “Paula Jones claimed she was sexually harassed by Bill Clinton,” and you’d be closer to the facts. Her claims of harassment were never established beyond a reasonable doubt, and boiled down to a round of “he said, she said.”
But hey, why let a good witch hunt get deterred by facts?
Shodan, I think the official record in the Clinton case bears the same amount of credibility as the Soviet claim that they censored Alexander Solzinitsyn’s books because they found them pornographic.
What the pubbies did was analogous to finding an eyewitness to Hillary giving Bill a blowjob, then finding that D.C. law makes sodomy illegal for heteros, and then forcing them both to testify under oath that they didn’t ever do oral sex.
It’s a frame-up, a piece of crap, a pile of garbage and no amount of denying it will ever make it anything else.
An attitude which speaks well of your ability to avoid great big vast gargantuan (not to mention incredibly stupid) sweeping generalizations…
Well, as a civil suit, all she would had to do is prove the claim by preponderence of the evidence, NOT beyond a reasonable doubt.
Of course, she was unable to do even that. The ultimate decision was that even if all of Ms. Jones’ allegations were taken as true, they did not constitute sexual harrassment.
None of that has anything to do with Mr. Clinton’s lies. At the time he first lied under oath, he was giving a deposition in which Ms. Jones’ lawyers were entitled to ask him the questions they did. The fact that the lawsuit was later dismissed does not entitle him to lie. Indeed, that is conduct that strikes at the very heart of discovery. Questions during a trial must be designed to elicit relevant evidence; questions during a deposition have much wider latitude, and must only be designed to reasonably lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
A deponent may not take it upon himself to lie, even if he believes the question is improper. He may certainly refuse to answer, and place his reasons for doing so on the record, subject to a later evidentiary ruling by the judge. But he can’t simply lie, no matter what reason he has.
The problem that Mr. Clinton faced was the strong political element to the case. An ordinary defendant could simply say, “I won’t answer that - let’s go see the judge and get a ruling.” If Mr. Clinton had done this, undoubtedly his opponents would have spun this is the media as being evasive.
It’s an unfair bind to placed in, I agree – but that is the price you pay for being a public, elected official. The fact that he had political pressure to answer does not excuse a decision to lie under oath.
- Rick
No, you certainly are not a lawyer. Yes, treaties are US laws, but violation of a law is not a criminal act unless US law states that the violation is criminal. Assuming, arguendo, that Bush has violated the treaties you mention, that does not presumptively mean he has committed a criminal act.
Sorry to hear that you were asleep the months of September and October of 2001. It was a pretty exciting time.
The US engaged in lengthy negotiations with the Taliban to obtain the extradition of bin Laden. The Taliban refused.
Sua
Interesting point thanks for staying on topic, because I think this is far more timely then BC’s transgressions.
However, I don’t see anything about “crimes” having to be defined as criminal acts under US law. Violating international law which we have ratified in treaties can be viewed as criminal acts. Violating the Nuremburg charter I suspect can be one.
Hmm I actually remember very clearly the Bush administation saying there was nothing to negotiate and the Taliban complaining vociferously about not being negotiated with. Perhaps CNN was asleep when they wrote this article:No negotiations US tells Taliban
so what would the definition of a high crime or misdemeanor be? is it completely subjective?
It has been alleged in this thread that there is no judicial review for this. If so, then I would say yes it is subjective.
Some literature from the impeachment camp states that one of the charges brought against Andrew Johnson was “speaking disrespectfully of Congress in a loud voice.”
Basically it would come down to whether or not people can vote for this and think they can get re-elected.
I personally think that violating international agreements in an unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation is worthy of impeachment. I wish the UN had the guts to follow up on Kofi Annan’s allegations of illegitamacy, but I doubt they have the guts to stand up to the 800lb gorilla.