just cause for impeachment

Great Debates
61

I agree with Bricker in that Clinton did choose to answer that question. He could have refused, in fact I think he SHOULD have refused, but he didn’t. The question was likely not material- the suit was for sexual harrassment of Paule Jones, not Monica- nor did anyone allege that Bill was “harrassing” Monica also. Of course, the only person who would be the final arbieter on whether or not Clinto could proper refuse was the Judge, and not us. One he choose to answer, he had to give a true answer- but in a CIVIL Trial he does not have the same responsibilty to as in a Criminal trial- he doesn’t have to volunteer info, and if the question allows, through poor wording- an evasive answer, is more acceptable.

But his point is- Clinton didn’t “lie”- “Mislead” is better. He was asked “did you have sexual intercourse with Monica Lewinsky”. They then gave him a definition of sexual intercourse. Now, here is the point- that definition they gave him, no matter how wrong, is what he is responding to. He does NOT have to give a “common sense” or “everyone knows” answer. You ask a poorly worded question, you can get a bad answer. They gave a poor definition. The definition included that BOTH had to have a purpose of giving “sexual pleasure” to the other. Clinton didn’t “please” Monica sexually, he recieved only- or at least that’s how he saw it- and who knows better? Not Starr, certainly (“That man is in more mortal need of a blowjob than any other…” :smiley: ). Thus he was not “lying” when he gave his answer. Or at least he had reasonable justification for believing he had not “lied”. Now, later the Judge fined him in contempt for giving “false & misleading answers”, of which the “misleading” part is correct. Of course, by this time the whole thing had been so heavily politicized, that the Judges ruling was based at least partially on politics, rather than simply the Law.

errata: read your own cite- it saws that NOW is no longer the time for negotiations. Bush did negotiate- this failed, then he said “no more talking”.

Also, we don’t have a treaty with Iraq, thus what Treaty are we violating? There is some UN regs, but they do allow for a war “in defense”, which we claim we are doing. Now, I don’t agree, but the only dudes who can say we are in violation of this is the UN Security Council- and just as a WAG :D, they will not so rule.

“High Crimes” has a meaning in English Common Law- those that incur the death penalty. Combining it with “AND Misdemeaners” makes it outside normal parameters. The thought is that the framers meant things like Treason, not Perjury. But they worded it poorly, and we simply don’t know. It seems to mean whatever Congress wants it to mean.

62

Which International Agreements did we violate? They all have loopholes, and subjective definitions. The fatc is, the Invasion is niether legal, NOR illegal under International Law. In order for it to be illegal, like I said, the UN Security Council would have to so rule- have they? Until they do so- and we all know they won’t- our actions are not illegal. We here on this do not get to make this decision, no matter what reading we get from the UN regs. The UNSC is the only body that can so decide- at least internationally. Of course, since we don’t have UN sacntion either, the war is not really “legal” either- the status is in limbo, where it likely will remain.

In the USA, SCOTUS can rule the invasion goes outside the parameters of what Congress can let the prez do without “declaring” war. So far, all the Federal Courts have said they can do this. Unless SCOTUS decides otherwise, the war is “legal” according to US laws. Again, no matter how comfy your armchair is :smiley: you don’t get to make that decision. Not even if you REALLY are a Lawyer, unless you have one of those 9 seats.

So until either SCOTUS or the UNSC rules otherwise, the war is not illegal. You can argue “Not moral”, and I will “high five” you. But no babbling about “illegal” until/or unless you sit on either the Security Council or the Supreme Court.

63

Where in that story did you come to that conclusion? I’ll support mine with the lead off sentence,"The Bush administration is sticking to its position that there will be no negotiations with Afghanistan’s ruling Taliban for the handover of militant leader Osama bin Laden. " The US was sticking to its position of NO NEGOTIATIONS, not giving up on previous negotiations.
There was some diplomacy through the Pakistani government, but this wasn’t sufficient for the Taliban who wanted direct talks. The Bush administration refused to talk to them.

UN regulations are international agreementswhich are essentially treaties. There is also the Nuremburg charter, which defines an agressive war as a “Crime Against Peace”.

Hitler tried to explain his invasion of Poland as “pre-emptive” defense, that did not stand up to international law and his generals were later hanged.

A transparent fig leaf with a very thin string. It only holds weight with US opinion. I think they actually are trying to say force was already authorized.

I agree with your assessment, but I don’t find anything funny about it.

64

Apologies to all for the continuing misdirection of the OP.

Shodan–

You seem like an individual of great integrity and personal morals. While you often seem to have a deeply conservative perspective on things, I rarely have the feeling that you are deliberately spinning around the truth as you see it, but rather honestly representing your views.

Therefore, I’m honestly interested in your full perspective on the Clinton impeachment. I’ve never heard a conservative comment on the matter who was able to distance themeselves from their own political perspective.

In particular, do you feel that he was treated fairly on the whole? Do you think the crime (or crimes) he committed was (were) what the framers meant by high crimes and misdemeanors? Do you think that the characterization that Joe Average would not have been indicted is fair?

And, finally and most importantly, do you think that the net effect of the impeachment was positive or negative? Short-term and long-term? Would the effect have been different it he had been convicte by the senate?

FTR, I personally feel that Clinton was unfairly hounded by Starr and that his crime (or crimes) would not meet a dispassionate views of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ if such a thing as a dispassionate view existed. I also believe that few people would be indicted on such charges, let alone tried. But I freely acknowledge that my perspective is not without bias, to give myself more credit than I probably deserve.

Respectfully,

Nogginhead

65

Read on “we’ve made clear what needs to be done with him, and it’s time for them to act”. “it is not time for negotiations” (which assumes there WAS “time for negotiations”). This was Oct 1st, after something like two weeks of “negotiations”. I guess you can see we did rule out direct negotiations with them, but since we didn’t recognize the Taliban, we can’t really “officially” negotiate with them, either. Pakistan did this for us. True, our negotiations were basicly “Turn over Osama or else”, but they had that option. They made their choice- they got “or else”. That IS negotiations. albeit on a very simple level. Don’t see where further “negotiations” would have gotten us.

Ah, yes, the Nuremberg Charter. Which also has similar loopholes, and again- have the Nuremburg trials recommenced and Bush found guilty? That’s true- many Nazis were hanged- but they had a trial, and that trial found them guilty- and in many cases deservedly so. BUT THERE WAS A TRIAL, AND THE TRIAL FOUND THEM GUILTY. Got that?

66

rjung:

That’s simply not true. The OIC can’t broaden its mandate on its own, it has to get approval from a three-judge panel, and to get that approval, it has to make a convincing case that the broadening is relevant to the original mandate.

And the Independent Prosecutor was very much so…he was independent of the Department of Justice and the Executive Branch, which is what the darn term means (that law having been created due to Nixon’s firing of people looking into his own misdeeds). Sheesh, how I hate that stupid line, which totally takes the meaning out of context.

DrDeth:

No, the reason Monica figured into that was not that she was harassed, but that she supposedly received preferential workplace treatment in exchange for her sexual services, while Paula Jones did not. (Not that Monica and Paula worked for Clinton in the same place, but that Monica would have been indicative of a pattern of such workplace behavior by Clinton.)

Note: The above comment was not intended to justify Paula Jones’s claim of harassment, it was merely to clear up a misconception of what Monica’s relationship with Clinton was intended to prove in Paula Jones’s case.

67

That’s what I’ve been saying. And of course formal recognition was part of what the Taliban wanted in exchange for turning over Bin Laden. The Bush administration didn’t want to do that. Not all of their reasons were bad, but it was still an arguable point in my mind, not an unreasonable, crackpot assertion.

Yeah I see your point. No need to shout though, we just simul-posted.

OTOH, Bush isn’t denying the invasion of Iraq. I don’t want to get too drawn into an example, but if the prez admitted to killing someone and his reasoning was rather shady, I would’t expect congress to sit on it’s hands waiting for due process.

68

Re: what we can say

Any of us can say that Bush is guilty of violating this or that treaty or law, or that Clinton is guilty of this or that charge. Our opinions do not have the force of law, but we are entitled to have thek, and state them, and argue about them as much as we want. What we risk when we say things without being able to support them logically is our credibility, which is the only reason I haven’t been sounding off on Bush and broken treaties: I am not up on that particular set of Bush sins.

69

and this is exactly why i started the thread. i wanted to get my facts straight about this entire matter before completely forming an opinion.

as of right now i wouldn’t support an impeachment. there just doesn’t seem to be much backing it. do i like bush, no. do i want him out of office as soon as possible, yes. however i do agree that an arguement needs support in order to be credible. that’s what bothers me about most of the gung-ho pro and anti bush people. they tend to just take things at face value and run with it.

as one of my profs puts it, you can’t convince the extremists, you can only convince the middle. i might not support you now, but give me good solid reasons and i might.

btw, i don’t really mind the hijack that much. kinda educational in a sense as i didn’t pay much attention when all this was happening… what 18 year old really did?

70

Considering that the three-judge panel (and the Special division head which oversees it) were hand-selected by William Rehnquist in 1992 to be heavily stacked towards the conservative right (The Hunting of the President, page 130-132), they might as well have been a rubber stamp for Ken Starr.

71

You don’t need a credible argument for an impeachment, that’s what the Clinton proceedings demonstrated. All you need is a pretext, however flimsy, and a majority in the House to impeach, and a majority in the Senate to convict. The American people were NEVER in favor of impeaching Clinton over Monica Lewinsky’s affair with him – the people saw through the bullshit from Day One. But the Pubbies thought they had the votes they needed in the House and the Senate and they went for it anyway.

72

If the best defense is “They’ll never bring us to trial. mwahahaha!”

I don’t think I see a sufficient argument against impeachment either.

73

it seems that impeachment is straying from its original intent these days. somehow it wouldn’t surprise me if we tried to impeach every president from now on (or at least get a public outcry for it). this would only seem to weaken us as a nation.

correct me if i’m wrong, but isn’t impeachment suppose to be used as a tool to prevent corruption against one person? it seems these people want the entire administration out of office. that seems more like they’d be starting a witch hunt instead.

errata, on what grounds would you call for impeachment?

74

I see nothing wrong with getting rid of someone if they perform their duties unsatisfactorally. Israel changes governments on a whim, but they’re hardly weak.
Actually,I am rather dissappointed that impeachment is the only method we have. The fact that an elected representative who’s supposed to be working for us has to break a law to get fired, pretty much hacks me off.

I think this is due to an impression that GW isn’t really running the show, and his advisors are running amok.

Sheesh, did I post anything on this thread? Oh well…
The debate on this subject hasn’t been sufficient yet. Most of the information out there at the moment is pro-impeachment. Largely because, the anti-impeachment strategy on this is probably just to ignore it.

So far however, it certainly seems like an aggressive war to me, and hence could be labeled as a Crime agains Peace by the Nuremburg conventions. If indeed it is, then I definitely will call for impeachment. War crimes are not petty partisan politics and I think are well within the spirit of the constitution.

Unfortunately, for reasons that are obvious, it’s hard to hold the US accountable to international law. I must therefore expect my congressman to make this judgment for the international courts since they are the only people with the capacity to hold him accountable for these sorts of actions.

75

Short answer to the OP, containing nothing about former presidents or blowjobs or violation of treaties:

Impeachment and war are similar in that each should be a last resort. Even though GWB could not forbear to start a war (for whatever reasons), the House of Representatives is not in the right if they fail to forbear bringing charges against the President. Another impeachment is the last thing the country needs just now.

Many of you know I’m no fan of this president or of the war, but it’s an acomplished fact (I avoided the French term only because I can’t spell it :wink: ) and we need to get behind it now for the sake of our troops.

76

If our prez wants to wage aggressive wars, when will we not be in the middle of some fait accompli?

If we let this precedent stand, how will we be able to show any dissent in the future?

Obviously, if the political will was there to impeach him, congress wouldn’t have written him a blank check to begin with. But those who voted against the resolution can make a principled stand and bring these issues of international law, that have been swept so quickly under the rug, to attention.

77

Thanks for the spelling, errata. As to presidents who want to wage agressive wars, we get a chance next year to actually elect someone who won’t do that. (I hope)

But we obviously can’t back out now. I hate that we are there. I hate that young Americans are being killed. I also hate that Iraquis are being killed who have no more to say about this war than you or I do. But the war is on. Dissent is still proper, but I think street-blocking, active protest now that the war is a fact and not just a presidential intention is not.

I will decry the war, but not protest it. It’s too late. I’ll reserve my protest until November of next year.

78

Shodan–

Glad to see you’re back on the boards… perhaps you missed my question, above?

Nog

79

Hey Errata you are moving in the right direction but this does not get you there. Why? Well because of a decision written by Justice Holmes in Missour v. Holland. Congress nor the President can seek to accomplish by treaty or adoption of international law that which the U.S. Constitution forbids it to do. The necessary implication of this proposition has to be these treaties cannot supersede the U.S. Constitution. What do I mean by this? Namely those treaties or international charters are not above the U.S. Constitution and where there is a conflict between those treaties and the U.S. Constitution, then the treaties must yield to the U.S. Constitution. This point was articulated by Justice Holmes in Missour v. Holland.

So if you are relying on the provision of the UN Charter, such as article 51, or the Nuremberg charter where neither permit aggressive military action, assuming one of the exceptions are absent, to state Bush has committed a crime is not true. Those provisions of the UN charter or Nuremberg charter restraining the President to exercise those powers delegated to him as Commander in Chief under the U.S. Constitution are not binding on him nor his is privy to them. If Bush is not privy to them, in other words those provisions do not have any jurisdiction over him, then how can he be said to be in violation of them? If those charter or international law provisions violate the U.S. Constitution by prohibiting the President from exercising his Article II powers, then those provisions are not binding and the U.S. Constitution trumps them.

80

Well Errata again as I noted before you have a problem. First of all the powers given to the President as Commander in Chief has been interpreted very broadly by the U.S. Supreme Court. See the Prize cases where the U.S. Supreme Court validated President Lincoln’s actions to be within his powers as Commander in Chief when Lincoln mobilized a naval blockade of Southern ports without congressional approval, called up men for the army and militia a power given to Congress to exercise, suspended Writs of Habeus Corpus another power given to Congress, seized telegraph lines, established military tribunals, and did a host of other things.

The Court in part rested its opinion on the fact some of the Framers intended for the President to use the military in engagements without the approval of Congress when exigent circumstances required it. Exigent circumstances has been interpreted very broadly baptizing the use of military forces in hostile engagements without the approval of Congress as Constitutional.

So arguably the powers under the Commander in Chief clause of Article II as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court would permit President Bush to engage in the type of military conflict in Iraq.

With this in mind if you are interpreting the phrase “aggressive war” found in the UN charter and Nuremberg charter in such a way as to prohibit the President from exercising powers as Commander in Chief given to him by the U.S. Constitution, then this provision of the UN charter and the Nurember charter is not binding on the President. The ONLY restraints on the power of the President as Commander in Chief is the Constitution itself and these restraints cannot be achieved by the adoption of international law or treaties via Missour v. Holland.

So what exactly are you going to advocate impeachment for? Impeach the President for exercising his Constitutional authority as Commander in Chief? Not likely to succeed.