I don’t see the treaties as a conflict with the US constitution. I think the reference to the “supreme law of the land” clearly indicates that treaties were solemn agreements that carried great weight. Now if the treaties had explicitly given the president power to wage agressive wars, I might see your point since the president is bound to uphold the constitution. But since we entered into those agreements of our own will and under the auspices of the constitution, and they do not violate the constitution, then we should hold ourselves to them.
I’m not accusing the president of violating the constitution, I’m suggesting that he very well may have committed war crimes. Should our government actually want to do such things, maybe they should withdraw from these international agreements and let a spade be called a spade (or a rogue a rogue). Until we do so however, I think a war crime is crime whether or not it is explicitly forbidden by the constitution.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Hitler’s general’s weren’t violating any of their sovereign laws either, but they were still hanged unter international law, such that it was. While an aggressive war seems perfectly acceptable to many Americans, I’m sure there are many war crimes which are not. How then would we deal with a president if he/she commits reprehensible acts using the constitutional authority given to them?
While we can’t expect the international community to stand up to the 800 lb gorilla, we can take action by democratic powers vested in our legislature should the president violate international law.
Oops… that should have read:“Now if the constitution had explicitly given the president power to wage agressive wars, I might see your point since the president is bound to uphold the constitution.”
Errata there are some judicial opinions stating that a treaty passed by Congress in violation of the U.S. Constitution is not binding.
For example, if Congress passed an international treaty tomorrow abrogating your rights under the Fourth Amendment, this treaty in all likelihood would be held invalid because it conflicts with the U.S. Constitution. Or if Congress approved of a treaty surrendering its power to regulate commerce to the Executive branch would likewise in all probability be held non-binding as this would violate Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
Similarly speaking Congress cannot approve of a treaty that abrogates the Presidents powers in Article II. For example if Congress approved of a treaty tomorrow removing the power of the President under Article II to appoint Justices to the U.S. Supreme Court, or members of his cabinet, or other inferior offices and replaced this authority with the Congress in all likelihood this would likewise be held to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution and non-binding.
Similarly speaking then Congress cannot approve of treaties abrogating the Presidents authority as Commander in Chief under Article II. The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this provision very broadly permitting the President to engage in armed conflicts even when Congress has not declared war. Those UN provisions, in particular article 51 of the UN Charter, is not binding if it in any way impairs the powers of the President as Commander in Chief. Once the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted a particular provision in the U.S. Constitution then it is final as to what powers are conferred or rights are conferred. The only way to alter this is by the amendment process. So once the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the Commander in Chief clause broadly to permit the President to engage in military conflicts without approval of Congress and in some of these cases to strike without being directly attacked, then this interpretation is final, the President has the authority, and the only way to alter this is by the amendment process and not by treaty.
There are cases in existence permitting the President to engage in “aggressive” military conduct. We did it against Libya. We did it in Panama. We did it in Yugoslavia to stop ethnic cleansing. We did it in Kosovo and many other places. The U.S. did it, and the President authorized it, because he has the power as Commander in Chief to commit military forces to engage in hostile combat without first being attacked, or as you would call it an “aggressive war”. As a result, the President does have the authority to do exactly what the UN charter says he can’t do. Congress cannot take away those powers given to the President in Article II by way of passing a treaty. The only way Congress can do this is by the amendment process. Consequently, those provisions of the UN charter are not binding as they conflict with the power of the President as Commander in Chief under Article II of the U.S. Constitution.
If you are alleging the President committed war crimes because he violated these provision of the UN charter, then I renew what I have said thus far. He can’t violate provision of a UN charter not binding on him because they restrain those powers given to him under Article II of the U.S. Constitution. Since he is not privy to those provision, then they can hardly be used as a substantive source of law to allege he committed war crimes.
Congress abdicated this power when they passed a “resolution” on October 11, 2002, authorizing “use of force” in Iraq. It was essentially a blank check written by Congress.
Thus, since Congress, themselves, violated the Constitution on this particular point, they have no right to impeach Bush until such time as the rescind their “resolution”.
Problem the first… Certainly, a violation of a treaty can be considered a crime, but for them to actually be a crime, the United States Code must so state. Example - recently, Bush imposed steel tariffs. Those tariffs have been determined by the WTO to violate international trade treaties (what’s the name of the actual treaty these days? I’m still stuck in the era of GATT.). No one has moved to impeach Bush, because under U.S. law, violation of the said treaties has not been deemed a criminal act.
Problem the second … As a practical matter, there can be no impeachment or trial. Why? Bush didn’t act alone. Assuming Bush committed a crime, a majority of House and Senate members conspired in that crime by authorizing the use of military force. Therefore, there can be no quorum to either impeach or convict Bush (or, if the members don’t recuse themselves, they won’t vote to criminalize their own actions).
At the very least, the impeachment would have to wait until there is a majority of members of both houses that didn’t vote to authorize force/weren’t in Congress when the vote was taken. Given the historical turnover rate in Congress, odds are Bush will be out of office by the time that happens, and impeachment will no longer the appropriate option.
You really believe that “international law” exists beyond what the major powers of the world allow?
International law always has been and still is nothing but a big stick used by powerful countries to beat on weaker countries. It’s hypcocrisy in a tuxedo.
Ya know, from now on, I’m just going to follow Jimmy1 around in debates concerning legal issues and just say “me too!” Jimmy, you are doing a fine job around here - keep up the good work.
Errata let me expand a bit upon a very important point.
The military action taken by the U.S. and the Nato allies who participated constitutes as an aggressive war in violation of the UN charter. The military action taken in Kosovo also constitutes as aggressive military action in violation of the UN charter. The bombing of Libya also qualifies as aggressive military action in violation of the UN charter. The military action taken againt Afghanistan arguably violates the UN charter. However, in each of these instances the power of the President as Commander in Chief to use the U.S. military in these instances is permitted by the U.S. Constitution as construed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Hence, this is a power given to the president by Article II and this power cannot be wrestled away by the use of a treaty any more than Congress power to regulate commerce in Article I.
Consequently, since these are powers the President has the constitutional authority to exercise then the treaty or U.S. law adopting UN provisions can’t be said to restrain his powers or be binding upon him. The only way to alter his powers is by the amendment process not the treaty process.
Thanks for the compliments Sua. However, it just so happens that Constitutional law is my forte. It is a field I am considering going into so I have done a lot of reading on the subject.
Thanks for the warm words. I have been out of town on the Business Trip From Hell and out of touch for a few days, and am now back and rested enough to be coherent. I didn’t see your question until today.
Well, I am not honestly sure I can do this, but if the rest of the board does not feel it to be too much of a hijack…
I should say up front that I intensely disliked Clinton. About the only two outcomes of his Presidency with which I whole-heartedly agreed were NAFTA and the Republican takeover of Congress. So maybe I am as blinded by partisanship as anyone else - I can’t always tell.
On the whole, I don’t know if he was treated fairly or not.
I see it this way. See if it sounds fair to you or not.
One of the things to which I objected most strongly about Clinton was that he was an inveterate and persistent liar. I do not accept that he was no worse than any other politician. I do not agree that all politicians lie all the time. Most do not. They are (usually, with some shameful exceptions) trying to do a very difficult job while undergoing a kind of scrutiny that no one could survive. If I had reporters combing thru the details of my life, and recording every word I spoke in public, and attempting with near unanimity to put the worst possible spin on everything I said or did, I would do no better, and probably a lot worse, than most of our elected officials.
But Clinton was worse than most. He lied a lot, and he did so consistently. Almost from the time he announced for the Presidency, it was clear (from his lies about his draft record going back to college) that he was a man who could not be trusted to speak the truth, if he thought there was anything to be gained from prevarication. For Clinton, the truth was simply one option among many, and not usually his first choice.
And the press let him get away with it. The idea that the national press were out to get Clinton, or that they did not apply to him a lower standard than they did to, for instance, Nixon or Dan Quayle, is ridiculous. The national press tied themselves into grotesque knots to try to avoid pointing out what they would have trumpeted from the housetops if Clinton were anti-abortion or pro-military - that Clinton could not be trusted as far as you could throw him, on any subject under the sun. They went to such lengths that it was the Drudge Report that finally broke the scandal open - because an Internet scandal rag like that was the only medium that would break the front and admit that the President was a proven liar.
And when the scandal breaks, it is about as tawdry and sordid as can be imagined. Not in the nature of the sexual relationship - most people in the 90s do not have the objections to oral sex that partisan Democrats pretend - but because it started in a sexual harassment lawsuit, where the offender was a member of a political party that prided itself on its respect for the rights of women, and who fell all over themselves making high-minded speeches when Judge Thomas was accused, but suddenly flip-flopped when it was one of their own on the hotseat.
And the defense was almost skin-crawlingly grotesque. Clinton claimed he couldn’t be sued because he was so busy being President, and then went golfing. He claimed that oral sex wasn’t sex. He claimed that he shouldn’t be charged with adultery because he was Commander-in-Chief of the military, when adultery is forbidden by the military code of justice. And then the infamous “nuts and sluts” defense, in which women are dismissed by the President’s henchmen as trailer trash because they objected to being treated like a fifty dollar whore. And I am asked to disbelieve Linda Tripp because - she is too ugly.
And at the end of it, at the height of the scandal, that son-of-a-bitch got on national TV and shook his finger in my face and lied thru his teeth.
And so he was impeached. For lying. Was it for more than just the lies he told under oath about sticking his tongue up Monica Lewinsky’s ass? Probably - if he had been a person with a reputation for honesty, or if he had refused to answer questions like a gentleman and accepted the consequences, he could have settled the whole thing (as he did anyway) and gotten on with his Presidency. But that wasn’t the way Clinton did things. Of course, if he had behaved like a civilized adult instead of a drunken frat boy at a kegger, Paula Jones would have had nothing to complain about.
Short-term, it was a wash. Clinton was a lame duck, and the Republican takeover of Congress had put paid to any change of his bringing about any part of whatever his agenda was that month. He was reduced to trying to grab credit for things like welfare reform, and then a final burst of selling pardons for money and he was gone. His wife got her Senate seat, Al Gore was too badly tarred by association with him to become his successor (had Clinton been removed from office, I suspect Gore would have won in 2000 - no, he didn’t), but other than that, it did little to change Clinton’s reputation or affect his political capital.
Long-term? Put it this way.
Suppose the net legacy of what he and his cohorts tried so hard to push during the scandal really came to pass, for politicians of both parties. Suppose it was generally recognized as legitimate to lie under oath in a sexual harassment trial. Suppose it was considered a privilege of office if the President couldn’t keep his hands off the staff, and any woman on which his eye happened to fall was fair game. And if you chose not to come across, you’d best keep your yap shut about it or you will find your nose job splashed all over the front page of the National Enquirer. Of course, if you do choose to hit your knees in front of the President’s lap, he can get his staff to find you a job at Revlon, so essentially we are authorizing the prostitution of the White House interns, but still.
I don’t think this is a good thing. Even if it applied to everyone. The purpose of an oath is to establish conditions under which people tell “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”. Should we be making exceptions because it is about sexual harassment? Don’t we value the rights of women more than that?
I suppose the only way we will ever know if this is how the Clinton legacy will wind up is if we catch Bush with his hand up someone else’s skirt. Then, if he lies about it and gets caught, we can see if anyone else wants to make the effort to abandon partisanship and apply the same standards of public behavior to Republicans as we did to Clinton.
Shodan, that puts a really good perspective on an intelligent conservative’s view of Clinton and his offenses. One small detail, which should be gotten right but which does not affect the thrust of your post: He claimed, accurately, that he did not have sexual intercourse with a woman from whom he received a blowjob. Sexual relations does not always equal sexual intercourse, as the ongoing debate about sodomy laws would indicate; he answered the question he was asked, accurately. It may seem an evasion to you – in my less charitable moments, it does to me – but it was nonetheless his right not to volunteer information about having been the recipient of oral sex, in an adversarial situation such as he was called to testify in, and answer precisely the question asked.
If you embezzled $1,998,703.95 from a company and were called on in court to answer the question “Did you fraudulently take two million dollars that did not belong to you from the X company?” you could honestly, under oath, answer “No, I did not.”
So, Shodan, the fact that Clinton’s “scandal” was merely the culmination of a many-year campaign to destroy the President – including illegal collusion between Ken Starr and Paula Jones’ lawyers, including the OIC withholding information from the Attorney General on the motives for expanding the investigation, including numerous accusations that were ultimately proven to be false and groundless – doesn’t matter to you, eh?
As long as somebody nailed Bill Clinton on something, whether by hook or by crook, is enough of a reason for you to despise the guy, it seems.
The most one can expect is an honest disclosure of ones own biases. Thanks. In the below, I’m trying very hard not to respond politically. Hope I’ve succeeded somewhat.
What you say above may be true. I’m not sure… my biased perception was that he was hated intensely by the right and that some extra emphasis was placed on his lying from that quarter.
I think the press was pretty fond of him during the election, and many outlets did not emphasize things that would have been made more prominent were he not liked so well.
On the other hand, my perception was that he was not let off the hook in same way after his first year or so.
My idea is that there was so much in the way of conspiracy theory floating around (before the scandal broke) that there was no way to tell the fantasy from the real stuff.
There was an awful lot of squirming, I agree. And it would have been much better if he had just admitted it… but I think your assessment of the political nuances of the transgression is right on the money: he couldn’t admit it without alienating the groups that elected him.
I think this is where many Democrats who would otherwise mostly agree with you would part company. It seemed at the time (and to me still does, in retrospect) that partisanship had taken hold and that the Republicans in the House, especially, were “out to get” Clinton. They didn’t like him, for the reasons you discuss above among other things, and they intended to emasculate (!) his presidency. I don’t believe myself that there’s anything he could have done, once the perjury was committed, to avoid impeachment (other than resigning, of course).
Well, I was thinking of the effect on politics and the way it’s conducted, more than the specifics of what happened, I guess.
I agree that accepting a precedent of different standards for presidents would be a corruption.
I’m also concerned, though, about the appropriate use of impeachment as a tool, and whether the Constitution was manipulated for political purposes in this case. It’s hard for me (personally) to imagine that the framers would have considered Clinton’s lies on or off the stand as ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’. My fear is that the impeachment of Clinton may have opened the door to unending partisan attacks whenever Congress and the president are of different parties. I believe that if there were to be a similar (or identical) scandal right now, there’s no way in hell that the congressional GOP would impeach. And I don’t think that’s related to Bush’s reputation for the usual amount of honesty in politicians as compared to Clinton’s. I also believe that if the Democrats controlled Congress, they would impeach Bush in a heartbeat, probably with less actual cause than there was in the Clinton case. That’s really what troubles me.
I wish that a trial for perjury would have been possible in some other court. That would get Clinton punished and made it clear that the same laws apply to all without the introduction of so much politics. Maybe.
Nog
Upon preview: rjung, if you want to attack someone, by all means do so. But I think it’s unfair to start a partisan attack on someone who is trying to state their perspective outside of politics. Shodan is doubtless aware that many people share your perspective of this, and I don’t think you’re adding much by jumping all over it again at this point. If you didn’t learn something from reading his response, I don’t think your mind is open.
It is whatever the House of Representatives and Senate want it to be. If the House impeaches the President on the grounds of “wearing a straw hat before Memorial Day” and the Senate convicts the President on “wearing a straw hat before Memorial Day”, then “wearing a straw hat before Memorial Day” qualifies as a “high crime or misdemeanor”, even if it’s only a fashion crime.
Our Constitution also has not pre-defined “cruel and unusual punishment”, even though it forbids such activities.
I think the idea was to build in some flexibility.
Actually, as I recall his statement on TV, he said he did not have sex with Monica Lewinsky at all. He may have been making mental reservations about intercourse inside his own head, but the statement itself was false and misleading, as it was no doubt meant to be.
Oral sex is sex by definition, at least in common usage. Part of what I objected to about Clinton was his attempt to convince me that it wasn’t a lie to say that black was white.
And I am going on memory here, but I thought at one point in at least one deposition, the person taking Clinton’s statement told Clinton that the term “sex” was meant to include oral sex and fondling.
I agree with the judge in the case, that Clinton’s statements were false and misleading, deliberately so.
rjung -
Your first statement is not a fact, it is an opinion. Following are several allegations, for which I will request cites.
Although you are correct that I am not as concerned with the false accusations against Clinton. The parts of the scandal that bother me the most are the ones that are not false - the findings of the courts and of common sense that Clinton made deliberately false and misleading statements, after swearing an oath before God to tell the truth.
Yup, nothing else would shut me up for long.
I am sure he was. My perception is that this hatred for him grew as he got away with more and more and more - from Filegate thru the Travel Office scandal to illegal campaign contributions up to lying under oath.
It was even petty shit like his staff vandalizing the White House at the end of his term, and selling pardons for money. He just didn’t seem to understand that there is a standard for the President that is a bit higher than that for a backwater Southern politician with a lot of charm and an ice-bitch lawyer wife with an uncanny knack for futures trading.
Possibly. Or else there were so many scandals that not even the liberal media could afford to downplay them all. They were getting too much competition from non-traditional news outlets that were making them look silly by covering issues that everyone else knew were real.
Again, perhaps so. My perspective as a conservative was that some of the loonier theories (the Clinton murder list and such-like) were never taken seriously by the Right. I never met anyone whose opinion I valued who really thought Clinton had had Vince Foster murdered. But it is rather easy to believe that they did a thorough sweep of his office before they let anyone see it, and removed whatever they thought might be incriminating. Which fed the conspiracy theories to last beyond the point when they would have died away on their own.
Similar to Nixon. If he had simply tossed the Watergate burglars to the wolves when he first heard about the break-in, he could (possibly) have weathered the storm.
It’s not the crime; it’s the cover-up that gets you.
Possibly, but partisanship happened on both sides of the aisle. I saw more Republicans in the Senate who voted to acquit than Democrats who voted to convict. Even if they made nice speeches about women’s right to be free from sexual harassment.
Although watching Ted Kennedy try to keep a straight face during speeches about the horrors of sexual harassment was almost worth it. As well as hearing members of NOW offering to prostitute themselves in return for the right vote on abortion.
The shameful part is how they took Anita Hill to their bosom, and spit on Paula Jones. “Believe the woman” - right. :rolleyes:
Maybe it is too long ago to count, but I think the Senate would have removed Nixon from office even if it were controlled by Republicans.
And I can’t tell if partisanship is worse now than it was during Reagan’s term or during the Bork hearings.
I think this is a point beyond which my own biases don’t allow me to go. I still think that if Bush lied under oath, Congress would impeach him (although maybe now the precedent is that lying isn’t a “high crime or misdemeanor”). And Reagan didn’t get impeached even during Iran-Contra.
I honestly don’t think that if Congress passed into Democratic hands in 2004 (which God forbid), that Bush would automatically get impeached. To put the worst possible spin on the motives of politicians, even many Republicans realized that the public would not support removing Clinton from office for lying about adultery, and so they did not vote to remove. I can’t believe the Democrats would be so blind to public opinion as to impeach Bush just because “now, it’s payback time”.
It was, as I think we can all agree, a nasty business. And the best way to have avoided it is not to decide ahead of time how you will vote based on which party you belong to, but for the accused not to commit the wrong doing in the first place.
I don’t think Bush has committed an impeachable offense. If Democrats are preparing articles of impeachment in hopes that they can get a two-thirds majority of blind partisans in the Senate by 2004, I hope and expect that they will suffer a backlash likely to keep them out of power for the next ten years. Sort of like Watergate, except for Democrats.
I’m talking about a violation of international law. Maybe not all violations would be considered important enough for impeachment, but I think war crimes should be considered an impeachable offense. Like I said, while most people don’t have a problem with aggressive wars (as long as it’s us starting them), they would probably have a problem with other war crimes, and impeachment is the best option we have for a president that uses the military for reprehensible acts regardless of whether said acts are within his constitutional jurisdiction.
The fact that there won’t be one, doesn’t mean there shouldn’t. Those who voted against the ammendment can still make a stand and bring the issue to light.
How well do you think this sort of defense would have worked for the Nazi generals? A war crime is a war crime, it has nothing to do with constitutional powers.
Whoa, Nellie!! What other war crimes? As far as I can tell, you are basing your “war crimes” theory on a purported violation of the Nuremberg Charter, by waging an aggressive war. As has been established by Jimmy1 and others, you cannot amend the Constitution by signing a treaty, and the US Constitution allows for the Congress and the President to wage aggressive wars. Thus, to the extent that the Nuremberg Charter is US law, that provision is unconstitutional. And if an unconstitutional provision of law makes an action a crime, that action is not a crime under US law.
But an impeachment has everything to do with constitutional powers. Your argument may work before an international tribunal, but it will not work as the basis for impeachment.
Putting aside the fact that impeachment is a political exercise, for that political exercise to have any merit, the President must be accused of an action that is a crime under US law. Actions that violate international law are criminal acts under US law only if the relevant international law has been incorporated into US law and the resultant US law is constitutional.
Treaties are indeed the “supreme law of the land,” but the emphasis is on law. They do not trump the US Constitution.
Why not? The constitution doesn’t say “high crimes and misdemeanors under US law”.
Suppose for a minute, that GW had committed a war crime that the majority of US citizens would dissapprove of, like rounding up unnarmed civilians and shooting them en masse. Regardless of whether or not this was a violation of US law, I and most others would expect an impeachment from my legislature. I also wouldn’t expect the legislature to wait on an international tribunal if the president openly admitted to doing it.
Now it just so happens that I’m in the minority opinion in this war crime, but it is obviously a serious crime since the US has endorsed the hanging of people for such actions.
While I personally don’t find this the final arbiter of impeachable offenses, perhaps for my edification you could explain why the Nuremburg charter would in violation of the US constitution.
The president still remains Commander in Chief of the armed forces.That power is not taken away or given to the UN. If however, he decides to do something reprehensible with that power then it would be considered a crime of consequence. I think it is comparable to libel laws that don’t violate free speech.