# Mcain and others say they will add torture ban to all major legislation **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 6, 2005, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcain-and-others-say-they-will-add-torture-ban-to-all-major-legislation/329730 "2005-11-06T03:16:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2005, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcain-and-others-say-they-will-add-torture-ban-to-all-major-legislation/329730/1 "2005-11-06T03:16:15Z")
[Story](http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1105mccain-torture05.html) > [@](#): > > WASHINGTON - Girding for a potential fight with the Bush administration, supporters of a ban on torturing prisoners of war by U.S. interrogators threatened Friday to include the prohibition in nearly every bill the Senate considers until it becomes law. > > The no-torture wording, which proponents say is supported by majorities in both houses of Congress, was included last month in the Senate’s version of a defense spending bill. The measure’s final form is being negotiated with the House, and the White House is pushing for either a rewording or deletion of the torture ban. Under the circumstances, I think this is a good idea. I consider it typical of Bush and friends that they are pro-torture; if it hurts people, they support it. Up for debate : 1 : Is this a good idea ? 2 : If the Bush admin keeps fighting, will it hurt their or the Republicans image even more, or are most Americans savage enough to cheer on those who support torturers ? Also # 3 : > [@](#): > > Opponents of the McCain language contend that setting no-torture ground rules would signal to prisoners that they have little to fear during interrogations, discouraging them from providing information. > > Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita had said Thursday that prisoners captured during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq “know what we do by virtue of interrogation manuals and procedures, And they are trained to resist.” > > “So there’s a perception that the kind of rigidity that comes with these kinds of amendments could restrict the president’s flexibility in the global war on terror,” DiRita said. “And anything that restricts our ability to engage this highly agile adversary is not desirable.” True or false ? Are we _really_ incapable of functioning without torture ? Finally # 4 : Am I the only one amazed this is even a matter of debate in _America_ ? Now, I’m cynical; I expect savage behavior when, say, some soldiers want information or revenge from a soldier and think they won’t get caught. I never really expected the open defense and approval of torture in a country as big on moral superiority and “We’re number #1” as this one; it’s _embarassing_. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2005, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcain-and-others-say-they-will-add-torture-ban-to-all-major-legislation/329730/2 "2005-11-06T03:38:18Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > [ Am I the only one amazed this is even a matter of debate in _America_ ? \*. I am too. The concept that a president would go out of his way, and this very publically to oppose a ban on torture is just stuning. What it tells about current american society really isn’t pleasant. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2005, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcain-and-others-say-they-will-add-torture-ban-to-all-major-legislation/329730/3 "2005-11-06T03:50:16Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > I am too. The concept that a president would go out of his way, and this very **publically** to oppose a ban on torture is just stuning. What it tells about current american society really isn’t pleasant. It’s the _public_ part that gets me; I expect even bad guys in politics to _pretend_ to be civilized. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2005, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcain-and-others-say-they-will-add-torture-ban-to-all-major-legislation/329730/4 "2005-11-06T04:04:36Z")
It’s the closing chapters of the GOP agenda. Surprise is not warranted. Until now, there the right has been frustrated at having to cede reasons to the progessive parts of the country. _Why_ go to war? _Why_ legislate for torture? Now, there’s no longer a need to pay any heed to these and similar things which concern progessives and UN stalwarts. Instead, the GOP rejoices in having driven out reasons and progress and restraint of law from American public life. These liberalisms are unpalatable to them. The GOP from its position of victory, now openly crucifies the the values of its opponents and scripts its own indelibly in a banner across the map. “This is who we are.” Mission accomplished. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2005, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcain-and-others-say-they-will-add-torture-ban-to-all-major-legislation/329730/5 "2005-11-06T04:26:04Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Finally # 4 : Am I the only one amazed this is even a matter of debate in _America_ ? Now, I’m cynical; I expect savage behavior when, say, some soldiers want information or revenge from a soldier and think they won’t get caught. I never really expected the open defense and approval of torture in a country as big on moral superiority and “We’re number #1” as this one; it’s _embarassing_. No, you’re not the only one. I’m shocked that our so-called leaders spend time quibbling about the definition of torture but I’m not amazed at Bush’s actions. I really believe he is so sophomoric that he really believes that those bull sessions in the frat house about “what we oughtta do” in solving various problems represent reality. What does surprise me is that serious people fall in line with the idea of “active interrogation” and make excuses for it. I guess I shouldn’t be though when I remember that the Supreme Court sanctioned the wholesale internment of Japanese in WWII. That was done on grounds that the internment was in line with the Executive Order without ever examining the justification for the Executive Order itself. The paniced reaction to the WTC and Pentagon attacks has a lot to answer for when the final accounting is done. ---
**Author:** ![Nilor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a4c791/32.png) [@Nilor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nilor)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2005, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcain-and-others-say-they-will-add-torture-ban-to-all-major-legislation/329730/6 "2005-11-06T05:54:14Z")
I assume that McCain’s anti-torture section doesn’t have enough support in Congress to override a veto? If that’s the case, is it really a good idea to allow McCain etc to threaten the White House/President like that? I do not mean to support or oppose McCain’s ban on torture here, but it worries me that McCain is circumventing the system put in place to handle this kind of dispute. And if there is, in fact, enough support to override a veto, why make threats? ---
**Author:** ![Enginerd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/bcef8e/32.png) [@Enginerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enginerd)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2005, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcain-and-others-say-they-will-add-torture-ban-to-all-major-legislation/329730/7 "2005-11-06T06:47:54Z")
> [@Nilor](#): > > I assume that McCain’s anti-torture section doesn’t have enough support in Congress to override a veto? It was approved in the Senate by a vote of 90-9. It probably has less support in the house, but I imagine it could still override a veto. That’s the anti-torture provision on it’s own, though. If McCain introduced it as an independent bill, I don’t think he’d have any trouble. The spending bill that he originally attached it to probably won’t have the 2/3 supermajority it would need to override the veto. ---
**Author:** ![Rachm\_Qoch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a8b319/32.png) [@Rachm\_Qoch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rachm_Qoch)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2005, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcain-and-others-say-they-will-add-torture-ban-to-all-major-legislation/329730/8 "2005-11-06T06:52:49Z")
> [@Nilor](#): > > I assume that McCain’s anti-torture section doesn’t have enough support in Congress to override a veto? > > If that’s the case, is it really a good idea to allow McCain etc to threaten the White House/President like that? I do not mean to support or oppose McCain’s ban on torture here, but it worries me that McCain is circumventing the system put in place to handle this kind of dispute. > > And if there is, in fact, enough support to override a veto, why make threats? The McCain Amendment passed the Senate 90-9, so overriding the veto is not the problem. The anti-torture amendment, riding on the Pentagon appropriations bill, passed the Senate despite heavy pressure from Dick Cheney & his minions. But it looks like the House will scrap the amendment entirely (due to - surprise - pressure from Dick Cheney’s office). Cheney has promised that Bush will veto any bill exempting the CIA from adherence. Speaking of veto, it’s sad and ironic that the President will use the very first veto of his administration, potentially cutting off funding for the War on Terror, just to preserve the right to torture. ---
**Author:** ![Nilor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a4c791/32.png) [@Nilor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nilor)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2005, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcain-and-others-say-they-will-add-torture-ban-to-all-major-legislation/329730/9 "2005-11-06T07:17:14Z")
What is stopping McCain et al from introducing the anti-torture amendment as a new bill, and then overriding the veto? I suppose it could be the time it would take to introduce, pass, and override a new bill…seeing that preventing torture is a time-sensitive goal. As I said before, I’m just worried that McCain et al is going about this the wrong way. It seems that their actions leave the door open to pass other, more controversial, amendments. ---
**Author:** ![DMark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e68b1a/32.png) [@DMark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMark)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2005, 8:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcain-and-others-say-they-will-add-torture-ban-to-all-major-legislation/329730/10 "2005-11-06T08:32:45Z")
I’m sorry, but the fact that the United States even needs to have to put wordage towards **banning torture** is something I thought I would never live to experience in my lifetime. If there was any doubt in my mind that George W. Bush was the worst thing to happen to America, this wiped all doubt away. That said, I hope by all that is holy that McCain rams this ban down the Republican throat. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2005, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcain-and-others-say-they-will-add-torture-ban-to-all-major-legislation/329730/11 "2005-11-06T13:46:42Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > It’s the _public_ part that gets me; I expect even bad guys in politics to _pretend_ to be civilized. That’s what shocked me too. And the fact that it means it became politically possible to do so, IOW that the population is expected not to be very offended by advocating state-sponsored torture. TBy contrast, that some leader in a democracy would secretly allow/order the use of torture wouldn’t surprise me the slightest bit. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2005, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcain-and-others-say-they-will-add-torture-ban-to-all-major-legislation/329730/12 "2005-11-06T16:08:18Z")
Torture aside, no president likes to have limitations put on his authority by Congress. I wouldn’t expect any administration, end particularly this one, to just roll over and say: “Whatever you want, Congress. We’re here to do your bidding.” Also, there is a continuum on the scale of interrogation \<----\> torture. I haven’t followed this battle too closely, but is this more about exactly where to draw the line or is the legislation really as loosely defined as saying “no torture allowed”. I mean, what exactly is torture and what isn’t torture? ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2005, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcain-and-others-say-they-will-add-torture-ban-to-all-major-legislation/329730/13 "2005-11-06T16:18:24Z")
I don’t buy the argument that such a bill would unduly restrict a president’s power. The president should not have authority to do something morally reprehensible. The fact that this even requires legislation speaks volumes of the moral bankruptcy of the Bush administration. ---
**Author:** ![Rachm\_Qoch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a8b319/32.png) [@Rachm\_Qoch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rachm_Qoch)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2005, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcain-and-others-say-they-will-add-torture-ban-to-all-major-legislation/329730/14 "2005-11-06T22:33:52Z")
:eek: > [@John Mace](#): > > Torture aside, no president likes to have limitations put on his authority by Congress. I wouldn’t expect any administration, end particularly this one, to just roll over and say: “Whatever you want, Congress. We’re here to do your bidding.” > > Also, there is a continuum on the scale of interrogation \<----\> torture. I haven’t followed this battle too closely, but is this more about exactly where to draw the line or is the legislation really as loosely defined as saying “no torture allowed”. I mean, what exactly is torture and what isn’t torture? Well, if you accept the definition of the UN Convention Against Torture which we’ve signed and is legally binding: > [@](#): > > …torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. The convention also differentiates “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment” (though bad) from torture, and requires different levels of compliance. Arguably much of what went on in Abu Ghraib, though bad, did not rise to the level of torture. But that’s not the whole story. That’s the internationally accepted definition of torture. There’s also the Bush admininstion’s definition of torture. According to the now Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, torture is inflicting permanent damage or pain amounting “to the level of death, organ failure, or the permanent impairment of a significant body function.” As far as mental torture goes, “acts must penetrate to the core of an individual’s ability to perceive the world around him, substantially interfering with his cognitive abilities, or fundamentally alter his personality.” Apparently torture by the administration’s reckoning is anything fucking a person up for good or bringing a person to the brink of death. Presumably under the Administration’s definition bamboo shoots under fingernails, electrical shocks, and medeival dunking Salem-style, though bad, would not rise to the level of torture. :eek: Whatsmore, they argue that torture must involve “specific intent” to cause _pain, damage, or bodily harm_. Ie, if the intent was to _obtain information_, and bodily harm was simply consequent to this attempt to obtain information, torture did not occur. Given this obscenely ghoulish definition of torture, the fact that Bush wants to legalize it really says something. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2005, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcain-and-others-say-they-will-add-torture-ban-to-all-major-legislation/329730/15 "2005-11-06T22:44:00Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I don’t buy the argument that such a bill would unduly restrict a president’s power. The president should not have authority to do something morally reprehensible. The fact that this even requires legislation speaks volumes of the moral bankruptcy of the Bush administration. And of at least part of the Congress and a good number of the people. The President’s only real power is the power of persuasion. Sure, he (or she) is Commander in Chief of whatever armed forces the Congress sees fit to provide. But the commands are in accordance with regulations laid down by Congress. The President’s job is to faithfully execute the laws passed by Congress. From time to time the President must give the Congress a report on how things are going so that the Congress can take whatever legislative action is needed. Congress, if it so desires, has the power to remove any and all Executive Department personnel and demand that the new President appoint people who will do what Congress wants done. Congress always has the last word in matters between it and the Executive and all that it has to do is use it for the national good instead of their own benefit. It’s hard to tell how long it will take for the US to recover internationally from the damage done by this administration. ---
**Author:** ![Rachm\_Qoch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a8b319/32.png) [@Rachm\_Qoch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rachm_Qoch)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2005, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcain-and-others-say-they-will-add-torture-ban-to-all-major-legislation/329730/16 "2005-11-06T23:13:29Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > And of at least part of the Congress and a good number of the people. > > The President’s only real power is the power of persuasion. Sure, he (or she) is Commander in Chief of whatever armed forces the Congress sees fit to provide. But the commands are in accordance with regulations laid down by Congress. > > … > > Congress always has the last word in matters between it and the Executive and all that it has to do is use it for the national good instead of their own benefit. Not according to administration lawyers: > [@](#): > > …In light of the presidents complete authority over the conduct of war, without a clear statement otherwise, criminal statutes are not read as infringing on the President’s ultimate authority in these areas. > > …In order to respect the President’s inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign, 18 U.S.C. § 2340A (the prohibition against torture) must be construed as \*\*inapplicable \*\* to interrogations undertaken pursuant to his Commander-in-Chief authority. Congress lacks authority under Article I to set the terms and conditions under which the President may exercise his authority as Commander-in-Chief to control the conduct of operations during a war. The President’s power to detain and interrogate enemy combatants arises out of his constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief. A construction of Section 2340A that applied the provision to regulate the President’s authority as Commander-in-Chief to determine the interrogation and treatment of enemy combatants would raise serious constitutional questions. **Congress may no more regulate the President’s ability to detain and interrogate enemy combatants than it may regulate his ability to direct troop movements on the battlefield**. Accordingly, we would construe Section 2340A to avoid this constitutional difficulty, and conclude that it does not apply to the President’s detention and interrogation of enemy combatants pursuant to his Commander-in-Chief authority. _declassified Working Group Report dated 06 March 2003_ As far as the prosecution of the War on Terror is concerned, if the President does it, it’s legal. ---
**Author:** ![AFAIKnow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a6a055/32.png) [@AFAIKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AFAIKnow)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2005, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcain-and-others-say-they-will-add-torture-ban-to-all-major-legislation/329730/17 "2005-11-06T23:31:58Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > Congress always has the last word in matters between it and the Executive and all that it has to do is use it for the national good instead of their own benefit. Ever heard of a veto? > [@](#): > > Congress, if it so desires, has the power to remove any and all Executive Department personnel and demand that the new President appoint people who will do what Congress wants done. I think you are confused on the powers of Congress wrt removing executive officials. [Bowsher v. Synar](http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0478_0714_ZS.html) > [@](#): > > (a) Under the constitutional principle of separation of powers, Congress cannot reserve for itself the power of removal of an officer charged with the execution of the laws except by impeachment. To permit the execution of the laws to be vested in an officer answerable only to Congress would, in practical terms, reserve in Congress control of the execution of the laws. The structure of the Constitution does not permit Congress to execute the laws; it follows that Congress cannot grant to an officer under its control what it does not possess. Cf. INS v Chadha, 462 U.S. 919. Pp. 721-727. Congress can’t impeach someone just because they don’t like him. Their powers in that regard are very limited too. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2005, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcain-and-others-say-they-will-add-torture-ban-to-all-major-legislation/329730/18 "2005-11-07T01:51:40Z")
> [@AFAIKnow](#): > > Ever heard of a veto? Yes and I’ve also heard of an override. Congress has the last word. > [@](#): > > Congress can’t impeach someone just because they don’t like him. Their powers in that regard are very limited too. The partial quote of the decision that you gave isn’t dealing with a limitation on the power of Congress to impeach. It is defining what is meant by an officer of the Executive branch. The definition is for the purpose of laying the groundwork to overturn a law because Congress intruded into the carrying out of a law and that’s the executive’s prerogative. The whole case had nothing to do with impeachment but rather threw out at least one provision of Gramm-Rudman-Hollings on the grounds that the Act unconstitutionally gave an executive function to someone, the Comptroller General, who was a Congressional functionary. And the Comptroller is a creature of Congress because he or she can be removed by methods other than impeachment. Here’s the part of the decision that you didn’t cite: > [@](#): > > (b) There is no merit to the contention that the Comptroller General performs his duties independently and is not subservient to Congress. Although nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, the Comptroller General is removable only at the initiative of Congress. Under controlling statutes, he may be removed not only by impeachment but also by joint resolution of Congress “at any time” for specified causes, including “inefficiency,” “neglect of duty,” and “malfeasance.” The quoted terms, as interpreted by Congress, could sustain removal of a Comptroller General for any number of actual or perceived transgressions of the legislative will. Moreover, the political realities do not reveal that the Comptroller General is free from Congress’ influence. He heads the General Accounting Office, which, under pertinent statutes, is “an instrumentality of the United States Government independent of the executive departments,” and Congress has consistently viewed the Comptroller General as an officer of the Legislative Branch. Over the years, the Comptrollers General have also viewed themselves as part of the Legislative Branch. Thus, because Congress has retained removal authority over the Comptroller General, he may not be entrusted with executive powers. Pp. 727-732. > > (c) Under § 251 of the Act, the Comptroller General has been improperly assigned executive powers. Although he is to have “due regard” for the estimates and reductions contained in the joint report of [p716] the Directors of the CBO and the OMB, the Act clearly contemplates that, in preparing his report, the Comptroller General will exercise his independent judgment and evaluation with respect to those estimates, and will make decisions of the kind that are made by officers charged with executing a statute. The Act’s provisions give him, not the President, the ultimate authority in determining what budget cuts are to be made. By placing the responsibility for execution of the Act in the hands of an officer who is subject to removal only by itself, Congress, in effect, has retained control over the Act’s execution, and has unconstitutionally intruded into the executive function. Pp. 732-734. > [@Rachm Qoch](#): > > As far as the prosecution of the War on Terror is concerned, if the President does it, it’s legal. So say the President’s lawyers. But they don’t have the last word either do they? If it really, really wanted to the Congress has the power to stop this or any other war. The authorization for war was made by the Congress and can be withdrawn by the Congress. In which case the President’s wartime powers, which are granted by Congress in the first place, evaporate. And, or course, that Presidential power to use torture is what the whole debate is about. And still some people seem content to excuse the use of torture by the US government whenever the President thinks it’s necessary. Simply amazing. ---
**Author:** ![AFAIKnow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a6a055/32.png) [@AFAIKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AFAIKnow)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2005, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcain-and-others-say-they-will-add-torture-ban-to-all-major-legislation/329730/19 "2005-11-07T02:20:27Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > The partial quote of the decision that you gave isn’t dealing with a limitation on the power of Congress to impeach. It does directly address that “_Congress cannot reserve for itself the power of removal of an officer charged with the execution of the laws except by impeachment_.” **Article. III Section. 4.** > [@](#): > > The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. [http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/Impeachment-Guide.html](http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/Impeachment-Guide.html) > [@](#): > > Johnson’s impeachment trial is considered to be important because it checked the attempt among certain Members of Congress to establish congressional control of federal policy and relegate the President’s role in governance to that of a chief minister’s. The acquittal of Johnson also prevented later Congresses from using the threat of impeachment as a means of settling policy differences with the executive. Finally, the acquittal meant that in future impeachment trials the defendant would have to have committed an actual crime in order to be convicted. That kind of flies in the face of _“Congress, if it so desires, has the power to remove any and all Executive Department personnel and demand that the new President appoint people who will do what Congress wants done.”_ ---
**Author:** ![AFAIKnow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a6a055/32.png) [@AFAIKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AFAIKnow)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2005, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcain-and-others-say-they-will-add-torture-ban-to-all-major-legislation/329730/20 "2005-11-07T02:21:50Z")
That was Article. **II** Section. 4 [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcain-and-others-say-they-will-add-torture-ban-to-all-major-legislation/329730.md?page=2)