# Principals Meeting on Torture: Can We Impeach Now? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 14, 2008, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principals-meeting-on-torture-can-we-impeach-now/445301 "2008-04-14T14:46:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2008, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principals-meeting-on-torture-can-we-impeach-now/445301/41 "2008-04-14T19:28:37Z")
[QUOTE=mswas] Right. But in this case firing that employee is more work than the benefit. He’s going to be out soon. Impeachment would just be a costly revenge with little tangible benefit. [/QUOTE] Next January 20, with any luck, a Democrat will move into the White House. That Dem will say a lot of blather about how he and his party aren’t like that icky George Bush, we’re better than him, especially with respect to things like basic human rights. If it’s important to that President that the world take him/her seriously, it would be helpful if the Democratic Party acted _this_ year as if they meant it. ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2008, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principals-meeting-on-torture-can-we-impeach-now/445301/42 "2008-04-14T19:33:11Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] It only took two posts to get to “CLINTON GOT A BLOW JOB!” What a surprise. I suppose you actually think that dissembling about a blow job really is worse than torture. [/QUOTE] Nice try, it was in the OP. My point is that hardly anyone gives a rip about how we treat members of suspected al Queda members. It’s a fact of life, deal with it. And it ain’t like we’re ripping fingernails off (hopefully). Some form of torture techniques have to be legally allowed (whether it’s singing Christmas songs or showing them photos of Oprah on the beach) for proper interrogation and recovery of information. You just can’t let the public know what they are because the terrorists will then know how far the CIA can legally go and they could possibly prepare for such torture. I’m sure someone could effectively “get used” to water boarding if they wanted to. It would then become a known and ineffectual method of recovering information or breaking down a suspect. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2008, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principals-meeting-on-torture-can-we-impeach-now/445301/43 "2008-04-14T19:37:01Z")
[QUOTE=mswas] Right. But in this case firing that employee is more work than the benefit. He’s going to be out soon. Impeachment would just be a costly revenge with little tangible benefit. [/QUOTE] IMHO, the real question is, just what will Congress show it’s not willing to tolerate? Screw revenge; the point is to make sure that future Presidents don’t overstep the bounds of decency by as much as this one did. And there’s really no way to write laws binding future Presidents. Ultimately, only Congress can rein in a President that wants to play fast and loose with the law. This Congress, by its action or inaction, will give future Presidents a heads-up for what they can or can’t get away with. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2008, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principals-meeting-on-torture-can-we-impeach-now/445301/44 "2008-04-14T19:39:50Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] IMHO, the real question is, just what will Congress show it’s not willing to tolerate? Screw revenge; the point is to make sure that future Presidents don’t overstep the bounds of decency by as much as this one did. And there’s really no way to write laws binding future Presidents. Ultimately, only Congress can rein in a President that wants to play fast and loose with the law. This Congress, by its action or inaction, will give future Presidents a heads-up for what they can or can’t get away with. [/QUOTE] Couldn’t they just pass a bill depriving him of his post-presidency pension, Secret Service protection, right to a state funeral, and suchlike perks? ---
**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:** [April 14, 2008, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principals-meeting-on-torture-can-we-impeach-now/445301/45 "2008-04-14T19:44:04Z")
[QUOTE=Uncommon Sense] My point is that hardly anyone gives a rip about how we treat members of suspected al Queda members. It’s a fact of life, deal with it. [/quote] In other words, according to you America is a nation of scum and fools. After all, ANYONE can be a suspected member of Al Qaeda. And I do deal with it. I deal with it by holding America in utter contempt. [QUOTE=Uncommon Sense] And it ain’t like we’re ripping fingernails off (hopefully). [/quote] Beating people with baseball bats or suffocating them to death or driving them insane is better ? [QUOTE=Uncommon Sense] Some form of torture techniques have to be legally allowed (whether it’s singing Christmas songs or showing them photos of Oprah on the beach) for proper interrogation and recovery of information. [/quote] No, they don’t. [QUOTE=Uncommon Sense] You just can’t let the public know what they are because the terrorists will then know how far the CIA can legally go and they could possibly prepare for such torture. I’m sure someone could effectively “get used” to water boarding if they wanted to. [/QUOTE] No, they can’t. That’s the point of using it. And what makes you think that anyone in Al Qaeda ( or most of the rest of the world ) believes that the CIA restricts itself to what is legal" ? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2008, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principals-meeting-on-torture-can-we-impeach-now/445301/46 "2008-04-14T19:46:29Z")
[QUOTE=Uncommon Sense] Nice try, it was in the OP. My point is that hardly anyone gives a rip about how we treat members of suspected al Queda members. [/quote] Ah yes: if we _suspect_ them of being bad guys, then we can torture them. Conviction? Nah. Evidence? Maybe. Suspicion? Yeah, we got that - turn the thumbscrews! > [@](#): > > And it ain’t like we’re ripping fingernails off (hopefully). No, we’ve done [far worse than that](http://www.hrw.org/reports/2004/afghanistan0304/3.htm#_Toc64778175). > [@](#): > > Some form of torture techniques have to be legally allowed (whether it’s singing Christmas songs or showing them photos of Oprah on the beach) for proper interrogation and recovery of information. You just can’t let the public know what they are because the terrorists will then know how far the CIA can legally go and they could possibly prepare for such torture. I’m sure someone could effectively “get used” to water boarding if they wanted to. It would then become a known and ineffectual method of recovering information or breaking down a suspect. Yeah, if you only _knew ahead of time_ that they were going to stick a rusty hook through your scrotum and hang you by it, you’d be able to withstand it. > [@](#): > > I’m sure someone could effectively “get used” to water boarding if they wanted to. [**Scylla** might beg to differ.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=448717) ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2008, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principals-meeting-on-torture-can-we-impeach-now/445301/47 "2008-04-14T19:46:48Z")
[QUOTE=Der Trihs] It would keep the Bush Presidency from following up the Nixon pardon in underlining the attitude that Presidents are above all laws and restrictions. The NEXT President inclined towards unethical/illegal/power mongering behavior is going to look back at this Presidency and the pardon of Nixon and say “Why not ? No matter what I do, if it’s not sex Congress will let it slide.” [/QUOTE] And create a situation where the President cannot do anything because ultimately they will piss off the other party and be impeached by a hostile congress anytime Congress’s majority is the hostile party. Ultimately creating permanent gridlock and an end to checks and balances, leading to a permanent state of corruption and influence peddling. No thanks. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2008, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principals-meeting-on-torture-can-we-impeach-now/445301/48 "2008-04-14T19:49:09Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] IMHO, the real question is, just what will Congress show it’s not willing to tolerate? Screw revenge; the point is to make sure that future Presidents don’t overstep the bounds of decency by as much as this one did. And there’s really no way to write laws binding future Presidents. Ultimately, only Congress can rein in a President that wants to play fast and loose with the law. This Congress, by its action or inaction, will give future Presidents a heads-up for what they can or can’t get away with. [/QUOTE] That’s not true. Congress can pass laws limiting the power of the president. They could pass laws changing the scope of the President’s authority. Also, I am willing to wait and see what Obama will do to restructure the Executive to within constitutional bounds as he has promised. Which IMO is one of his most significant campaign promises, more important than the sabre rattling at NAFTA, and on par with reform of Health Care and removal of troops from Iraq. ---
**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:** [April 14, 2008, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principals-meeting-on-torture-can-we-impeach-now/445301/49 "2008-04-14T19:50:17Z")
[QUOTE=mswas] And create a situation where the President cannot do anything because ultimately they will piss off the other party and be impeached by a hostile congress anytime Congress’s majority is the hostile party. Ultimately creating permanent gridlock and an end to checks and balances, leading to a permanent state of corruption and influence peddling. No thanks. [/QUOTE] So, you are basically saying that the only alteratives are a President that is beyond all laws and restriction, and an ineffectual government ? And how does making it clear that a President can get away with any form of corruption prevent corruption ? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2008, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principals-meeting-on-torture-can-we-impeach-now/445301/50 "2008-04-14T19:52:22Z")
[QUOTE=mswas] That’s not true. Congress can pass laws limiting the power of the president. They could pass laws changing the scope of the President’s authority. [/quote] My point is, they’ve already done so. But unless they’re willing to enforce egregious violations of those laws through the mechanism of impeachment, they can write as many laws as they want, but it won’t make a difference. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2008, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principals-meeting-on-torture-can-we-impeach-now/445301/51 "2008-04-14T19:54:29Z")
[QUOTE=mswas] And create a situation where the President cannot do anything because ultimately they will piss off the other party and be impeached by a hostile congress anytime Congress’s majority is the hostile party. Ultimately creating permanent gridlock and an end to checks and balances, leading to a permanent state of corruption and influence peddling. [/QUOTE] Or it might simply lead to something nearer to a parliamentary system (executive serving at the legislature’s pleasure, dismissable by a vote of no confidence), which is at least arguably superior to what we’ve got now. ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2008, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principals-meeting-on-torture-can-we-impeach-now/445301/52 "2008-04-14T19:58:33Z")
[QUOTE=Der Trihs] In other words, according to you America is a nation of scum and fools. After all, ANYONE can be a suspected member of Al Qaeda. [/quote] No, they’ll just believe the CIA over you. That the person they were interrogating was a threat. > [@](#): > > Beating people with baseball bats or suffocating them to death or driving them insane is better ? You’re so quick to jump. I’m pretty sure those aren’t legal methods of torture. I’m against actual physical harm and any other method that isn’t recognized as legal. I’m also giving the CIA lots of rope to determine who’se a threat and who’se not. > [@](#): > > No, they can’t. That’s the point of using it. And what makes you think that anyone in Al Qaeda ( or most of the rest of the world ) believes that the CIA restricts itself to what is legal" ? Cite? Do you know for a fact that a person can’t be trained so that water boarding becomes ineffective on them? And if the CIA isn’t acting properly during interrogations _they_ need to be dealt with, this would probably not be something that the President would be OK with. ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2008, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principals-meeting-on-torture-can-we-impeach-now/445301/53 "2008-04-14T20:06:30Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] Ah yes: if we _suspect_ them of being bad guys, then we can torture them. Conviction? Nah. Evidence? Maybe. Suspicion? [/quote] The cops haul in suspects all the time, you got a problem with them too? They usually can’t tell by looking at someone who _acts suspiciously or fits the description of someone who has_ until they bring them in for further questions. > [@](#): > > No, we’ve done [far worse than that](http://www.hrw.org/reports/2004/afghanistan0304/3.htm#_Toc64778175). Understood and that was terribly wrong on our part. > [@](#): > > Yeah, if you only _knew ahead of time_ that they were going to stick a rusty hook through your scrotum and hang you by it, you’d be able to withstand it. Rusty hooks through the scrotum are likely already illegal. > [@](#): > > [**Scylla** might beg to differ.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=448717) Doesn’t mean that he couldn’t get used to it if he practiced. ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2008, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principals-meeting-on-torture-can-we-impeach-now/445301/54 "2008-04-14T20:12:00Z")
I’m sorry if this is de-railing the OP but I happen to think that what the WH has admitted to allowing wasn’t illegal torture or wasn’t _thought_ to be illegal by those who determine such things. It’s certainly pushing the lines, but I don’t think they crossed 'em here. ---
**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:** [April 14, 2008, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principals-meeting-on-torture-can-we-impeach-now/445301/55 "2008-04-14T20:21:11Z")
[QUOTE=Uncommon Sense] No, they’ll just believe the CIA over you. That the person they were interrogating was a threat. [/quote] In other words, scum and fools, as I said. [QUOTE=Uncommon Sense] You’re so quick to jump. I’m pretty sure those aren’t legal methods of torture. I’m against actual physical harm and any other method that isn’t recognized as legal. I’m also giving the CIA lots of rope to determine who’se a threat and who’se not. [/quote] Legality is irrelevant. Torture is evil; if the law allows torture, the law is evil. Any organization or government that practices torture is evil, and should be destroyed if it refuses to stop. And your position is ridiculous; why bother with the torture, except for sadism’s sake ? You are essentially giving the CIA the right to grab anyone at all and torture them until they “admit” to being Al Qaeda or whatever. [QUOTE=Uncommon Sense] Cite? Do you know for a fact that a person can’t be trained so that water boarding becomes ineffective on them? [/quote] The fact that despite it being a very old technique, no one stands up to it ? [QUOTE=Uncommon Sense] And if the CIA isn’t acting properly during interrogations _they_ need to be dealt with, this would probably not be something that the President would be OK with. [/QUOTE] And if the President IS fine with them torturing people to death ? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2008, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principals-meeting-on-torture-can-we-impeach-now/445301/56 "2008-04-14T20:22:26Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] See above @13. _Yawn._ [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=RTFirefly in post #13] And it even got fewer votes than the abuse-of-power article. At any rate, that article was an emphatic statement that abuse of power is indeed grounds for impeachment, even when it doesn’t involve the breaking of specific statutes. [/QUOTE] Three Articles of Impeachment: > [@Article 1](#): > > On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other **unlawful covert activities.** Sent to the House by a vote of 27-11. > [@Article 2](#): > > Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, **impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries** , or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposed of these agencies. Sent to the House by a vote of 28-10. > [@Article 3](#): > > In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, contrary to his oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives on April 11, 1974, May 15, 1974, May 30, 1974, and June 24, 1974, and **willfully disobeyed such subpoenas.** Sent to the House by a vote of 21-17. Each article alleged an act that was a violation of criminal law. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2008, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principals-meeting-on-torture-can-we-impeach-now/445301/57 "2008-04-14T20:40:32Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] Three Articles of Impeachment: \ Sent to the House by a vote of 28-10. \ Each article alleged an act that was a violation of criminal law. [/QUOTE] The statute allegedly violated by Nixon’s “impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries,” if you please? ETA: Reason I ask is that, neither at the time (and believe me, I was paying close attention), nor during the 1/3 of a century since, have I ever heard it suggested that the second Article of Impeachment concerned a statutory violation. Until today, of course. So pardon me if I’m skeptical. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2008, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principals-meeting-on-torture-can-we-impeach-now/445301/58 "2008-04-14T21:13:54Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] The statute allegedly violated by Nixon’s “impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries,” if you please? ETA: Reason I ask is that, neither at the time (and believe me, I was paying close attention), nor during the 1/3 of a century since, have I ever heard it suggested that the second Article of Impeachment concerned a statutory violation. Until today, of course. So pardon me if I’m skeptical. [/QUOTE] 18 USC § 1505 et seq, which reads in pertinent part: > [@](#): > > Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress - Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2008, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principals-meeting-on-torture-can-we-impeach-now/445301/59 "2008-04-14T21:24:18Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Or it might simply lead to something nearer to a parliamentary system (executive serving at the legislature’s pleasure, dismissable by a vote of no confidence), which is at least arguably superior to what we’ve got now. [/QUOTE] That would require a credible third party. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2008, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principals-meeting-on-torture-can-we-impeach-now/445301/60 "2008-04-14T21:25:40Z")
[QUOTE=Der Trihs] So, you are basically saying that the only alteratives are a President that is beyond all laws and restriction, and an ineffectual government ? And how does making it clear that a President can get away with any form of corruption prevent corruption ? [/QUOTE] The President is not beyond all laws and restrictions. That’s a BS argument. I don’t see how tying up Congress in a pointless hatefest for the rest of the year to accomplish absolutely nothing, is in some way a good thing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principals-meeting-on-torture-can-we-impeach-now/445301.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principals-meeting-on-torture-can-we-impeach-now/445301.md?page=4)