# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2008, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principals-meeting-on-torture-can-we-impeach-now/445301/81 "2008-04-15T01:03:12Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] What’s missing is the nature of the connection. Did you retrospectively find a statute that fits, 34 years after the fact, or did they have this in mind at the time? If the House Jucidiary Committee, in the summer of 1974, drafted that article with a criminal statute in mind, then you’d be right about the Nixon articles of impeachment. If not, then it doesn’t matter if a statute can be fitted to it afterwards: the largest majority that the House Judiciary Committee produced for any of the Nixon impeachment articles would have still meant that abuse of Executive power is impeachable, even if there’s no clear statutory violation. [/QUOTE] Well, the statute certainly existed 34 years ago. It’s what popped to my mind immediately upon reading the article’s language, and I believe most any criminal lawyer would reach a similar connection, and there were plenty of lawyers on staff and as actual members of the Judiciary Committee. What sort of evidence are you picturing here? ---
**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:** [April 15, 2008, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principals-meeting-on-torture-can-we-impeach-now/445301/82 "2008-04-15T01:15:22Z")
[QUOTE=Richard Parker] First, criminal acts are not a clear legal prerequisite to impeachment. They may be a political prerequisite, but that’s a whole different story. And there are arguments for interpreting the Constitution in such a way that they would be a legal prerequisite, but there is no existing Supreme Court precedent or statute which would compel such an interpretation. [/QUOTE] We’ve probably had this discussion before, but I’d just add that I can’t see the SCOTUS getting involved in interpreting that part of the Constitution. The fact is, high crimes and misdemeanors is going to mean whatever Congress construes it to mean, and their only real constraint is the political realities of the times. I can’t see any reason that this Congress couldn’t impeach Bush and/or Cheney except that it would be a colossal waist of time-- he would not be convicted in the Senate. But he’s certainly given them ample cause to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2008, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principals-meeting-on-torture-can-we-impeach-now/445301/83 "2008-04-15T01:19:24Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] We’ve probably had this discussion before, but I’d just add that I can’t see the SCOTUS getting involved in interpreting that part of the Constitution. The fact is, high crimes and misdemeanors is going to mean whatever Congress construes it to mean, and their only real constraint is the political realities of the times. I can’t see any reason that this Congress couldn’t impeach Bush and/or Cheney except that it would be a colossal waist of time-- he would not be convicted in the Senate. But he’s certainly given them ample cause to do so. [/QUOTE] Fully agreed. This would seem to be the paradigmatic case of a political question. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2008, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principals-meeting-on-torture-can-we-impeach-now/445301/84 "2008-04-15T01:29:00Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] Well, the statute certainly existed 34 years ago. It’s what popped to my mind immediately upon reading the article’s language, and I believe most any criminal lawyer would reach a similar connection, and there were plenty of lawyers on staff and as actual members of the Judiciary Committee. What sort of evidence are you picturing here? [/QUOTE] Well, y’know, something suggesting that they had that in mind at the time. Official documentation, contemporaneous newspaper article, whatever. Right now, your cite is you. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2008, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principals-meeting-on-torture-can-we-impeach-now/445301/85 "2008-04-15T01:42:58Z")
[QUOTE=mswas] I don’t see impeachment as being a real enforcement mechanism. [/quote] Well, what else is there? > [@](#): > > So he’s impeached? What then? He leaves office a few days early and Cheney is President? I’m actually talking about impeaching them both, since they were both involved and apparently fully aware of what was being decided. Not that Cheney would become President anyway, since the votes just plain wouldn’t be there in the Senate, as I said in the OP. > [@](#): > > There were plenty of chances to stand up to this guy throughout his career. Time and time again I watched seasoned politicians cave before whatever it was that this guy had. Now in the 11th hour you’re again talking about impeachment. Look, I’ve been talking about it for years. It isn’t like I just started bringing this up yesterday. Hell, I coined the term ‘simulpeachment’ years ago just for situations like this, figuring that anything that Bush was impeachable for, would likely find Cheney involved in up to his armpits. > [@](#): > > If he was to be impeached it should have been years ago. It’s too little too late now. Well, it’s too late to go back and impeach him years ago now, isn’t it? The question isn’t what we should have done then; it’s what we should do now. I say it’s still important not to let something this blatant go by. No need for patiently working up the ladder over years until you have the evidence to nail the top guy - he’s just brazenly told the world he was informed and approving the whole time. I am opposed with every fiber of my being to letting this just go by. > [@](#): > > People COULD have voted against war in Iraq, they COULD have voted against any number of measures, they could have enacted laws to limit his power, but they didn’t. They signed the Patriot Act, they didn’t close Gitmo or Abu Ghraib. Yeah, and my time machine is missing the rewind button; it’s stuck in forward, normal speed. > [@](#): > > You are asking for the same Congress that gave him a pass all this time to impeach him now that it doesn’t make a difference. We disagree enormously on whether it makes a difference. You’re just thinking of the present Presidential term. I’m thinking of precedent. Needless to say, I’m not _expecting_ this Congress to act. I’m just furious that, once more, they won’t. ---
**Author:** ![Crocodiles\_And\_Boulevards](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ee7513/32.png) [@Crocodiles\_And\_Boulevards](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crocodiles_And_Boulevards)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2008, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principals-meeting-on-torture-can-we-impeach-now/445301/86 "2008-04-15T02:17:22Z")
Who in the DoJ would be willing (past or present in this administration cycle) to prosecute or enforce subpoenas on the White House in the first place? I’m guessing no one important. After all, it didn’t happen with the “illegal” wiretapping scandal. Almost no one put out a real effort to oust the administration when it became clear that the motivations for the Iraq War were speciously created, either. So, at this point – after having swallowed so much without real, meaningful complaint – why raise the ruckus? It’s a bad deal for congress. They’re too entrenched in the whole mess themselves. As soon as they set out on the road of impeachment, they’re own records will come under unwelcome scrutiny. It’s a bum political deal, basically, and is indicative of the rather worrisome state of politics in our country. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2008, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principals-meeting-on-torture-can-we-impeach-now/445301/87 "2008-04-15T04:22:11Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] Well, y’know, something suggesting that they had that in mind at the time. Official documentation, contemporaneous newspaper article, whatever. Right now, your cite is you. [/QUOTE] No, it’s not. My cite is this entire conversation. I said: > [@Bricker](#): > > Although “grounds for impeachment” can technically be “anything the House says they are,” the reality is that you need to allege clear violations of criminal law to get impeachment votes. You disagreed: > [@RTFirefly](#): > > Wrong answer. > > For those who were in a cave on Mars during the impeachment summer of 1974, the House Judiciary Committee voted to the contrary by a 28-10 margin. I have shown that all three article of impeachment DID IN FACT ALLEGE VIOLATIONS OF CRIMINAL LAW. Now you’re asking me to demonstrate that this is what the House members were THINKING when they approved this article? I have no idea what they were thinking. I stand by my original claim: _Although “grounds for impeachment” can technically be “anything the House says they are,” the reality is that you need to allege clear violations of criminal law to get impeachment votes._ No articles of impeachment have ever been approved by the House or even in Nixon’s case just by the Judiciary Committee (a point about which I haven’t quibbled once) that did not allege a violation of criminal law. I don’t really know or care what the House members were thinking. Perhaps they were thinking about puppies, inflation, or what a hot piece of ass Angie Dickinson was. The fact is that they didn’t pass any articles of impeachment that failed to allege a criminal violation. That’s what I said, that’s what’s true, and that’s what you erroroneously claimed was wrong. If you have any evidence to back up your idea, you cough it up. My point is proved. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2008, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principals-meeting-on-torture-can-we-impeach-now/445301/88 "2008-04-15T05:53:19Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by **gonzomax** > Clinton was not impeached for any other reason than politics. The day he got into office the repubs started to investigate his entire life. They were intent on crippling his presidency with sleight of political hand. > That is enough reason to impeach Bush. Why? Do you think it was “enough reason” to impeach Clinton? [/QUOTE] I’m not **gozomax** , but from my perspective, no, crippling Clinton’s presidency for its own sake was not a good thing, and was not a good reason for impeaching Clinton. Crippling Bush’s presidency, at any point in the proceedings, would represent a service to humanity, and to America. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2008, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principals-meeting-on-torture-can-we-impeach-now/445301/89 "2008-04-15T06:46:49Z")
> [@](#): > > **Uncommon Sense** : My point is that hardly anyone gives a rip about how we treat members of suspected al Queda members. Thank goodness you are very wrong. I wouldn’t want to continute to live in a country where people didn’t care about the rights of other human beings. It would have ceased to be a country that is about a Constitution that is preserved, protected and defended. We are required to treat not just _suspected_ al Queda members with respect for their rights. We are required by the Constitution to treat _everyone_ to due process. Did you think it was just about your rights? Is that what makes America great? > [@](#): > > **Uncommon Sense** : 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. > [@](#): > > **John Mace** : Waterboarding is more like putting a gun to someone’s head and telling them you’re going to pull the trigger if they don’t talk. People have died from being waterboarded. That’s more than just pushing the lines. It is more than psychological. You have the _feeling_ of drowning. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2008, 9:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principals-meeting-on-torture-can-we-impeach-now/445301/90 "2008-04-15T09:42:08Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] No, it’s not. My cite is this entire conversation. I said: You disagreed: I have shown that all three article of impeachment DID IN FACT ALLEGE VIOLATIONS OF CRIMINAL LAW. [/quote] No, they alleged _acts_. > [@](#): > > Now you’re asking me to demonstrate that this is what the House members were THINKING when they approved this article? What’s new about that? People in your profession gauge ‘intent’ all the time. There’s a ton of documentary evidence. Article 1 was about obstruction of justice. Obstruction of justice is a statutory crime. Article 2 was about abuse of power. Abuse of power ISN’T a crime, in and of itself. I’d say the burden’s on you to demonstrate that, despite that noncriminal framing, statutory criminality is what they had in mind. > [@](#): > > I have no idea what they were thinking. Your problem, not mine. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2008, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principals-meeting-on-torture-can-we-impeach-now/445301/91 "2008-04-15T11:56:15Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] No, they alleged _acts_. [/quote] Which just happen to constititute criminal acts. What a stunning coincidence. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2008, 12:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principals-meeting-on-torture-can-we-impeach-now/445301/92 "2008-04-15T12:00:38Z")
[QUOTE=Zoe] People have died from being waterboarded. That’s more than just pushing the lines. It is more than psychological. You have the _feeling_ of drowning. [/QUOTE] Actually, it’s not the feeling of drowning. It IS drowning. The fact that there are people standing by who can pull you out of it is irrelevant when those people don’t really particularly care if you live or die, and do, in fact, want to produce as much terror in you as they possibly can. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2008, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principals-meeting-on-torture-can-we-impeach-now/445301/93 "2008-04-15T13:56:03Z")
Obama is still ruling out impeachment but says, if he becomes president, [he will immediately have his AG immediately review the potential for prosecuting crimes by the Bush Admin.](http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/) ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2008, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principals-meeting-on-torture-can-we-impeach-now/445301/94 "2008-04-15T14:05:56Z")
[QUOTE=Zoe] Thank goodness you are very wrong. I wouldn’t want to continute to live in a country where people didn’t care about the rights of other human beings. It would have ceased to be a country that is about a Constitution that is preserved, protected and defended. We are required to treat not just _suspected_ al Queda members with respect for their rights. We are required by the Constitution to treat _everyone_ to due process. Did you think it was just about your rights? Is that what makes America great? [/QUOTE] Unlawful combatants are entitled to many things, but they aren’t entitled to rights exactly across the board with American citizens. That’s simply a fact, which is why the plan all along has been to try them in some form of military commission or tribunal - last codified in the Military Commissions Act of 2006. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2008, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principals-meeting-on-torture-can-we-impeach-now/445301/95 "2008-04-15T14:11:20Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] Unlawful combatants are entitled to many things, but they aren’t entitled to rights exactly across the board with American citizens. That’s simply a fact . . . [/QUOTE] It is not a fact, it is a highly controversial and vigorously disputed point of law. ---
**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 15, 2008, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principals-meeting-on-torture-can-we-impeach-now/445301/96 "2008-04-15T14:16:13Z")
[QUOTE=RedFury] * * * **Uncommon Sense**? There are simply no words, nor here or other forum, to express my disgust at the blatant xenophobia you’ve expressed here. It’s people like you I worry about while going through customs/TSA in the US – and once I’m in it. They could could throw me in jail and torture me if for no other reason that people like you allow it. No, not allow it, _condone_ it. What an ugly impression that leaves of your country. Certainly one I still refuse to be true – not in the majority anyway. It’s monstrous. [/QUOTE] Xenophobia…right. You know, that’s a pretty baseless and flagrant attack on another poster without so much as a shred of data to back it up. Chill. ---
**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 15, 2008, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principals-meeting-on-torture-can-we-impeach-now/445301/97 "2008-04-15T14:18:19Z")
[QUOTE=jayjay] Actually, it’s not the feeling of drowning. It IS drowning. The fact that there are people standing by who can pull you out of it is irrelevant when those people don’t really particularly care if you live or die, and do, in fact, want to produce as much terror in you as they possibly can. [/QUOTE] Nitpick, _drowning_ means you’ve already died. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2008, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principals-meeting-on-torture-can-we-impeach-now/445301/98 "2008-04-15T14:29:58Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] Unlawful combatants are entitled to many things, but they aren’t entitled to rights exactly across the board with American citizens. That’s simply a fact, which is why the plan all along has been to try them in some form of military commission or tribunal - last codified in the Military Commissions Act of 2006. [/QUOTE] Yeah, and trying them by stress positions, sleep deprivation, and waterboarding. Can’t forget that. The wording of the Eighth Amendment - “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted” - puts its emphasis on _things that shall not be done_, rather than on whether _particular persons_ have the right to not have these things done to them. I’m not a Constitutional scholar, but ISTM that if the U.S. Constitution says these things shall not be done, then representatives of the U.S. government must not do them. And even if the plain wording of the Amendment is interpreted in a way that isn’t consistent with that reasoning, and even if by some ridiculous gyrations, all the Conventions we’ve signed off on are found not to apply, there’s still the little matter of human decency. Are we the good guys, or not? You shall know them by their fruits. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2008, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principals-meeting-on-torture-can-we-impeach-now/445301/99 "2008-04-15T14:31:16Z")
[QUOTE=Uncommon Sense] Nitpick, _drowning_ means you’ve already died. [/QUOTE] I hear from time to time about someone rescuing a drowning man. Guess that means they managed to fish a dead body out of the water. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2008, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principals-meeting-on-torture-can-we-impeach-now/445301/100 "2008-04-15T14:35:03Z")
[QUOTE=Uncommon Sense] Nitpick, _drowning_ means you’ve already died. [/QUOTE] I did not know that…I’ve always thought “drowned” was the end result and “drowning” was the process… Okay, it’s near-drowning, then. That doesn’t mean it’s trivial or just a trick of perception. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principals-meeting-on-torture-can-we-impeach-now/445301.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/principals-meeting-on-torture-can-we-impeach-now/445301.md?page=6)