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?
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.
Fully agreed. This would seem to be the paradigmatic case of a political question.
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.
Well, what else is there?
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, and my time machine is missing the rewind button; it’s stuck in forward, normal speed.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
No, they alleged acts.
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.
Your problem, not mine.
Which just happen to constititute criminal acts.
What a stunning coincidence.
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.
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.
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.
It is not a fact, it is a highly controversial and vigorously disputed point of law.
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.
Nitpick, drowning means you’ve already died.
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.
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.
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.