Admittedly, I may have missed it in my skimming. Carry on with your debating and pardon the interruption.
I don’t see how you can extrapolate Congressional agreement with your principle from its actions, when there are plenty of other good explanations for those actions.
But since you’ve put it in terms of what you’d need to say impeachment is warranted:
Suppose, tomorrow morning, the President ordered the Strategic Air Command to drop a nuke on, say, Rio de Janeiro, and they followed his orders and did so.
-
Would that violate any U.S. laws?
-
Assuming (as I suspect) that it didn’t, would you consider that an impeachable offense?
I sure would. And if you agree, then we’re on the same page that there are noncriminal (in the legal, not the moral, sense) actions that deserve impeachment; and we’re only arguing over the degree of moral criminality that’s needed to overcome the lack of statutory criminality.
– bolding mine.
That’d be just fine by me. For exactly what legal rights have the Gitmo detainees received? Again, read the freaking link, there’s ample evidence of torture and injustice. An American Gulag. Which is the whole point of indictment in those grounds alone.
So yeah, treat him by his own rules, or punish him by your Nation’s. But do something.
Could you be specific about which statements you regard as more hyperbole than fact?
Damned if I know. Some of them are violations of the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions, but I can’t say if there’s anything in the U.S. Code that they violate as well. At any rate, see my most recent post to Bricker.
[quote]
IANAL but if they ARE illegal, and since there should be sufficient proof, then why aren’t the Dems moving on this stuff?
Well, that’s convenient, ehe? There is of course all this massive proof
[quote]
Like where Bush said publicly that yeah, sure, he’d authorized waterboarding? I missed the part where that didn’t constitute ‘proof.’
The ‘point’ is that if the only person who’s willing to call a spade a spade is some loon like Kucinich, then better him than nobody, even if he weakens the argument by throwing in a whole bunch of what I regard as nonsense charges.
One person in Congress speaking the truth about impeachment is better than nobody in Congress saying it.
Well, look at the Dem track record on standing up to Bush on stuff. They subpoena his associates, they ignore the subpoenas, they ask the Justice Department (after it’s already said it won’t enforce) to enforce the subpoenas, and they take all these actions at the speed of a turtle on a hot summer day.
They actually have powers such as inherent contempt that they could use. I think maybe three Congresscritters have raised the possibility.
There’s just not much to demonstrate that this Congress’ Democratic majority is willing to do anything they see as risky, and a hell of a lot of evidence on the other side, AFAICT.
First, there’d have to be a significant ‘we’ that took him seriously.
Don’t be silly. That was the argument they made after the 2006 elections, in order to forestall demands from much of their base that they address impeachment. The goal was to forestall those demands, not to make an honest argument. (And it worked, because the arguments made sense to a lot of people at the time. That was then.) At this point, as the election season heats up, they don’t have to make any argument, and they know it.
Anyway, we seem to have a fundamental difference of opinion about the nature of the Dem caucus. You see them as a potent political force, ready to take it to the GOP given half an excuse. I see them as scared that any misstep relating to national security will be used against them, and knowing they lack a good sense of what will be perceived as a misstep, and what won’t.
And that’s important given your reliance on their inaction as evidence of the weakness of the case for impeachment.
Screw that: I’ve got to go on the available evidence.
I can sympathize. If you just want to wait until you’re back home before rejoining the debate, that’d be fine. Just bump the thread whenever.
It might violate the law. It depends on what his intent was in dropping the bomb. If he was trying to kill Brazilians for the sheer joy of it, then the law has been violated, and he’s a legitimate target of impeachment. If he was acting on intelligence information that indicated the Brazilians were minutes away from launching their own nuclear attack on the U.S., then he shouldn’t be impeached.
Not really, no. Because anything that rises to the level of moral turpetitude sufficient to warrant impeachment will already be illegal. I can’t think of a single act that wouldn’t be.
And let me ask this: if it’s so blatantly obvious to you that he should be impeached… why do you suppose that the Demo majority in the House has not only failed to act… but actively foiled an existing attempt? Are they evil?
See my last post to xtisme.
Let’s assume we’re in the world as it is - the one where Brazil doesn’t have a nuclear weapons program or an intercontinental ballistic missile program.
And no offense, but what law would you be talking about?
Oh, good. Then (at least in some ideal world where the Dem caucus conformed with xtisme’s vision of them) full speed ahead!
Because, you know, being responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands, and the exile of millions more, is pretty damned serious moral turpitude - far more so than merely covering up a politically-motivated burglary or two, or lying under oath about one’s sex life. So it must be in violation of a statute.
I thank you for clarifying this important point of law for me.
Are you offering as evidence, as XT seemingly has, that the craven compliance of the Dems in this matter derives from a judgment on the merits of the impeachment, that is to say, they aren’t doing anything because they think the President is a splendid fellow and innocent of impeachable offense? Have you any statements from them to support such a conclusion?
As to legal culpability, TG, IANAL, but!..
Did we not try General Yamashita for war crimes committed by his subordinates in the Phillipines?
We therein established the prinicple that a commander is reponsible for the actions of his subordinates regardless of whether or not he had direct personal knowledge of those actions. (There was testimony that he was entirely ignorant of the crimes.) We hanged him.
By what exemption is Bush free of such responsibility? Would that be coitus tu, Americanum est (Fuck you, we’re the Americans)?
What, then, is the appropriate response for a man who has provoked the death of untold thousands of innocent people? A Medal of Freedom, with an Oak Corpse Clusterfuck?
None taken.
Intent is everything. The same act came be criminal or legal, depending upon the intent with which it’s executed. If Bush causes a nuclear attack on Rio for the sheer joy of the kill, then he’s committed murder, the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought, prohibited by 18 USC § 1111.
“Being responsible for…” is a useless, weasel-word phrase. If a district attorney prosecutes a death-penalty case, achieves a conviction, and the sentence is carried out, then the DA is “responsible” for a death. And even if it should come out later that the guy was innocent, the DA isn’t charged with a crime.
When the President legally commits our military forces to combat, he isn’t criminally responsible for the deaths that occur.
And that testimony was automatically credited as true? To the contrary: we got it wrong. As your cite says:
That’s not a mistake we should be eager to repeat. (Correction: that’s not a mistake I am eager to repeat. You and your ilk, however, are eager to repeat it).
Got ilk?
But you evade the subtantive issue, counselor. Do you agree with that established principle, that a commander is responsible for the actions of his subordinates, regardless of his direct, personal knowledge?
The questions you point out are procedural, are they not? They do not speak to the underlying principle, but to the conduct of the trial. Hence, they have no direct bearing on the principle of a commander’s responsibility, no? If a man is convicted of murder due to prosecutorial misconduct, the statute relative to murder is unaffected, unless I’m very much mistaken.
I have come to realize that this particular point is more relevent to a thread that did not, at that moment, exist. I have started it, and the esteemed is invited to attend and contribute.
Not stated as baldly as that, no. The relevant questions for criminal responsibility should be did he know, or should he have known?
The questions I pointed out were very relevant to your comment about how Yamashita was entirely ignorant of the crimes. If he really was entirely ignorant, and a reasonable person at his level of command would not have known, then he has no criminal liability and shouldn’t be hanged.
Hmmm… Bricker has a point. While we are (I think) all in agreement that “an impeachable offense” is whatever a majority in the House of Representatives deems an impeachable offense, total fairness to the accused, the same principle we’re calling for with regard to the principle of fair trials, including for the Guantanamo detainees, leads one to the conclusion that one needs to impeach only for “treason and other high crimes and misdemeanors.” It should never be a weapon to go after a President (or anyone else) whose politics are distasteful to you, be that Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton, or George Bush fils.
Now, a couple of questions – aimed specifically at Bricker, but others having insights may wish to address them:
First, I find nothing in the statute law allowing for the creation of a cateogry of “enemy combatant” distinct from prisoner of war or accused criminal detainee. If there is any legal justification for detention under such a category, it must be found in the war power of the Constitution and the President’s capacity as commander in chief. In short, whether or not such a category of detainee is legal, it would be illegal for anyone to hold a non-prisoner of war without trial and without the authority of the President as commander in chief. We can pass on the hotly debated issue of whather Mr. Bush has such authority – the point is that nobody else does. Therefore, whatever has gone on at Guantanamo is either illegal on its face or done under the authority of the President based in his war powers as commander in chief. He is therefore personally responsible for what has happened there – and it is his responsibility as commander in chief to have stopped anyone exceeding what he deems legal under such powers. Therefore, if illegal acts were committed at Guantanamo, he is culpable.
Second, I would hold up the distinction between “guilty beyond reasonable doubt” and “probable cause” as worthy of note. It is the Senate’s responsibility to determine if an impeached president is in fact guilty of the articles of impeachment passed against him, and they are the ones in whose judgment “beyond reasonable doubt” should be applied. On the other hand, the House acts in the stead of a grand jury in determining whether to impeach, and its function should be to judge whether to i,peach on probable cause of having committed an impeachable offense. In the three past instances involving the impechment of Presidents, they did just this: Johnson for violating the Tenure in Office Act, Nixon for a number of offenses connected to the Watergate cover-up, and Clinton, famously, for lying under oath. (Someone may want to distinguish this from perjury; I know the issue has come up.)
Third, I would submit that the Common Law is relevant. Charles I of England and Scotland was dethroned and beheaded for having set himself above the law. It is definitely arguable that Mr. Bush has done likewise. I’m not going to make that argument here at present, juust to note that it is not a patent absurdity.
If this helps to find common ground, I will be pleased.
I’m not sure we’re ALL in agreement with that proposition, but I certainly agree.
Yes, concur.
No. If it’s correct for him to have recognized that “enemy combatant” is a legal status separate and apart from “prisoner of war,” “accused criminal,” and “material witness,” then he acted properly. He’s not criminally liable for acts that he didn’t authorize, merely because they flowed from his legal acts.
If you’re raped in jail after being arrested, the sheriff is not criminally liable for your rape – even if your arrest is later found to be without probable cause.
Sure. In each case, they were able to allege a specific criminal act, and adduce probable cause for its violation. I agree.
This is more of a “might makes right” argument than anything else. It falls into the “if Congress wishes, they can impeach for anything” category. Congress can remove the President for the offense of “setting himself above the law” if they cna muster the votes. This is a technical truth, and a realistic impossibility. Not sure why we must continue to mention it, but I will yet again concede its truth.
Hmm. If you are in the Sheriff’s custody, are you not as well under his protection, and your well being becomes his responsibility?
OK, suppose he just decides on his own, as Commander-in-Chief, that Brazil is a deadly enemy, and they need to be sent the sort of message that only a nuke can deliver?
Maybe not. But if the DA hid evidence that cast reasonable doubt of his guilt, and went all-out for the DP anyway, and the guy was executed, what then?
I know: the DA wouldn’t be charged with anything, because they never are - but that deserves a thread of its own.
As I’ve explained here at length, beginning back in May 2003, our war plan made no provision for leaving troops behind to secure prospective WMD sites when our troops liberated them from Saddam, and they were looted to the ground before our specialized WMD units could see what they contained.
IOW, the Bush Administration, in invading Iraq, did not act in a manner consistent with its claims that those WMDs would constitute an unusual danger if they fell into the hands of terrorists.
Do we have to argue this all over again? Bush & Co. did not invade Iraq because of the WMD threat. (Hell, we even have Wolfie’s word on that.) We still don’t know why they really did invade Iraq. But if you decide to see what happens when you blow up a dam, then you’re fucking responsible for the downstream flooding.
I don’t see what’s weasely about that. What’s weasely is pretending that Bush didn’t and shouldn’t have known that that was exactly what he was doing.
No, just morally culpable. Therefore, by your logic, he’s in violation of statute.
No. The sheriff is not criminally responsible.
In some cases, he (or the county that employs him) may be civilly liable – if the rape occurs because of the “deliberate indifference” of prison officials. But that’s not simply a “they should have known” standard. It’s a “they knew, and deliberately did nothing” standard. And even that only creates civil, not criminal, liability.