|
Mainstream arguments for impeachment
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Trancer-X |
Mainstream arguments for impeachment
By Clarence Lusane
Sunday, February 19, 2006
As the crimes of the Bush administration mount, it becomes increasingly difficult to avoid talk of impeachment.
As a result of his continuing abuse of power, the impeachment option is making its way from the margin to the mainstream. Legal scholars on the left and the right argue that Bush may have committed "high crimes and misdemeanors," as stated in Article II, Section 4, of the Constitution.
The National Security Agency eavesdropping scandal has led Bruce Fein, who served as associate deputy attorney general under President Reagan, to conclude that this is "an impeachable offense," noting "It's more dangerous than Clinton's lying under oath."
Like the flouting of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the bill of particulars against President Bush includes other violations of law.
Bush violated the U.N. Charter when he invaded Iraq.
Bush violated the Geneva Conventions and Convention Against Torture by permitting the abuse of prisoners in U.S. custody, by "rendering" detainees to other countries, where they were tortured, and by running secret prisons around the world.
These conventions are "the supreme law of the land," according to Article VI of the Constitution.
Bush also violated U.S. statutes against torture and war crimes.
Bush's behavior has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands, reduced the status of the United States globally and made the world and nation more dangerous. He long ago abdicated any legitimacy to holding the office.
Even when the law was available to operate in his favor, such as the case in the eavesdropping scandal, Bush chose the authoritarian route.
Fortunately, a nascent impeachment movement is under way. Unlike the unpopular, unjustified and mean-spirited impeachment of President Clinton in 1999, which backfired on Republicans in Congress, calls for Bush's ouster are emerging from a number of sources.
Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., has introduced legislation, co-sponsored by seven other House members, to "make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment."
Even Republican Sen. Arlen Specter, the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, has been forced to acknowledge that the political remedy for a president overstepping his powers would be impeachment, though he claims we are nowhere near there yet with Bush.
Perhaps thanks to the Republicans, the American public is not squeamish about impeachment. Two Zogby polls, one conducted in November 2005 and another in January 2006, demonstrate that a majority of Americans would support or consider impeachment if it is proven that Bush lied about reasons for going to war with Iraq (53 percent to 42 percent), or illegally wiretapped U.S. citizens (52 percent to 43 percent).
Bush and his administration will continue to defy national and international laws until stopped. The remedy is impeachment and, if he is convicted, removal from office.
Unfortunately, congressional Republicans and many Democrats lack the courage and ethical compass to challenge the White House.
For the rest of us, it is a worthy -- and necessary -- campaign.
http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune...w/s_425053.html
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free ... it expects what never was and never will be."
- Thomas Jefferson
"The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all."
- John F. Kennedy, 1963 |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| then you and Richard Dryfus should devote all your energies then. good night, and good luck. |
|
|
| Shamen DJ's |
It seems like there is nothing Bush wouldn't sell, including our ports.
Heres a link on this topic:
www.impeachbush.org
I've been registered with them since November.
I also think the electoral system is outdated & no longer serves its purpose. It is absolutely pointless voting when:
- If you are a democrat in redneck Alabama. You could cast a democratic vote but you end up voting republican anyway.
- If you are a Republican in Massachussets. You cast a Republican vote & you end up voting Democrat anyway.
In this country EVERY VOTE SHOULD COUNT. It is also EVERYONES responsibility in a democracy to vote. Last election George Bush won because Pat Robertson got all his fanatics to go out & vote. When I went to vote in my district, which is predominately Democratic, not only was there no line, there was nobody else under 40. An elderly lady there even told me "Thank you for voting, tell your friends to vote"
As for the Every Vote Counts movement there was actually a radio talk show on it on C-Span this morning on my way to work. It is a growing movement, and one I agree with. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shamen DJ's
It seems like there is nothing Bush wouldn't sell, including our ports. |
okay, who do you think sold our ports? seriously. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
okay, who do you think sold our ports? seriously. |
Britain, who should have never had control of them in the first place. |
|
|
| metalgearsolid |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
Britain, who should have never had control of them in the first place. |
Why not? Its a free market and if American companies can't do it than they lose to a competitor. I say let the Hollish control our ports they seem reliable. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by metalgearsolid
Why not? Its a free market and if American companies can't do it than they lose to a competitor. I say let the Hollish control our ports they seem reliable. |
I wouldn't feel comfortable with Aegis, nor would I even want Wackenhut guarding our ports (now that they're wholly owned by an overseas corporation.)
Why are so many Conservatives on TA pushing to farm out our port security to foreign entities? Is it just because Bush said that we should do so, or are there other motivations behind it that you folks aren't telling us about?
Port security should not be sold on the common market! |
|
|
| metalgearsolid |
| I just have a question TX hasn't this not been the first time that someone has implied to impeach Bush? It won't happen. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by metalgearsolid
I just have a question TX hasn't this not been the first time that someone has implied to impeach Bush? It won't happen. |
It's not like it just happens everytime someone implies it. There has to be a movement behind it. It's almost as if politicians have to be afraid of losing their jobs in order for them to build the courage to press for it.
It's gaining momentum, though, but I'm not counting any chickens before they hatch. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
First Step Towards Impeachment?
Conyers Introduces Bills to Censure Bush and Cheney
Listen to Segment || Download Show mp3
Watch 128k stream || Watch 256k stream
Read Transcript
____________________________________________________________________________________
We speak with Congressman John Conyers (D - MI) introduced measures to censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney for misleading lawmakers on the decision to go to war in Iraq. Conyers is also seeking the creation of a select committee to investigate the Administration's possible crimes and make recommendations regarding grounds for impeachment. [includes rush transcript] The "I" word has returned to Washington. Seven years to the week after the House of Representatives impeached President Clinton, discussion of the possible impeachment of President Bush has reached a new high.
____________________________________________________________________________________
In recent days, Senator Barbara Boxer, Congressmen John Lewis and John Conyers, Nixon's former White House Counsel John Dean as well as numerous legal scholars have suggested Bush has committed impeachable offenses by illegally ordering the National Security Agency to eavesdrop inside the country without a court warrant.
Even conservative legal scholars have admitted the severity of Bush's actions. Norm Ornstein, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, said "I think if we're going to be intellectually honest here, this really is the kind of thing that Alexander Hamilton was referring to when impeachment was discussed."
Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer of California said she had written to several constitutional scholars to ask whether Bush had committed an impeachable offense by ordering the warrant-less domestic spying.
Boxer's request came after former White House John Dean said Bush had become "the first President to admit to an impeachable offense."
Earlier this week Democratic Congressman John Conyers introduced measures to censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney - not for the domestic spying case but for misleading lawmakers on the decision to go to war in Iraq.
Conyers is also seeking the creation of a select committee to investigate the Administration's possible crimes and make recommendations regarding grounds for impeachment.
To back up his case Conyers has just released a reported titled "The Constitution in Crisis: The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution and Coverups in the Iraq War."
To support Conyers" efforts activists have also launched a website this week titled censurebush.org.
- Rep. John Conyers (D - MI), second longest serving member of the House of Representatives and the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee. In the 1970s he played a prominent role in the recent impeachment process of Richard Nixon.
RUSH TRANSCRIPT
This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, more...
AMY GOODMAN: We welcome you to Democracy Now!, Congressmember Conyers.
REP. JOHN CONYERS: Good morning, and it's always good to be with you, Amy. It’s a wonderful program that you have. Your earlier segment ties almost into this, with the groups being harassed, and tried to be connected to political -- to al-Qaeda when it's pretty clear that that's not the case. Now, what we're doing is trying to put this into a outline of moving forward, and so, on the closing hours of the session over the weekend, I introduced House Resolution 635, which creates a select committee to investigate the administration's intent to go to war before they received congressional authorization and manipulation of pre-war intelligence and encouraging and countenancing torture of detainees and retaliating against critics and to make recommendations regarding possible grounds for impeachment.
Now this [inaudible] to the Ervin Select Committee during the Watergate days and allows us to create a committee that's, first of all, an even number of Republicans and Democrats with the vice chairman being a Democrat who has a co-equal subpoena power. The reason we're doing that is that there's a lot more information that we need to be considering how far forward we move. We do have, although we don't think there's any need to wait for what can be done, and that's immediate resolution censuring President George W. Bush for failing to respond to the continued request for information and the other allegations of misleading and countenancing torture. And then we have 637, which is for the Vice President, who has done a number of things, not only in connection with the President, but on his own, that we think merit both of these two people being censured in House Resolution 636 for Bush and 637 for Vice President Cheney.
AMY GOODMAN: Congressmember Conyers, I wanted to play for you a moment a clip of Illinois Republican Congressman, Henry Hyde, not today, but in 1998. He headed the House Judiciary Committee, which decided whether President Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky, in his efforts to keep it hidden, should be referred to the House of Representatives for impeachment proceedings. This is Congressman Hyde speaking on the floor of the House, December 18, 1998, referencing Clinton’s presidential oath of office.
REP. HENRY HYDE: That oath constituted a compact between the President and the American people. That compact has been broken. The people's trust has been betrayed. The nation's chief executive has shown himself unwilling or incapable of enforcing its laws, for he has corrupted the rule of law.
AMY GOODMAN: Congressmember Henry Hyde in 1998. Compare what you see today with the current President in his second term, Congressmember Conyers.
REP. JOHN CONYERS: Well, that was one of the sorriest episodes in the history of American impeachment, because they were referring to personal conduct. That president had not tried to start a war secretly, was not trying to undo conventions against torture, was not misstating or manipulating intelligence or information to justify a war. He wasn't taking retaliatory measures against critics of his administration, including people who were in the Central Intelligence Agency. So the high-flown statements had no bearing to the facts. As a matter of fact, what we're doing –
AMY GOODMAN: We have ten seconds.
REP. JOHN CONYERS: We're moving with a great caution toward what a number of people are realizing should be appropriately done.
AMY GOODMAN: Congressmember Conyers, I want to thank you very much for being with us. And we'll link your proposal for censure on our website at DemocracyNow.org, and people can email us at [email protected] with your response.
http://www.democracynow.org/article...5/12/21/1447240 |
|
|
| Kapedan |
:stongue: :stongue:
You guys are out of your mind, all you do is bitch about everything Bush does, you'll never be too happy. Guess what? He doesnt give a what you think anyways. Maybe we should take all of your asses into a third world country, then you will be suckin Bush's d***. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
Investigative Status Report of the House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff (PDF) (Word Document)
| quote: | "Now, I want to be absolutely clear. What the President ordered in this case was a crime.
... and we have to deal with that as citizens and, unfortunately, You have to deal with that as Members of Congress.
...Now, Members that stay silent are making a choice. Very few Members have faced this type of test of Faith. But You are facing it now, and as Citizens and as Members, it's now up to us. We are called to account to the many benefits that we have gotten from this system.
We are called to account to do something, and not to remain silent."
Jonathan Turley
Professor of Constitutional Law,
George Washington University |
"Constitution in Crisis: Domestic Surveillance and Executive Power"
Preliminary
House Judiciary Congressional Briefing
January 20, 2006
STATEMENTS, TRANSCRIPT, AND DOCUMENTS OF RELATED ACTIONS
http://thewall.civiblog.org/rsf/hou...ocs_012006.html
| quote: |
"...so indiscriminate and sweeping a scheme of domestic intrusion into the private communications of American citizens, predicated entirely on the unchecked judgment of the Executive Branch, violates the Fourth Amendment 'right of the people to be secure . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures' even if it otherwise represents an exercise of constitutional power entrusted to the President by Article II or delegated to the President by Congress in exercising its powers under Article I...
...the argument goes... Invasion of that citizen’s privacy was, alas, but one of war’s sad side effects — a species of collateral damage.
The technical legal term for that, I believe, is poppycock. ”
Laurence H. Tribe
Professor of Constitutional Law
Harvard University |
|
|
|
|
|
