What does impeachment solve?

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Really, I'm curious. For those of you who think that the president (and possibly the VP) need to be impeached for whatever crimes they committed, what purpose does it serve? Will impeaching them somehow stop the war, bring the troops home, and solve every other problem? Does it just serve to send a message and take frustration out on someone?

If Bush and/or Cheney are impeached, what happens after that?

Power is given back to Congress and the people, which is where it belongs.

The Executive Branch, especially in the last 6.5 years, has had WAY too much power.

Next up is passing a constitutional amendment that lowers the veto-override threshold from 2/3 down to 60%. I'm a bit worried of what would happen as a result in a two-party system, however. Guess we may need to hold off on that one.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Fixed it.

I'm young enough that the reference didn't occur to me when I typed it, but old enough to know the song well enough that it's now stuck in my head.

 

[Dr. Nosophoros]

Impeachment costs a lot, not only monetarily but politically so it is generally wise not to do it. Personally I would think that someone that supported impeachment for a a guy getting BJ would support impeachment for other things. Don't get me wrong, I'm no Clinton supporter, in fact he disgusted me( the first time I saw his bid for election he reminded me of a televangelist- the hair, the smile, the snake-eyes) but the level of disgust at the current administration goes much deeper than that I usually reserve for the simple snake charmers.

Impeachment is a nice,aggressive, and symbolic word but IMO to make true progress in this world and especially in this country, we need to "impeach" the imposed mentalities of the mind and forsake the controlling symbols we seem to love so much for you cannot heal something by injecting another disease or stewing in the same, progress is important.
Hail Satan.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Impeaching Bush or Cheney would set a nice precedent that we can criminalize political beliefs that we don't like. Liberals don't like the policies of Bush and some other Republicans so they are criminals and they must be removed from office.

I think that is a pretty dangerous path.

 

[Booko]

Impeaching Bush or Cheney would set a nice precedent that we can criminalize political beliefs that we don't like. Liberals don't like the policies of Bush and some other Republicans so they are criminals and they must be removed from office.

I think that is a pretty dangerous path.

I think subverting the Constitution is a bit more than criminalizing political beliefs.

If someone can be impeached for abusing their schlong in the Oval Office, I would think that an illegal program to spy on U.S. citizens in violation of the Constitution might be worth consideration. :sarcastic

The really dangerous path is assuming that everyone who isn't a conservative is a liberal.

I'm a moderate, thanks. There are more of us than conservatives and liberals combined.

 

[Willamena]

It sends a message that this sort of behaviour is unacceptable.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Booko,

If someone can be impeached for abusing their schlong in the Oval Office, I would think that an illegal program to spy on U.S. citizens in violation of the Constitution might be worth consideration

Apparently be a moderate includes cherry-picking . The warrantless spying done by the Clinton administration gets a pass while the warrantless spying of the Bush administration is deemed criminal activity.

If you were consistent then both would be unacceptable, but being the 'moderate' as you are one is criminal (Bush's) and one is ignored (Clinton's).

Again, we are criminalizing politics.

 

[Booko]

Apparently be a moderate includes cherry-picking . The warrantless spying done by the Clinton administration gets a pass while the warrantless spying of the Bush administration is deemed criminal activity.

If you were consistent then both would be unacceptable, but being the 'moderate' as you are one is criminal (Bush's) and one is ignored (Clinton's).

Again, we are criminalizing politics.

Hi, Joe. You'll have to fill me in on the warrently spying in Clinton's administration.

As for your supposition that I'm a cherry-picking moderate, all I can say is you are not a very good psychic.

You have no idea what my thoughts are on the Clinton Administration, because I've never said.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Impeaching Bush or Cheney would set a nice precedent that we can criminalize political beliefs that we don't like. Liberals don't like the policies of Bush and some other Republicans so they are criminals and they must be removed from office.

I think that is a pretty dangerous path.

That ship sailed with Clinton.

IMO, suspension of habeas corpus and the continued operation of Gitmo are enough by themselves to warrant impeachment.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Booko,

Hi, Joe. You'll have to fill me in on the warrently spying in Clinton's administration.

As for your supposition that I'm a cherry-picking moderate, all I can say is you are not a very good psychic.

You have no idea what my thoughts are on the Clinton Administration, because I've never said.

The spy Aldrich Ames was arrested in 1994 in part because of what was uncovered though warrantless spying.

My point wasn't that you were a Clinton partisan, but on this particular issue you seem to conveniently leave out warrantless spying of one administration and yet claim it is the basis of impeachment for another.

This is a giant contradiction.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hello Penguin,

IMO, suspension of habeas corpus and the continued operation of Gitmo are enough by themselves to warrant impeachment.

First, when was habeas corpus suspended? And second, not treating enemies we find on the battlefield as citizens warrants impeachment?

 

[Booko]

The spy Aldrich Ames was arrested in 1994 in part because of what was uncovered though warrantless spying.

Thanks, Joe.

My point wasn't that you were a Clinton partisan, but on this particular issue you seem to conveniently leave out warrantless spying of one administration and yet claim it is the basis of impeachment for another.

This is a giant contradiction.

No, it's called "living in the present."

I could've mentioned COINTELPRO too, but didn't because it wasn't relevant to anything I said. Ditto any Clinton-era activities.

You assume too much.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

First, when was habeas corpus suspended? And second, not treating enemies we find on the battlefield as citizens warrants impeachment?

It was suspended for almost all prisoners in Gitmo, for one, as well as many held in the US on improperly used "Material Witness" orders.

Enemies fall into two, and only two, categories:

1. Prisoners of war - legitimate enemy soldiers. These prisoners are protected by the Geneva Conventions, held in conditions as close in comfort as possible to their captor's own soldiers, and returned to their own country upon cessation of hostilities.

2. Suspected criminals - terrorists, spies, etc. These prisoners are afforded all rights normally given to suspected criminals, including the rights to a speedy trial, counsel, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law.

The powers of the United States government are derived from the Constitution. If the Constitution doesn't apply in a particular circumstance (e.g. in a US base on Cuban soil) as far as rights are concerned, then the United States' government does not have any legitimate authority there, nor the right to use its powers.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

The really dangerous path is assuming that everyone who isn't a conservative is a liberal.

:clap

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Booko,

No, it's called "living in the present."

I could've mentioned COINTELPRO too, but didn't because it wasn't relevant to anything I said. Ditto any Clinton-era activities.

You assume too much.

I actually didn't assume anything. You downplayed Clinton's impeachment and then suggested that Bush should be impeached for warrantless spying. Apparently not knowing that Clinton had also engaged in warrantless spying.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Penguin,

1. Prisoners of war - legitimate enemy soldiers. These prisoners are protected by the Geneva Conventions, held in conditions as close in comfort as possible to their captor's own soldiers, and returned to their own country upon cessation of hostilities.

Aren't we doing this with the prisoners in Gitmo?

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Mercy,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Booko
The really dangerous path is assuming that everyone who isn't a conservative is a liberal.

:clap

A more dangerous path is assuming that it is not, by and large, liberals that want to impeach Bush and Cheney.

 

[Booko]

I actually didn't assume anything. You downplayed Clinton's impeachment and then suggested that Bush should be impeached for warrantless spying. Apparently not knowing that Clinton had also engaged in warrantless spying.

Fine, Joe. You clearly know what I think better than I do myself.

Have a nice day.

 

[Booko]

Aren't we doing this with the prisoners in Gitmo?

The Supreme Court said we aren't.

And no, prisoners in Gitmo are not being treated according to those "quaint" Geneva Conventions. That's why they are "enemy combatants" and not "prisoners of war."

Good Heavens, Joe, don't you pay attention to White House press releases? They've been very clear about this ever since they opened up Gitmo.

Now, it may be the world needs to look at the Geneva Conventions in light of the radical changes in the meaning of "warfare" in the past few decades, but that's another thread.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Booko,

It had nothing to do with your thought, but what you typed.

If you think both Clinton and Bush deserve impeachment, then you are being consistent (by your own standard), if not, then you are being inconsistent. It's pretty simple.

Have a nice day.

Thanks, you too.