What does impeachment solve?

[Autodidact]

I'm not getting at anything. I just want to know what problems people think will be solved by impeaching the president. It seems to be a knee-jerk reaction, and I want to know if people have actually thought about it (since, with Clinton I didn't think anybody put any brain power behind that..)

Is it really just to show him that we don't like him? Who would make decisions in his stead, and would they be any better?

Wouldn't the impeachment process take longer than he actually has left in office?

What is the benefit of impeachment?

The # 1 benefit is to defend our Constitution and the rule of law, the principle that even the President is not above it. Without those ideas, much of the reason our country was founded is irreparably damaged.

 

[Autodidact]

If the process started now, would it even finish by the election time next year?

It well could, if they would just get started on it.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

No, it's not a political issue, it's a constitutional issue. I didn't like Reagan's policies, but he didn't shred the Constitution to put them into effect.

A good example would be the Libby commutation. It had very little to do with policy, and a lot to do with a criminal conspiracy.

 

[Autodidact]

Hi Booko,



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.

I don't think the warrantless wiretapping in clear violation of a court order and a specific statute (FISA) that was enacted specifically to prohibit that very thing is the worst offense. For me the Libby commutation is purely criminal, and the combination of suspension of habeas corpus, torture, kidnapping and extraordinary rendition constitute crimes against humanity such as other foreign leaders have been prosecuted for.

 

[Autodidact]

Hello Penguin,

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

First, November 13, 2001. Second, since when is JFK airport and Rome, Italy a battlefield?

 

[Autodidact]

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

No. All GITMO prisoners have been denied all Geneva convention rights, and the Bush administration asserts that they are entitled to neither the protections granted to prisoners of war, nor those of habeas corpus. That is, no due process of any kind. The Supreme Court begged to differ. btw, did you know that the same administration has released those very same dangerous terrorist prisoners? Any idea why?

 

[Autodidact]

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

I know, isn't it sickening how people who call themselves patriots and conservatives won't rise to defend our constitution just because the criminal in question has the sheer nerve to call himself a conservative, despite his extremely unconservative policies? It makes me ill.

 

[Autodidact]

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.



Thanks, you too.

Another possibility is that he may think that violating the Constitution is a more serious offense than lying in a deposition.

 

[Autodidact]

Hi Booko,



Very good, but I was referring to Penguin's point:

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.

It seems to me that we are doing that with the prisoners at Gitmo.

You're mistaken.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Auto,

A good example would be the Libby commutation. It had very little to do with policy, and a lot to do with a criminal conspiracy.

Wait, the commutation is the impeachable defense?

For me the Libby commutation is purely criminal, and the combination of suspension of habeas corpus, torture, kidnapping and extraordinary rendition constitute crimes against humanity such as other foreign leaders have been prosecuted for.

Good to know.

First, November 13, 2001.

This is when habeas corpus was suspended? What happened on that day?

Second, since when is JFK airport and Rome, Italy a battlefield?

Well, if they are not U.S. citizens and are attempting to conduct terrorist operations against our country, then no, I would not treat them as U.S. citizens.

No. All GITMO prisoners have been denied all Geneva convention rights, and the Bush administration asserts that they are entitled to neither the protections granted to prisoners of war, nor those of habeas corpus. That is, no due process of any kind.

How so? And they may have an argument there as this is not a traditional war in which the Geneva Conventions would apply.

I know, isn't it sickening how people who call themselves patriots and conservatives won't rise to defend our constitution just because the criminal in question has the sheer nerve to call himself a conservative, despite his extremely unconservative policies? It makes me ill.

Bush is no conservative, anybody can see that. I would say that my disagreements with the Bush administration far outweigh my agreements with it. I just don't think he should be impeached (in that I don't believe he has committed any impeachable offenses). And for that I am a Bush partisan involved in some kind of neocon conspiracy.

 

[Autodidact]

Those interested in both sides of the impeachment issue, I would be thrilled if you would visit my blog at The Impeachment Project, I write there under the name, Law Defender. In fact, I hope to post a new article tonight. And if you visit, comments would be very appreciated.

 

[Autodidact]

Hi Penguin,



Where were these 'criminals' found? It looks like on a battlefield. So, we have people fighting like a soldier of an enemy of the United States, but they aren't affiliated with a specific country. I would think that makes then prisoners of war.

All over the world--Rome, JFK, Macedonia, city streets in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Very few were picked up on the battlefield. Had they been, they would be prisoners of war and entitled to the protections of the Geneva conventions. The Bush administration is trying to have it both ways: not prisoners of war (no Geneva protections), not alleged criminals (no right to counsel), not human beings (entitled to habeas corpus.) Mostly they're just poor farmers who had the misfortune to make someone angry enough to turn them in for the bounty they got.

They must not be dangerous terrorists, because our government would never let dangerous terrorists go free, would they?

 

[Autodidact]

There's no such thing as impeachable offenses. Every perception that someone has committed a crime is merely partisan political maneuver by either a "liberal" or a "conservative." Thus, there's also no such thing as a valid impeachment.

Uh, O.K., and the founding fathers were just mistaken.

 

[Autodidact]

Hi Penguin,

Hold on here. I am talking about people that have an allegience to groups (such as al-Qeada) that have declared war on the United States and then commit actions of warfare against the United States.

I classify those people as prisoners of war.

1. Well your government disagrees with you.
2. How do you know they've even heard the name "Al Qaeda," if they've never been brought before any tribunal anywhere to have a chance to hear the evidence?

 

[Autodidact]

Hi Penguin,



Okay, thank you for posting that.

I would say that the most of the prisoners at Gitmo fall under number two. And thus, they would be prisoners of war.

And the fact that they have been denied the rights afforded to that category, under a treaty that we signed, is one of the many reasons why the President and Vice-President should be impeached.

 

[doppelganger]

Uh, O.K., and the founding fathers were just mistaken.

I'm playing a character in this thread.

 

[Autodidact]

Hi Sunstone,



Well, if we have no evidence that someone in Gitmo is in fact a terrorist, then we should release him. But if the others that weren't captured on the battlefield were still conducting terrorist operations (or planning to) and we knew this (or others knew this), then they still would be prisoners of war in my opinion.

That may be why most of the GITMO detainees have been released. However, after having been kidnapped, tortured, held in solitary confinement, and never having even heard the charges against them, my guess is that they're terrorists now. I call it the "Bush Terrorist Recruitment Campaign."

 

[Autodidact]

To my knowledge, yes.

Once again you're mistaken.

 

[Autodidact]

They are techniques used to get information. I don't believe they constitute torture.

Amnesty International does.

 

[Autodidact]

Okay, now I understand. So, we don't try the prisoners for killing our troops (or attempting to kill our troops). We just keep them locked up. After all, the war is still going on.

Joe, do you know who Maher Arar is? He's a completely innocent man, a Canadian software engineer who was mistakenly put on a terrorist watch list. He made the mistake of stopping over at JFK on his way home. He was jailed, put on a secret flight, and handed over to Syrian torturers for over a year. He was repeatedly beaten and lived in a tiny grave-like cell underground. Due to his wife's tireless activism, he was eventually released and cleared by both the Syrians and an independent Canadian tribunal. Are you following me: an innocent man, kidnapped by your government, and given to a horrific regime to torture on our behalf. How many other innocent people did this happen to? We don't know, because few of them are Canadian, or English speaking, or have a wife in a position to galvanize worldwide attention to their plight. It's because of Maher Arar and people like him that President Bush needs to be impeached.

And lest you think that somehow it's O.K. to have the Syrians, Jordanians and Egyptians do our torturing for us, the CIA maintains its own network of secret prisons where psychological torture, featuring sleep deprivation, solitary confinement, sensory deprivation and triggering fears and taboos, has been raised to an art never seen before. That's what your government is doing in your name, Joe, and a substantial number (nobody knows how many, due to the extreme secrecy) of the people they are doing it to never had anything to do with Al Qaeda--until we let them go, that is.