What does impeachment solve?

[Autodidact]

Hi Mercy,



No, the claim I was contesting was that the people calling impeachment constituting a large number of non-liberals. Sure, there are some, but they are a small minority.

And this comes from the fact that a lot liberals want to criminalize politics. If you don't like a policy of some conservative, then remove him from office for being a criminal. I think the libertarians and conservatives that are very unhappy with Bush realize that he may have poor policies, but that doesn't constitute him being a criminal that needs to be removed from office.

Big difference.

This seems an odd argument coming from someone who was advocating impeaching Clinton for allegedly lying in a civil deposition. I don't suppose that had anything to do with his politics, and I don't suppose those were possibly conservatives calling for his impeachment?

 

[Autodidact]

Wait, the commutation is the impeachable defense?

Absolutely. It was part of a criminal deal--a trade of perjury and obstruction of justice by Libby to protect the people (Cheney and Rove) who committed the underlying crime (giving the name of a CIA operative) in exchange for a promise that he would never serve any time.

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

Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detent...ain_Non-Citizens_in_the_War_Against_Terrorism

November 13, 2001, Presidential Military Order gave the President of the United States the power to detain a non-citizen suspected of connection to terrorists or terrorism as an unlawful combatant. As such, it was asserted that a person could be held indefinitely without charges being filed against him or her, without a court hearing, and without entitlement to a legal consultant. Many legal and constitutional scholars contended that these provisions were in direct opposition to habeas corpus and the United States Bill of Rights.

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.

What are you talking about? What do you mean, as U.S. citizens? Do only citizens have the right to habeas corpus? (answer: no.) The thing is, if you never hear the evidence, how do you know they're terrorists. After all, it's not like people ever make mistakes or anything. Do you know who Khalid al-Masri is?

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

So they can pick up anyone they want, hold them in solitary confinement forever, without ever having to bring them before any tribunal or even tell them what they're being accused of? That, by the way, is in fact the position of the Bush administration. Are you beginning to see why I think that impeachment is an important issue?

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.

Hey, the Democrats are just as bad--have you seen any impeachment proceedings?

btw, did you know that 45% of Americans support impeaching President Bush, and 56% V.P. Cheney?

 

[Autodidact]

I'm playing a character in this thread.

Oh. What's his or her name? Are you perhaps their doppelganger?

 

[Autodidact]

In fact, Joe, I don't know what's wrong with all those conservatives who AREN'T jumping up and down for impeachment. Don't they care enough about the Constitution?

 

[doppelganger]

Oh. What's his or her name? Are you perhaps their doppelganger?

I think you could guess pretty easily.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Auto,

This seems an odd argument coming from someone who was advocating impeaching Clinton for allegedly lying in a civil deposition. I don't suppose that had anything to do with his politics, and I don't suppose those were possibly conservatives calling for his impeachment?

No, it doesn't. At least to me. If I believe that Bush committed crimes that are impeachable offenses I will join you in calling for impeachment.

Absolutely. It was part of a criminal deal--a trade of perjury and obstruction of justice by Libby to protect the people (Cheney and Rove) who committed the underlying crime (giving the name of a CIA operative) in exchange for a promise that he would never serve any time.

I thought commutation was one of the president's powers? And now you are talking about the 'underlying' crime of 'outing a CIA operative.' If this was done, why wasn't anyone charged with it? Is the special prosecutor Fitzgerald in on the conspiracy?

What are you talking about? What do you mean, as U.S. citizens? Do only citizens have the right to habeas corpus? (answer: no.) The thing is, if you never hear the evidence, how do you know they're terrorists. After all, it's not like people ever make mistakes or anything. Do you know who Khalid al-Masri is?

I disagree. I consider the terrorists we capture as enemies of the U.S. and they would not be afforded the writ of habeas corpus. As far as the al-Masri incident I would discipline whoever did that. But I do not believe that is grounds for impeachment anymore than FDR wouldn't have been impeached for a U.S. ar crime that took place while he was president during World War II.

So they can pick up anyone they want, hold them in solitary confinement forever, without ever having to bring them before any tribunal or even tell them what they're being accused of? That, by the way, is in fact the position of the Bush administration. Are you beginning to see why I think that impeachment is an important issue?

Yes, that means we can detain terrorists until we believe they won't harm us.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So, now the argument is that the prisoners don't have access to fast food, therefore we should impeach Bush.

No, the argument is that these prisoners are not in any way being held as actual prisoners of war or as criminal suspects. They're caught in some sort of legal limbo of indefinite detention with no rights at all. Placing people in this position, in complete violation and disregard of the US constitution, international law and simple human decency is why Bush should be impeached.

They are methods to get information. I don't believe such things as turning up the heat would constitute coercion.

True prisoners of war can never be compelled in any manner to give any information other than their name, rank and identification number. Any attempt to get any other information out of a prisoner of war is a serious breach of the Geneva Conventions.

However, as I have tried to point out, the prisioners at Gitmo have not been afforded the status of "prisoners of war".

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.

Which war, specifically?

The Iraq War, which ended with the toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime and the installation of a provisional government?

The war in Afghanistan, where the country is now led by President Karzai, whose government is an ally of the US?

The euphemistic "war on terror"? Who is the enemy? If the war were to end, who exactly on the other side would sign a declaration of peace?

The "war on drugs"?

I'm not saying that there is quite a bit of resisitance in both Iraq and Afghanistan, but in both cases, this resistance is now a criminal matter in sovereign foreign countries. If someone kills a US soldier in Kabul, it's a matter for the Afghan police and courts, not for American kidnapping squads.

What do you think the moral difference is between what the US is doing now and what the Soviets did with their gulags in Siberia? What message do you think the current practices of the US government are sending to the world at large?

 

[Autodidact]

I thought commutation was one of the president's powers?

Yes but surely you can see how inappropriate it was for him to use it to commute the sentence of someone who committed perjury regarding him and his officials, and obstructed justice for him and his officials.

And now you are talking about the 'underlying' crime of 'outing a CIA operative.' If this was done, why wasn't anyone charged with it?

Because Scooter Libby lied and obstructed justice, making it impossible to prosecute the criminals, Rove and Cheney.

Is the special prosecutor Fitzgerald in on the conspiracy?

No, he was the victim of it, and I think he's pretty angry about it.

I disagree. I consider the terrorists we capture as enemies of the U.S. and they would not be afforded the writ of habeas corpus.

And how do you know that the poor guy kidnapped off a street in Macedonia is a terrorist or not, if you never have to charge him, and never present any evidence against him? How do you know the guys you've got just didn't make some other guy angry by sleeping with his wife, and the other guy gave his name to the Americans for a nice sum of money. That's how most of these people were actually captures. The idea of habeas corpus, Joe, the most ancient and historic writ of our heritage, is that everybody gets it. Everybody. It doesn't matter what you're accused of--the king can't just say you're guilty and lock you up--he has to prove it. That's the concept that our nation was founded on, what our ancestors went to war to establish. In brief, the purpose of the writ is to determine whether the guy you picked up is a terrorist or not.

As far as the al-Masri incident I would discipline whoever did that. But I do not believe that is grounds for impeachment anymore than FDR wouldn't have been impeached for a U.S. ar crime that took place while he was president during World War II.

O.K., well the person who did it is named George W. Bush, and I'm trying to get him disciplined. Will you help? This is not something that some renegade seargent did; this is U.S. policy. Under the Bush administration, it is policy to kidnap foreigners off the street and whisk them away to our own or another country's prison, there to be tortured, and eventually release them, all without ever telling them what they're accused of or why.



Yes, that means we can detain terrorists until we believe they won't harm us.[/quote]

 

[Autodidact]

Yes, that means we can detain terrorists until we believe they won't harm us.

We don 't, though. We detain them until...I don't know what, until we realize we never should have kidnapped them in the first place, and then we let them go. Why do we let most of them go, if they're terrorists?

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Penguin,

In the course of this discussion I realized that if the Geneva Convnetions were made to apply to traditional wars, then in fact the Geneva Convention wouldn't apply to those being held in Gitmo. And this would be the legal limbo we find ourselves.

Which war, specifically?

The Iraq War, which ended with the toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime and the installation of a provisional government?

The war in Afghanistan, where the country is now led by President Karzai, whose government is an ally of the US?

The euphemistic "war on terror"? Who is the enemy? If the war were to end, who exactly on the other side would sign a declaration of peace?

The "war on drugs"?

I think the war on terror is a real war. And thus, we would be able to detain those that are making war on us.

What do you think the moral difference is between what the US is doing now and what the Soviets did with their gulags in Siberia?

To my knowledge, all the difference in the world. We are not murdering anybody. To my knowledge we have released some of the detainees. Are you actually arguing that we are the moral equivalent of the Soviets?

What message do you think the current practices of the US government are sending to the world at large?

I don't care.

 

[Booko]

We don 't, though. We detain them until...I don't know what, until we realize we never should have kidnapped them in the first place, and then we let them go. Why do we let most of them go, if they're terrorists?

Oh, and don't forget (yup, let's repeat it once again) that we have no way of ascertaining whether they actually are terrorists, because there is no due process to be had.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Auto,

Yes but surely you can see how inappropriate it was for him to use it to commute the sentence of someone who committed perjury regarding him and his officials, and obstructed justice for him and his officials.

So, now we should impeach Bush for something you believe he did that was inappropriate? The standard is moving in ever shaky ground.

Because Scooter Libby lied and obstructed justice, making it impossible to prosecute the criminals, Rove and Cheney.

Oh, okay, I see. In the course of the investigation Fitzgarald couldn't find any evidence that anybody outed a CIA agent, but that really happened and that is why Bush should be impeached.

No, he was the victim of it, and I think he's pretty angry about it.

So there is a conspiracy.

O.K., well the person who did it is named George W. Bush, and I'm trying to get him disciplined. Will you help? This is not something that some renegade seargent did; this is U.S. policy. Under the Bush administration, it is policy to kidnap foreigners off the street and whisk them away to our own or another country's prison, there to be tortured, and eventually release them, all without ever telling them what they're accused of or why.

I'm sorry, I won't help.

 

[almifkhar]

nothing what so ever. cause we would still be stuck with the same kind of person.

 

[lilithu]

In the course of the investigation Fitzgarald couldn't find any evidence that anybody outed a CIA agent, but that really happened and that is why Bush should be impeached.

You are kidding me. A CIA agent was outed. There is no question about that. Whether or not we can tie this to Bush and/or Cheney is a matter of debate. And the White House is claiming that whether or not this was a crime is also a mater of debate. :areyoucra But Valerie Wilson was outed by Karl Rove. What planet are you on?

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi lilithu,

But Valerie Wilson was outed by Karl Rove. What planet are you on?

Or Richard Armitage, the guy who actually admitted doing it (and an administration critic).

 

[lilithu]

Or Richard Armitage, the guy who actually admitted doing it (and an administration critic).

I thought you said that no one outed the CIA agent. :sarcastic

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi lilithu,

I thought you said that no one outed the CIA agent.

From what I understand, the law concerning the outing of a CIA agent is very specific. It looks like Armitage's actions didn't meet those specifications (or Fitzgerald never investigated Armitage).

 

[lilithu]

From what I understand, the law concerning the outing of a CIA agent is very specific. It looks like Armitage's actions didn't meet those specifications (or Fitzgerald never investigated Armitage).

There is one way in which you are like many (not all) lawyers I know: you'll argue the letter of the law and ignore its spirit.

The bottom line is that Valerie Wilson was outed.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi lilthu,

There is one way in which you are like many (not all) lawyers I know: you'll argue the letter of the law and ignore its spirit.

That's how it should be. I have a feeling your allegiance to the spirit would evaporate depending on what the alleged crime was and who was being charged. In law, I believe there is no place for spirits.

 

[lilithu]

That's how it should be. I have a feeling your allegiance to the spirit would evaporate depending on what the alleged crime was and who was being charged. In law, I believe there is no place for spirits.

And I have a feeling that your allegiance to nitpicking and loopholes would evaporate depending on what the alleged crime was and who was being charged. The law exists for the sake of justice, not for its own sake, or at least that's how it should be. I have no patience when people argue for the law but against justice.