What does impeachment solve?

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi lilithu,

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.

I disagree. I think Chief Justice John Roberts put it very well when he made the analogy that it is like an umpire calling balls and strikes. He should not be interested in who the winner is, but only calling the game correctly. In my opinion, when people start talking about justice they stop being an umpire and start being a fan rooting for who they believe deserves justice. Or as Thomas Sowell as put it, there should be the same rules in the foot race. If one person wins ten times out of ten, then that is what happens. You don't change the rules of the foot race to aid the less fortunate runners.

 

[lilithu]

I disagree. I think Chief Justice John Roberts put it very well when he made the analogy that it is like an umpire calling balls and strikes. He should not be interested in who the winner is, but only calling the game correctly. In my opinion, when people start talking about justice they stop being an umpire and start being a fan rooting for who they believe deserves justice. Or as Thomas Sowell as put it, there should be the same rules in the foot race. If one person wins ten times out of ten, then that is what happens. You don't change the rules of the foot race to aid the less fortunate runners.

That analogy only works if you assume there's a level playing field to start with. If there isn't then the spirit of fairness and good sportsmanship demands that it be made level.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi lilithu,

That analogy only works if you assume there's a level playing field to start with.

No it doesn't. To take Robert's analogy, let's say we have the New York Yankees with their huge payroll and the Kansas City Royals with their small payroll. Now, as a umpire this shouldn't change how you will call balls and strikes. You don't create a bigger strike zone for the Yankees because they have a better team. You don't change the rules because of your feelings of the parties involved.

 

[Autodidact]

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

I think I made it clear that it was much more than that--it was a criminal conspiracy. The analogy would be if the governor hired someone to murder another person, with the understanding that if he got caught and was prosecuted, the governnor would pardon him. The crime of which Libby was convicted (which conviction Bush does not challenge) was a crime committed on behalf of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney, that is, for the Bush administration. For Bush to commute the sentence for that crime makes the commutation part of the criminal scheme. And that is NOT a policy issue.

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, that's not what happened. Fitzgerald was prevented from finding sufficient evidence on which to convict on all elements of the charge (the intent element is very difficult to prove) because Scooter Libby obstructed justice. That's (one of) the crimes he was convicted of, obstruction of justice. Justice would have implicated Bush officials, which is why it was criminal of Bush to commute his sentence. There's no question that Plame's identity was disclosed, surely you don't dispute that, or who did it, Richard Armitage, Karl Rover and Dick Cheney.

So there is a conspiracy.

Yes, a criminal conspiracy. That's why impeachment is needed.

I'm sorry, I won't help.

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you wanted to punish the person responsible.

 

[Autodidact]

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

Yes, he did, but didn't not appear to do so for a prosecutable motive. However, just as clearly, so did Rove and Cheney--there's really no question about that. The only question is whether Fitzgerald could prove the requisite motive. We'll never know, because the key witness committed perjury and obstructed justice. So, justice was obstructed.

 

[lilithu]

No it doesn't. To take Robert's analogy, let's say we have the New York Yankees with their huge payroll and the Kansas City Royals with their small payroll. Now, as a umpire this shouldn't change how you will call balls and strikes. You don't create a bigger strike zone for the Yankees because they have a better team. You don't change the rules because of your feelings of the parties involved.

Right, and the fact that in this analogy the "Yankees" have the bigger payroll because they stole from the "Royals" doesn't matter to you, does it?

I don't want to make a bigger strike zone - that would only be a temporary fix. I want to even the payrolls.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

I suggest you read the Bill of Rights. The word "citizen" does not appear once.

"People" appears many times, however.

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.

Interestingly, heads did roll in Canada over the Maher Arar case. The head of the RCMP, the national police force that also includes some FBI-like functions, lost his job in the fallout over how Arar was handed over on his watch.

Gitmo has likely been the scene of countless Arar-like cases; what fallout has there been over this in Washington?

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.

The "legal limbo" is completely manufactured by the US administration. The law itself is clear: if you're not a prisoner of war, you're a criminal suspect... or a person who should never have been locked up to begin with.

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.

Please point me to a link, preferably to a government web site, that shows the Congressional resolution where they formally declared war on "terror".

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?

Yes. The only difference is in the numbers.

I don't care.

Do you care that on your behalf, you're furnishing every person who is related to or knows a detainee with motive to commit crimes against your country and its soldiers?

Do you care that crap like this is what gives countless radical imams all over the world the fodder to turn their mosques into terrorist factories?

Even if you don't give a rat's *** for the people your government has locked up, take a walk through your neightborhood... do you not care about any one of your neighbors who have one of those flags with a star in the window? This behavior by your government directly puts at risk the lives that those starts represent.

In my opinion, when people start talking about justice they stop being an umpire and start being a fan rooting for who they believe deserves justice.

One of the things I do on the side is marshalling for auto races... kind of like an umpire or line judge in baseball (though with a fire extinguisher in case one of the players catches fire ). I've found that people who don't have a general love for the sport make pretty crappy marshals.

 

[lilithu]

Gitmo has likely been the scene of countless Arar-like cases; what fallout has there been over this in Washington?

Why would there be fallout in Washington when they're the ones who are behind it? Have you seen "Ghosts of Abu Ghraib?"

 

[Booko]

Gitmo has likely been the scene of countless Arar-like cases; what fallout has there been over this in Washington?

Maybe someone will get the Medal of Freedom for it.

 

[Autodidact]

Joe:
Did you know that under Bush adminstration policy, U.S. citizens should not be afforded any habeas corpus rights either? That's why they locked up Jose Padilla for three years before he was charged or eventually tried. (the courts disagreed with the illegal Bush policy.) So, say I turn you into the CIA, because I'm so mad at your posting habits. Suppose you get on a terrorist watch list. You , Joe Stocks, under Bush administration policy, could be kidnapped, thrown into a van, had a bag put over your head, stripped, given an enema and a diaper, and flown to a secret U.S. prison in Afghanistan, tossed into a brightly lit room by yourself for months, naked, hauled out by your captors every few days in which they make you kneel for hours and ask you to tell when the last time you travelled to Afghanistan and confess you are a member of Al Qaeda. Your American name and passport are not a magic shield against this treatment. You could protest endlessly that you're not a terrorist--you would not be entitled to a trial, to hear the charges against you or see the evidence. You could just be held until you signed a false confession or they just decided to let you go. This is all permissible under Bush administration policy. That's why habeas corpus was invented--to protect innocent people like you, and the hundreds of other innocent people that experienced this exact treatment under the Bush administration. That's why it's in the Constitution. Whether you think trashing it is a good idea or not, our Constitution doesn't allow it. The Constitution doesn't allow habeas corpus to be suspended because it is one of the most important and valuable rights established in the history of humanity. If it's not there to protect Jose Padilla (who was guilty) then it's not there to protect you, whom I assume are innocent.

 

[yossarian22]

I suggest you read the Bill of Rights. The word "citizen" does not appear once.

I believe only citizens of the US have guaranteed Constitutional rights.
We probably need to amend that.

My memory of the Constitution is a bit foggy though

 

[Autodidact]

I believe only citizens of the US have guaranteed Constitutional rights.
We probably need to amend that.

My memory of the Constitution is a bit foggy though

Your memory is incorrect. There are a few rights guaranteed to citizens only, such as the right to vote, but the Constitution prohibits the government from infringing the rights of the people, not just the citizens.

For example, if a non-citizen is accused of a crime, he or she has the right to be presumed innocent, be represented by counsel, and so forth. Non-citizens have the right to free speech and a free press. And non-citizens have the right not to be kidnapped and slammed into foreign prisons without being charged with a crime. Don't you love the Constitution? If so, please email your representative and tell them you support impeachment.

 

[lilithu]

I believe only citizens of the US have guaranteed Constitutional rights.

The Constitution is very straight-forward in this respect. When it means "citizens" it actually says "citizens." And when it says "people" it actually means "people."

We probably need to amend that.

Yeah, luckily our Founding Fathers anticipated people like you.

Article V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;

 

[yossarian22]

The Constitution is very straight-forward in this respect. When it means "citizens" it actually says "citizens." And when it says "people" it actually means "people."

What article is it?
I have not actually read the whole Constitution in a while, but I do recall that they use "people of America" a bit, which implies citizenship. That honestly wasn't a big deal in the time it was written.

 

[lilithu]

What article is it?

What article is what?

I have not actually read the whole Constitution in a while, but I do recall that they use "people of America" a bit....

Nope. It says, "We the people of the United States" ONCE. Otherwise, it just says "the people."

, which implies citizenship

If it meant citizen then the document wouldn't need to explicitly say "citizen" in other places.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

This strawman argument:

Hi Mercy,



That's terrific and not contested by me.



Criminalizing politics would be removing people from office for holding views that you don't like. And you have done a nice exercise of that. You don't like Bush's policies therefore he committed criminal offences and must be removed from office.

To many liberals (yes liberals and I will continue using the term) dislike of policies equals criminal behavior.

is answered by:

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.

that.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Autodidact,

I think I made it clear that it was much more than that--it was a criminal conspiracy. The analogy would be if the governor hired someone to murder another person, with the understanding that if he got caught and was prosecuted, the governnor would pardon him. The crime of which Libby was convicted (which conviction Bush does not challenge) was a crime committed on behalf of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney, that is, for the Bush administration. For Bush to commute the sentence for that crime makes the commutation part of the criminal scheme. And that is NOT a policy issue.

Oh, I see. You want Bush inpeached for a crime he didn't commit. Nice.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi lilithu,

Right, and the fact that in this analogy the "Yankees" have the bigger payroll because they stole from the "Royals" doesn't matter to you, does it?

I don't want to make a bigger strike zone - that would only be a temporary fix. I want to even the payrolls.

What are you talking about? The Yankees didn't steal anything. Or take the footrace analogy. Some people will win more than others, does that mean we change the rules? Of course not.

You talk about justice and then you want somebody found guilty of violating the "spirit" of the crime, but not the crime itself to be punished of actually committing a crime. That is injustice.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Penguin,

I suggest you read the Bill of Rights. The word "citizen" does not appear once.

"People" appears many times, however.

So, our Constitution gives us authority over other nations now? I see.

The "legal limbo" is completely manufactured by the US administration. The law itself is clear: if you're not a prisoner of war, you're a criminal suspect... or a person who should never have been locked up to begin with.

Not really. If the law pertains to a situation and then a situation arises that the law doesn't address, then we have a legal limbo.

Please point me to a link, preferably to a government web site, that shows the Congressional resolution where they formally declared war on "terror".

You are correct that the Congress hasn't passed a declaration of war. But it has given the President authority to wage war in Afghanistan and Iraq. It also has allocated money for these actions. And they can take that away at any time.

Yes. The only difference is in the numbers.

Good to know where you stand.

Do you care that on your behalf, you're furnishing every person who is related to or knows a detainee with motive to commit crimes against your country and its soldiers?

Do you care that crap like this is what gives countless radical imams all over the world the fodder to turn their mosques into terrorist factories?

Even if you don't give a rat's *** for the people your government has locked up, take a walk through your neightborhood... do you not care about any one of your neighbors who have one of those flags with a star in the window? This behavior by your government directly puts at risk the lives that those starts represent.

I do care that there are perhaps millions of people that want to murder as many Americans as they can. Many of these people wanted to do that even before they even heard of George W. Bush. I want to stop those people.

One of the things I do on the side is marshalling for auto races... kind of like an umpire or line judge in baseball (though with a fire extinguisher in case one of the players catches fire ). I've found that people who don't have a general love for the sport make pretty crappy marshals.

What are you saying? Acting impartially is sometimes okay?

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Mercy,

is answered by:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Autodidact
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.

that.

You mean the whole "he should be impeached even though we don't have the evidence to impeach him" claim. I'm not sure how that will hold up.