geek tragedy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Aug-23-09 04:19 PM
Response to Original message |
| 65. Not an impeachable offense, not a crime. |
|
Those are the facts. Anyone who believes otherwise is delusional and ignorant about the law.
|
| -Is Obama on the verge of committing impeachable offenses by not prosecuting the tyranny of Bushco? |
Union Yes |
Aug-23-09 12:10 PM |
#0 |
-
I voted No. First of all, I was never deluded into thinking |
JeanGrey |
Aug-23-09 12:14 PM |
#1 |
 -
Not investigating torture is a crime. The only question really |
EFerrari |
Aug-23-09 12:23 PM |
#6 |
  -
Good luck prosecuting Obama for this "crime". |
JeanGrey |
Aug-23-09 12:25 PM |
#8 |
 -
The torture convention has a mandate and a time sensitive one. |
EFerrari |
Aug-23-09 12:38 PM |
#23 |
 -
Look, Obama is still doing what Bush did. There are still |
JeanGrey |
Aug-23-09 09:29 PM |
#104 |
 -
Right. And that's different than dismissing out of hand |
EFerrari |
Aug-24-09 03:35 AM |
#112 |
 -
Purposely failing to prosecute high crimes is a violation of Presidential Oath of Office. |
Union Yes |
Aug-23-09 12:24 PM |
#7 |
  -
Well then are you prepared to launch a movement to |
JeanGrey |
Aug-23-09 12:26 PM |
#10 |
  -
"failing to prosecute high crimes" Here is the only mention of "high crimes" in the Constitution: |
cherokeeprogressive |
Aug-23-09 02:07 PM |
#50 |
 -
I agree with you. It was never going to happen, not with any of our Dems, even DK. |
Maru Kitteh |
Aug-23-09 04:05 PM |
#63 |
  -
Exactly. I was quite frankly, surprised at those that |
JeanGrey |
Aug-23-09 09:30 PM |
#105 |
 -
Why do we have laws, then? |
sabrina 1 |
Aug-24-09 02:02 PM |
#133 |
-
You forgot one: No one actually in authority gives a crap. |
Ladyhawk |
Aug-23-09 12:14 PM |
#2 |
 -
No, but he better be mindful of war crimes charges for the Pakistan incursion and bombings. |
timeforpeace |
Aug-23-09 04:01 PM |
#62 |
-
Who would do this? |
DrZeeLit |
Aug-23-09 12:20 PM |
#3 |
 -
Very, very well put. My sentiments, exactly. |
JeanGrey |
Aug-23-09 12:26 PM |
#11 |
-
As much as we'd all love to see Bush in jail, it's never ever going to happen. |
Curtland1015 |
Aug-23-09 12:22 PM |
#4 |
-
Do you want him impeached? Then why start this poll? |
NoSheep |
Aug-23-09 12:23 PM |
#5 |
 -
At some point if he doesn't prosecute, YES. |
Union Yes |
Aug-23-09 12:26 PM |
#9 |
-
It isn't going to happen. |
JeanGrey |
Aug-23-09 12:28 PM |
#13 |
-
Presidents don't prosecute. |
NoSheep |
Aug-23-09 12:30 PM |
#16 |
 -
Don't you know? Everything bad that happens in this country is Obama's fault. |
Curtland1015 |
Aug-23-09 12:32 PM |
#17 |
  -
Best of luck to us, huh? |
NoSheep |
Aug-23-09 12:32 PM |
#19 |
 -
He is obligated to investigate torture, yes. |
EFerrari |
Aug-23-09 12:49 PM |
#26 |
-
Then prepare to be banned from this site. |
geek tragedy |
Aug-23-09 04:27 PM |
#70 |
-
And here is the key difference between Republicans and Democrats folks... |
SidneyCarton |
Aug-24-09 01:40 PM |
#131 |
-
Other |
Ohio Joe |
Aug-23-09 12:26 PM |
#12 |
 -
Oath of Office. |
Union Yes |
Aug-23-09 12:29 PM |
#14 |
  -
None of that says perform prosecutions |
Ohio Joe |
Aug-23-09 12:38 PM |
#21 |
 -
Yes, under the Geneva torture convention. n/t |
EFerrari |
Aug-23-09 12:40 PM |
#24 |
-
Where? |
Ohio Joe |
Aug-23-09 12:45 PM |
#25 |
-
Not impeachment but the convention is written so as to criminalize |
EFerrari |
Aug-23-09 12:56 PM |
#29 |
-
And I agree completely with that... |
Ohio Joe |
Aug-23-09 01:23 PM |
#38 |
 -
Impeachment aside, I believe that under Geneva, the president |
EFerrari |
Aug-23-09 01:34 PM |
#41 |
-
Perhaps... |
Ohio Joe |
Aug-23-09 02:07 PM |
#51 |
 -
Oh, I agree that the right wing would have a field day. |
EFerrari |
Aug-23-09 04:57 PM |
#78 |
-
The War Crimes Act of 1996 |
G_j |
Aug-23-09 10:35 PM |
#110 |
-
Nadler is a good Congressman, but he's just legally wrong |
HamdenRice |
Aug-23-09 02:06 PM |
#49 |
-
The mandate is to investigate and no, I"m not misunderstanding anything. n/t |
EFerrari |
Aug-23-09 03:29 PM |
#58 |
-
and what if the next Prez doesnt prosecute Obama for not prosecuting Bush? |
NightWatcher |
Aug-23-09 12:29 PM |
#15 |
 -
Then she wil be in violation of her Oath of Office as well. |
Union Yes |
Aug-23-09 12:36 PM |
#20 |
-
God do we have to sit through MORE ignorance about impeachment? |
Richardo |
Aug-23-09 12:32 PM |
#18 |
 -
Explain your accusation of ignorance, I'm quite well informed. |
Union Yes |
Aug-23-09 12:38 PM |
#22 |
  -
You can start with what the impeachable crime is... and the evidence for that crime |
Richardo |
Aug-23-09 01:06 PM |
#35 |
 -
The rule of law, a little leftist fantasy. |
EFerrari |
Aug-23-09 01:14 PM |
#36 |
 -
"The Rule of Law" The last vestige of those with no real criminal evidence |
Richardo |
Aug-23-09 01:28 PM |
#39 |
  -
More than one person has already pointed out that Obama is in violation. |
EFerrari |
Aug-23-09 01:37 PM |
#43 |
 -
You don't seem to know what the law is. That's the problem. |
HamdenRice |
Aug-23-09 02:15 PM |
#53 |
 -
I think I side with Turley, Nadler and Nowak and not you. n/t |
EFerrari |
Aug-23-09 03:35 PM |
#59 |
 -
Cute. |
SidneyCarton |
Aug-24-09 01:43 PM |
#132 |
 -
The impeachnuts are out for blood and they don't care shose |
geek tragedy |
Aug-23-09 04:21 PM |
#66 |
-
Move on (eom). |
Brooklyns_Finest |
Aug-23-09 12:54 PM |
#27 |
 -
Are you serious? |
Political Heretic |
Aug-23-09 08:11 PM |
#98 |
-
When do you? |
thisisenuff |
Aug-23-09 12:54 PM |
#28 |
-
I have |
Libertas1776 |
Aug-23-09 12:57 PM |
#30 |
-
Disappointing? Yes. Impeachable? Why take down a Dem President. |
Jennicut |
Aug-23-09 12:59 PM |
#31 |
 -
It's the law. Forgetting impeachment, it's not only disappointing |
EFerrari |
Aug-23-09 01:02 PM |
#32 |
-
It is NOT the law, contrary to what impeachnuts say. |
geek tragedy |
Aug-23-09 04:24 PM |
#69 |
-
Read the thread. It's one thing to oppose impeachment. |
EFerrari |
Aug-23-09 04:47 PM |
#75 |
-
## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ## |
DU GrovelBot |
Aug-23-09 01:02 PM |
#33 |
-
With the time and the resources, we can either clean up the Bush mess or prosecute. |
Kerrytravelers |
Aug-23-09 01:02 PM |
#34 |
-
It is an impeachable offense, but one I doubt the GOPers would use |
MasonJar |
Aug-23-09 01:16 PM |
#37 |
-
Other. I agree with Rep. Nadler on this issue |
IndianaGreen |
Aug-23-09 01:30 PM |
#40 |
-
Aw Jeez, not this ignorant rubbish again |
HamdenRice |
Aug-23-09 01:36 PM |
#42 |
 -
The president is obligated to order the Attorney General to investigate. |
EFerrari |
Aug-23-09 01:40 PM |
#44 |
  -
No he isn't. You are just plain wrong on the law. Period. |
HamdenRice |
Aug-23-09 01:43 PM |
#46 |
 -
Investigate, not prosecute, and the UN Special Rapporteur disagrees with you. |
EFerrari |
Aug-23-09 01:50 PM |
#48 |
 -
Wrong. Please name the provision of the UN Convention against Torture that requires investigation |
HamdenRice |
Aug-23-09 02:12 PM |
#52 |
 -
Third Geneva Convention deals with torture, and presumably, these articles: |
EFerrari |
Aug-23-09 03:20 PM |
#55 |
 -
Cut the Gordian Knot. The AG does not deal with impeachments. nt. |
Hosnon |
Aug-23-09 05:01 PM |
#81 |
  -
I wasn't addressing impeachment but the mandate to investigate. |
EFerrari |
Aug-23-09 05:04 PM |
#83 |
 -
I thought the point was taking Obama to task? The OP asked about impeachment, not |
Hosnon |
Aug-23-09 05:08 PM |
#84 |
 -
The underlying question is, is Obama mandated to investigate. |
EFerrari |
Aug-23-09 05:20 PM |
#87 |
 -
Oh I see. I thought you meant the AG was required to investigate. |
Hosnon |
Aug-23-09 05:22 PM |
#88 |
  -
Or for not being able to bowl a 100. |
EFerrari |
Aug-23-09 05:26 PM |
#90 |
 -
Zactly. nt. |
Hosnon |
Aug-23-09 05:27 PM |
#91 |
 -
Bullshit. See multiple posts proving you wrong. nt |
HamdenRice |
Aug-24-09 07:38 AM |
#127 |
 -
I notice HR hasn't be back after you dumped actual facts on him. |
Political Heretic |
Aug-23-09 08:14 PM |
#99 |
  -
Maybe he's walking his pony. |
EFerrari |
Aug-24-09 03:31 AM |
#111 |
 -
Actually, you misread it so badly, it's hard to know where to begin |
HamdenRice |
Aug-24-09 05:40 AM |
#113 |
 -
LOL |
EFerrari |
Aug-24-09 05:53 AM |
#117 |
 -
Can't answer? |
HamdenRice |
Aug-24-09 06:19 AM |
#120 |
 -
A voice of reason. |
SeattleGirl |
Aug-23-09 01:40 PM |
#45 |
  -
Obama must pursue known torturers |
EFerrari |
Aug-23-09 03:46 PM |
#61 |
 -
What utter bullshit. Please provide an example of a prosecution for failure to prosecute |
HamdenRice |
Aug-24-09 05:47 AM |
#114 |
 -
The letter was written by a prosecutor of war crimes in Rwanda. |
EFerrari |
Aug-24-09 05:52 AM |
#116 |
 -
Did you even read the letter you are citing? Can you understand it? Let's look at the text: |
HamdenRice |
Aug-24-09 06:25 AM |
#121 |
 -
LOL |
EFerrari |
Aug-24-09 07:32 AM |
#125 |
 -
LOL is your "answer" when you are proved absolutely wrong. DemocracyNow reports issue is moot |
HamdenRice |
Aug-24-09 07:37 AM |
#126 |
 -
Impeached or prosecuted? |
Hosnon |
Aug-23-09 05:00 PM |
#80 |
-
3 arms of the government??? |
CitizenPatriot |
Aug-23-09 01:46 PM |
#47 |
-
I'm waiting for someone to post the specific passage from whatever law, convention, or treaty under |
cherokeeprogressive |
Aug-23-09 02:26 PM |
#54 |
 -
See #55. The thing is, there is more than one way to get to the same place. |
EFerrari |
Aug-23-09 03:22 PM |
#56 |
 -
A "high crime" or "misdemeanor" is whatever the House says it is. |
Hosnon |
Aug-23-09 04:07 PM |
#64 |
 -
That's because it doesn't exist. nt |
HamdenRice |
Aug-24-09 06:33 AM |
#123 |
-
That's the "Catch 22"! |
DailyGrind51 |
Aug-23-09 03:25 PM |
#57 |
-
KATRINA should be on that list n/t |
lies and propaganda |
Aug-23-09 03:38 PM |
#60 |
-
Not an impeachable offense, not a crime. |
geek tragedy |
Aug-23-09 04:19 PM |
#65 |
 -
Not an impeachable offense? Calling others ignorant of the law in that context |
Hosnon |
Aug-23-09 04:22 PM |
#67 |
  -
100% true. Lots of nutjobs who preach about the |
geek tragedy |
Aug-23-09 04:29 PM |
#71 |
 -
I was referring to your comment as unwise. What is a "high crime" or "misdemeanor" |
Hosnon |
Aug-23-09 04:33 PM |
#72 |
  -
By your definition, Bush committed no impeachable offenses. nt |
geek tragedy |
Aug-23-09 04:42 PM |
#74 |
 -
No. Just as any criminal still committed the crime beyond the statute of limitations. |
Hosnon |
Aug-23-09 04:57 PM |
#77 |
 -
Right. Nutjobs like John Dean. |
EFerrari |
Aug-23-09 05:02 PM |
#82 |
 -
Dean's main qualification when discussing criminal law is the fact |
geek tragedy |
Aug-23-09 08:04 PM |
#96 |
 -
You must be kidding. He's the reason Nixon was forced to resign. |
EFerrari |
Aug-23-09 09:42 PM |
#106 |
 -
Here you go: |
EFerrari |
Aug-23-09 04:23 PM |
#68 |
-
0. |
geek tragedy |
Aug-23-09 04:40 PM |
#73 |
-
I think I'll still go with international experts like this prosecutor, |
EFerrari |
Aug-23-09 04:51 PM |
#76 |
-
You need to go no further than Article 2, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution. nt. |
Hosnon |
Aug-23-09 04:58 PM |
#79 |
-
This is Scot Horton on why Holder may appoint a special prosecutor: |
EFerrari |
Aug-23-09 05:17 PM |
#85 |
-
I think the United Nations Convention against Torture would run up against the Constitution and |
Hosnon |
Aug-23-09 05:18 PM |
#86 |
 -
There is also the War Crimes Act to consider. |
EFerrari |
Aug-23-09 05:25 PM |
#89 |
-
He's probably obligated to investigate under international law but, psh, what is that? |
Hosnon |
Aug-23-09 05:29 PM |
#92 |
-
You are misreading the UN Convention completely |
HamdenRice |
Aug-24-09 06:00 AM |
#118 |
-
Some things to think about... WHO are the torturers in all of these legal scenarios? |
Curtland1015 |
Aug-23-09 05:40 PM |
#93 |
 -
There's all kinds of evidence from video tape to memos to witnesses |
EFerrari |
Aug-23-09 05:44 PM |
#94 |
-
The President doesn't issue indictments. The Justice Department does that |
Freddie Stubbs |
Aug-23-09 06:03 PM |
#95 |
-
It doesn't matter, the moment you use the word "impeachment" - dialog here shuts down. |
Political Heretic |
Aug-23-09 08:10 PM |
#97 |
-
No. |
H2O Man |
Aug-23-09 08:15 PM |
#100 |
-
No. And who would do this impeaching of Obama for |
subcomhd |
Aug-23-09 08:29 PM |
#101 |
-
We're going to impeach Obama over Bush/Cheney's crimes? |
Stephanie |
Aug-23-09 08:32 PM |
#102 |
 -
I really don't think the OP meant to attack Obama |
EFerrari |
Aug-23-09 09:53 PM |
#108 |
-
In a perfect world, the obvious answer is yes. But this isn't a perfect world. |
armyowalgreens |
Aug-23-09 08:33 PM |
#103 |
-
Forget the Constitution, everybody else has. |
mmonk |
Aug-23-09 09:45 PM |
#107 |
-
wow, the poll results certainly aren't consistent with the rec-unrec status on the OP |
flakban |
Aug-23-09 09:54 PM |
#109 |
 -
The OPer split the No vote 3 ways. More people voted No than Yes |
HamdenRice |
Aug-24-09 06:31 AM |
#122 |
-
Here's how I see it... |
flakban |
Aug-24-09 01:35 PM |
#128 |
-
Errr... Huffington Post is reporting that the Justice department *WILL* probably pursue |
Liberal_Stalwart71 |
Aug-24-09 05:49 AM |
#115 |
 -
... only a few "bad apples," like with the Abu Graib farce. |
Senator |
Aug-24-09 06:08 AM |
#119 |
-
Nice splitting of the no votes |
WeDidIt |
Aug-24-09 06:42 AM |
#124 |
-
Other. |
SidneyCarton |
Aug-24-09 01:36 PM |
#129 |
-
So we are going to impeach Obama for not investigating |
walldude |
Aug-24-09 01:40 PM |
#130 |
-
ROFLMAO!! OK So what's the Official Obama-haters, PUMA, Trotskyite Mob, Day 1 Impeachers excuse now? |
HamdenRice |
Aug-24-09 02:12 PM |
#134 |