On Impeachment

[H2O Man]

{1} "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers, and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." Article 1, Section 2.

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law." Article 1, Section 3.

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Article 2, Section 4 of the US Constitution

In the first 24 hours that followed the ’06 elections, members of the Democratic Underground debated the issue of Congress beginning investigations of actions taken by members of the Bush administration that might lead to impeachment hearings. The democratic party’s victories in the House of Representatives will lead to progressive members being in the position to initiate investigations into things such as the purposeful misrepresenting intelligence on the "threat" posed by Saddam’s WMD programs. The administration’s lies – and they surely did lie – led to the US invasion of Iraq.

Clearly, the war in Iraq was one of the most significant factors in the democratic gains in the elections. It seems reasonable to ask that Congress look at the administration’s actions. Yet there were a number of DUers who claim that this would be wrong. They state that it would be an act of "revenge," and that the democratic party would be harmed in future elections as a result.

I’m confident that these people are sincere in their beliefs. But they are absolutely wrong. Their position indicates a lack of familiarity with the Founding Father’s intent, the Constitution itself, the history of impeachment at the federal level, as well as with the three recent cases involving considerations for impeaching presidents. Let’s take a closer look.


{2} "The tyranny of the legislature is really the danger most to be feared, and will continue to be so for many years to come. The tyranny of the executive power will come in its turn, but at a more distant period." --Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson wrote those lines to James Madison six weeks before the inauguration of the first US President. As we all know, but all too often take for granted, the Founding Fathers were intent upon creating a separation of powers that would balance each other at the federal level. Thus, they created three co-equal branches of the federal government: the legislature, the executive, and the judicial branches are each defined in the Constitution of the United States of America.

Article 1 defines the legislative powers of the Congress. It is far longer than Article 2, which defines the executive powers, or Article 3, which defines the judicial powers. In fact, it is twice as long as those Articles combined. That is because the Founding Fathers intended the Congress to be first among the co-equal branches of government.

In creating the system of "checks and balances" of power, the Founding Fathers included a Congressional power to impeach members of either the executive or judicial branches of the federal government. Historians believe that it was originally conceived of as a check on the president, and that the inclusion of others was an afterthought. I think that this is worth debating, as the concept of impeachment appears to be traced to a 14th century method the House of Commons used to indict "high officials." But we can discuss that at another time. For the sake of this discussion, I think we can agree with Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein’s "The Broken Branch: How Congress is Failing America and How to get it Back on Track" (Oxford; 2006) that the power to impeach is one of the most important functions of the legislative branch. (see pages 17-24 on Article1.)

{3} "A country preserved at the sacrifice of all cardinal principles of liberty, is not worth the cost of preserving."
--Abraham Lincoln

I believe that the ’06 elections were a clear indicator that the American people believe that this country and its Constitution are indeed worth preserving. I can appreciate that there are sincere democrats who are concerned that, at this time, we would risk the stability of the state if we were to advocate a Congressional investigation that might lead to the impeachment of one or more members of the executive branch. I strongly disagree. I think of a quote from Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., that is found in his book "The Imperial Presidency": " But what kept a strong President constitutional, in addition to checks and balances incorporated within his own breast, was the vigilance of the nation. Neither impeachment nor repentance would make much difference if the people themselves had come to an unconscious acceptance of the imperial Presidency. The Constitution could not hold the nation to ideals it was determined to betray. The reinvigoration of the written checks in the American Constitution depended on the reinvigoration of the unwritten checks in American society. The great institutions – Congress, the courts, the executive establishment, the press, the universities, public opinion – had to reclaim their own dignity and meet their own responsibilities. As Madison said long ago, the country could not trust to ‘parchment barriers’ to halt the encroaching spirit of power. In the end, the Constitution would only live if it embodied the spirit of the American people." (page 418)

The election was a reinvigoration of citizen participation in our democracy. People want the nation preserved. This is not a time to give in to fears that following the Constitutional process is somehow dangerous, or presents a threat to our democracy. Quite the opposite. It is the moving away from the Constitution that is the threat to democracy. Perhaps the illogical fear of the Constitution expressed by those who advocate not having congressional investigations comes from an ignorance of what the process entails. Thus, I will suggest reading three books from the Watergate era, which are of great value in understanding the concept of impeachment:
(a) Impeachment: Trials and Errors; Irving Brant; New York; 1972.
(b) Impeachment: The Constitutional Problems; Raoul Berger; Cambridge; 1973.
(c) The Imperial Presidency; Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.; Houghton Mifflin; 1973.

{4} "The house of representatives … form the grand inquest of the state. They will diligently inquire into grievances, arising both from men and things."
--US Supreme Court Justice James Wilson; 1791

The Wilson quote comes from his famous lecture at the College of Philadelphia, and can be found in "Grand Inquest" by Telford Taylor (New York; rev.ed. 1961) It points out something that we tend to forget: that the Congress can impeach more officials than just the President. And we find that this is indeed the history of impeachment in our federal government. The first recorded case came in 1797, when the House was considering impeaching Senator William Blount . The Senate expelled him before the impeachment took place.

In 1804, Jefferson advocated impeachment to get rid of a senile and alcoholic federal judge. By the time of President Andrew Johnson’s impeachment, the process had been used five times, and four of these were with judges. Three were from the lower courts. (And three were convicted.) In the 1867 conflict over Johnson’s problems, there were people who believed that impeachment should be avoided because of the damage it could cause the nation. One senator wrote, "Better to submit to two (more) years of misrule … than subject the country, its institutions, and its credit, to the shock of impeachment."

Some advocated something less, such as a Congressional censure. Yet, in 1834, the Senate had censured Andrew Jackson. And he had responded by challenging them to impeach him if they believed he was guilty of a crime. For the sake of our discussion, the issues involved in these two cases are best when reduced to a couple simple concepts: a President has to obey the law of the land, and when he breaks the law, the Congress has the right and responsibility to confront him in the manner prescribed by the Constitution. And James Madison made clear that this includes the responsibility that the President and Vice President have for those whom they may encourage to commit crimes. (See Schlesinger, Chapter 11.)

In 1876, President Grant’s Secretary of War escaped impeachment by resigning shortly before the House would impeach him. In the next 60 years, impeachment would be confined to cases involving five federal district court judges. Two were convicted; two were acquitted; and one resigned. Thus, we can see that leading up to the Watergate era, the impeachment option was not abused: it was not reduced to a form of "revenge," nor was it over-used as what Schlesinger called a "quasi-parliamentary" process similar to the English vote of confidence.

{5} "Dean testified the White House feared the Senate hearing might force the Justice Department into further criminal investigations that would lead back to the White House. It was important, Dean said, that the President meet with Kleindienst and ‘bring (him) back into the family to protect the White House …. (and) solicit Kleindienst’s assistance during the hearings and if anything should develop during the hearings, to not let all hell break loose in a subsequent investigation’."
--Senate Watergate Report; 1974; page 145.

Two months after John Dean had advised President Nixon on issues involving Attorney General Richard Kleindienst, the issue of impeachment was brought to the public’s consciousness. Older readers will recall that this was a result of Kleindienst’s smug testimony to the Ervin Committee. When debating the merits of administration claims to executive privilege, the Attorney General stated that if the Congress was not satisfied with the president’s decisions, they could either cut off appropriations or begin impeachment hearings.

Looking back, one can safely conclude that this was not the approach that either Dean or Nixon had hoped for Kleindiesnst to take. But it led to a reinvigorated approach to the investigation. And, as Daniel Schorr noted in his original introduction to the Carrol & Graf book of the Senate Watergate Report, "It is debatable whether the re-invigorated prosecution and the impeachment inquiry would have happened at all had the Senate investigation not turned illegality, corruption and impropriety in high places into a national issue. It is hard to remember, looking now at the gashed investigation landscape, how hard it was to cut the first furrow. Now that we know so much, we can hardly recollect how it was when we knew so little."

Few people would argue that the nation was damaged by the Constitutional process that resulted in Nixon’s resignation. It was the Nixon administration’s crimes that posed the threat to our country. It might be the single example from recent history that we should use for a guide today. Yet, for the sake of this discussion, let’s look at two other recent events that relate to impeachment.

A decade after Watergate, the Reagan-Bush administration would engage in a series of criminal activities known as the Iran-Contra scandal. There came a point when the Congress uncovered evidence that President Reagan had likely committed crimes, and they debated if they should begin impeachment hearings. The democrats were convinced by republicans that the process would be damaging to our nation. It seems fair to say that this decision likely was the wrong one, considering that the full extent of the criminal activities was never made public, and the criminals were able to escape justice. Indeed, several would go on to serve in the Bush1 and Bush2 admministrations.

Then, in another decade, President Bill Clinton was impeached. I think that readers are familiar enough with the circumstances involved , that we need not review them here. The only thing we need to consider here is did the country gain any advantage by the democrats opting to not impeach Reagan? Was the Constitution form of government strengthened? Or made weaker? And were the republicans in Congress punished for impeaching Clinton? Did they lose control of the House as a result?

{6} "(Impeachment is) the main spring of the great machine of government. It is the pivot on which it turns … In this mode, the machine will be kept in motion by its own powers and on a proper balance."
--James Monroe; The People, The Sovereigns

The genius of impeachment, Schlesinger tells us, is that it can punish the man without punishing the office. The Founding Fathers recognized that it was essential for the country to remain democratic. "No point is of more importance than that the right of impeachment should be continued. Shall any man be above Justice?" asked George Mason. And James Madison wrote that corruption "might be fatal to the Republic" if there was no manner of confronting it, and holding the offender responsible.

In the past six years, members of the Bush administration have participated in a number of activities that appear to be criminal. These include the purposeful distortion of the intelligence that led the nation to war in Iraq; the exposing of Valerie Plame; and a number of related issues. It is important that the new Congress begin to investigate these issues. Just as Daniel Schorr pointed out about Watergate, all that lies beneath the surface will not be exposed unless Congress cuts the furrows.

We need to lobby with the Congress to do so. We cannot afford to give in to the fear or the weakness that leads some to say doing so would be dangerous. For, as Walt Whitman warned, "There is no week nor day nor hour when tyranny may not enter upon this country, if the people lose their supreme confidence in themselves – and lose their roughness and spirit of defiance – Tyranny may always enter – there is no charm, no bar against it – the only bar against it is a large resolute breed of men." ("Notes for Lectures on Democracy")

[Selatius]

1. Memo from Nancy Pelosi: NO. n/t

[H2O Man]

3. Noting that your

response was posted one minute after I posted the essay, it seems likely you did not read what I said. Pelosi did not say "NO" to what I posted.

[dogday]

12. Pelosi said it was off the table and that means they still could

at any future time reconsider and/or at least hold it over shrub's head in exchange for favors recieved...

:hi:

[H2O Man]

16. It also was

in regard to Bush, not the Vice President. As the person who responded without reading my essay would have found by actually reading it, impeachment includes far more options than just the president.

[Selatius]

28. I never noted which one would be indicted (Bush or Cheney)

Impeachment can include many people as specified in the US Constitution from a Supreme Court Justice and the US President.

I readily admit that I did not read your post, but Nancy said no to anything dealing with impeachment at this time. I would think her no would apply equally to Dick Cheney as well as Bush.

[Stand and Fight]

34. I disagree...

The Speaker-Elect said that impeachment itself was off the table. She did not say that investigations were off the table. She did not preemptively subvert our laws by saying that there would be no investigations and that even if there were we would not seek impeachment. More importantly she spoke in the PRESENT tense. She did not say that "impeachment will be off the table."

[Selatius]

43. Launching probes and impeachment are not the same thing, in my mind

Launching a probe is akin to starting your car in the drive way, and impeachment would be reaching point B after driving from point A. You can start your engine, but that's a totally different question from whether you want "to close the deal" and hit B, and Democratic leaders have demonstrated to me that they have a tough time closing, especially since Clinton never bothered to push further into crimes and atrocities committed by Reagan et al. in Central America and the Middle East with the selling of chemical weapons to Saddam and Iran-Contra.

I hate to sound incredibly vulgar, but it's like a man who can't get his girlfriend to orgasm during sex because he stops when he's had his fill of two minutes in heaven because he's too stupid to know that he should close the deal for his own good with his woman.

To be on record, I favor impeachment of the bastards, but at the same time, I also know there's many weak-kneed Democrats who see the issue of upholding the law and of standing up for principles not as just that but as a political football that should or should not be taken out for "a game" as if 3,000 dead Americans and 600,000 dead Iraqis was just "a game."

I readily believe Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid can turn on their cars, but whether or not they're even willing to drive past the finish line is another issue of which I have yet to be convinced.

[mom cat]

197. Once Conyers gets the ball rolling, it will be impossible to stop!

He has been systematically building the case for a long time and has it systematically laid out.

[dogday]

45. I believe that as well.... I also

think that they can get some things done by holding this over his head.. I interpret her statement as saying impeachment is off the table now, but that all could change at a later date.... Unless a big NO comes out of her mouth, that is how I perceive it...

[AntiFascist]

100. After considering this, I totally disagree...

see my post #98. As soon as we begin holding impeachment over Bush's head, we (Pelosi, et. al.) are in a position of compromising with justice. With the issues at stake, compromising with justice is the very last thing we should be doing.

[dogday]

117. The threat of looking into anything that can

be damaging to Bush could be used and in politics, I believe they would use it... I don't make the rules, but this is politics, and it is always tit for tat... Give me what I want and you will get what you want... I guess you would have to figure out what you would consider ethical or not...

[AntiFascist]

134. I just wonder why Pelosi and Conyers are so adamant that this is...

"off the table". Hopefully because it is way too important to be used for political gain.

[H2O Man]

135. I do not think

either one of them is opposed to investigations that have the potential to uncover illegal actions associated with the executive branch. I do not think that those DUers who are attempting to discourage the discussion on DU are in any position to say what any progressive member of Congress believes. They may be more familiar with the beliefs of some of the democratic party's more conservative members think. Clearly they do not appreciate the passion of the grass roots.

[NoSheep]

181. May I suggest, we have an immediate need to prevent further loss of life

in the middle east. When the time comes, if it does before or after that problem is reckoned with, I'm sure there is plenty sentiment for calling for accountability where this evil administration is concerned.

I am humbled that the adults who have finally wrested a little check on this mania are holding back their heartfelt urges to cleanse the government of those who are so clearly guilty of many crimes. I get it.

When they had no power at all, it was immediately clear that impeachment was the only route to change. Now that they have power, they can start to make the changes and where this war is concerned, THAT is paramount in urgency. That does NOT mean anyone is forgiven, it just means OUR party is big enough to understand what is immediately important.

[AntiFascist]

201. Ok then what is the plan of action for ending war?

My fear is that the people who are so strongly opposed to impeachment are really very pro-war and want to see aggression in the Middle East continued, particularly against Iran. Keeping Bush and Cheney in office is their ONLY hope at this point, so it makes sense that they will do everything they can to keep them there.

Having a very serious investigation into the alleged corruption surrounding our involvement in Iraq, on the other hand, will bring to light the machinery that has been in place since the Iran-Contra days that has been leading to the explosive, doomsday buildup of strategic tension in the Middle East. The real reason people don't want to investigate this is possibly because at the very root of our foreign policy there is a corrupt foundation and they would rather continue to suffer for that than admit to it.

[slaveplanet]

206. Here's the plan

We've already received our marching orders from our masters, The British. A one year extension is in the works, ensuring our troops will be fish in a barrel till at least Dec. 2007, I'm sure they'll work on another extension as that time nears:

However, Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, sought to play down the impact of both the Republicans’ mid-term election losses and the dismissal of Mr Rumsfeld. She said that it was unlikely that there would be a “major upheaval” of US policy in Iraq.

In a speech to the Royal United Services Institute think-tank she said: “We will leave when they are confident that they can take the role of security in the country on their own shoulders".

“I ask those who are calling for more precipitate action to consider the consequences of such action: we would be leaving the Iraqi Government without the means to prevent a further escalation in the violence, without the tools to enforce the rule of law and without the authority to prevent their country from turning into a base for terrorism.”

All sides said that Mr Rumsfeld’s departure provided an opportunity to set a clearer timetable for withdrawing all foreign forces.

A new tone was set by President Bush. He said that he was open to ideas that would help the US to achieve its goals of defeating the terrorists and ensuring that Iraq’s democratic Government succeeded.

The plan being drawn up in Baghdad, with Washington’s approval, seeks a one-year extension of the UN mandate for foreign forces in Iraq.

But it also states that by December 2007, security in the country’s 18 provinces, apart from the most violent, be handed over to the Iraqi Army and police. US and British troops would play a support role.

The process has already begun in the South, where British forces have handed over two provinces this summer and hope to complete the transfer of a third by the year end.

British military sources said that the downfall of Mr Rumsfeld had given the coalition a golden opportunity to “rebrand” its strategy in Iraq. Under his era at the Pentagon, one senior British official complained, there was “very little flexibility”.

The two key aims of the strategy, training the Iraqi Army to take over security and helping the Baghdad Government to spread its influence throughout the country, remained unaltered. But it would be possible now to make clear to the whole Middle East that US and British forces intended to leave Iraq and that the countdown had begun.

Until now Washington and London have rejected setting out a timetable for a withdrawal of their forces. But yesterday British military officials suggested that it could be completed in the next year and a half.

(more...)

http://therawstory.com/

[AntiFascist]

207. The bottom line then is this....

who is really in control and benefits from the oil fields? Will these be turned over to the Iraqis, can we trust them not to work with terrorists, and will the US not be in a position to hog all the oil by having our military bases manned and constantly occupying Iraq for that purpose?

Reading between the lines it sounds like the PNAC initiative really is dead and that a new era has a possibility of opening up where we can begin to trust the Islamic people and not fear that every Muslim is out to get us.

[slaveplanet]

212. don't be fooled

The whole purpose of the invasion was to control the spigot, Saddam became uncontrollable and he was overpumping. The second goal was to make the country dirt. Saddam had already capitulated before the invasion but they pulled out all the stops to obfuscate that fact. When they arrived in Baghdad there was no frikin army aside from a few patriots, yet that didn't stop the invaders from turning Iraq into dirt. Don't look for Iraq to get electricity, sanitation and other basic necessities of life anytime soon. And likewise, don't look for the animosities that accompany such widespread havoc and unemployment to disappear anytime soon. And completely forget about the progressive education, job opportunities, and status offered to females under Saddam. The Iraq will be seeing nothing like that anytime in the near future. There were lots of other goals like permanent Islands within Iraq, don't look for withdrawal till those are near completion.

Still sounds more like mission accomplished than a new era of trust to me.

[goodboy]

203. I agree...if we're gonna do it, we go all the way with it. (nt)

[ProudDad]

191. YOU'VE GOT IT

You are right, check the tense...

When the Watergate cover-up broke, the word impeachment was never heard. It wasn't until the Congressional investigations uncovered the extent of Nixon's crimes that the public, the Democrats and a large number of repukes DEMANDED impeachment!!

The same could (and should) happen now. The crimes of Nixon PALE before the crimes of bush/cheney...

[upi402]

188. Could that be the main point to this post

as well as her comment? I have hope that she is not the appeaser she is appearing to be. And I hear Conyers making like statements, which validates my hope.

Bush is now a scapegoat for the neocons, maybe another target would be more helpful.

[shadowknows69]

53. She should have said

all options are on the table like the smiling AWOL one loves to do.

[AntiFascist]

98. Hopefully "off the table" means OFF THE TABLE....

in other words, impeachment and investigation of certain things related to the Executive Branch will not be used in the process of negotiating other items on Pelosi's agenda. If it is, then this should be viewed as a criminal act in and of itself.

[dchill]

129. Right. As I have said before...

impeachment is "off the table" - which means it's not "on the table" - which means that it is probably still "in the kitchen," possibly "in the oven." Or, it might be right there on the credenza, kept warm and ready to serve at a moment's notice.

[DoYouEverWonder]

142. Actually

it's on the shelf in John Conyers office. Which is where it's been for the last 6 years. I believe he's getting ready to blow the dust off of it has we speak.

[dchill]

184. You're probably right...

but where's the "serve it as a meal" analogy? "Blow the dust off" is not very appetizing, is it? :)

[Donailin]

171. HA!

thats hilarious. I wish comments could be rated here, clearly your deserves a 4.


"the credenza" pffft. . lol!

[midnight]

176. Very funny- It's probably still in the kitchen.

Or, right there on the credenza, kept warm and ready to serve at a moment's notice.

[OnyxCollie]

193. I think this is just framing.

I watched Howard Dean on the Daily Show the other night. Jon Stewart asked him what would be on the Dem's agenda and Howard said (paraphrasing) "Well, some people want us to impeach the President. But we're not going to do that." When Howard said the words "impeach the President" I noticed his stare was, for a second, intense. I even rewound it on the Tivo to watch it again.

I think this is indeed, "in the kitchen".

This is a difficult issue to present to the electorate. Most don't understand impeachment, or the ramifications of wiretapping. (Notice how nobody used it as a campaign issue, even though it was declared unconstitutional?) To say, "Okay, we're going to impeach the President," I believe the response will be general uncertainty and unease, as well as feeling of abandonment. After all, people want to the government to help them, protect them, shelter them. People want their needs addressed and they want them addressed NOW. (See Pelosi's 100 hours plan.) People don't want government to focus all its attention on the impeachment of the Chimp at their (further) expense. For us, this has been six years of deceit and corruption. But to others who have just arrived at this realization, impeachment means yet another delay to addressing their needs.

Also, this is going to take a long time to prepare for and a long time to execute. (Fitzmas, anyone?) Nobody knows the full extent of the crimes of bushco. There will be many involved, and much to discover.

[nolabels]

236. Exactly, Fitzmas, anyone?

Keeping judges and lawyers out of the mix as much as possible will do everybody a favor. Vengeance is mine sayest the lord is really words to live by. I am not a religious person but still get angry when I get in company of contemptuous people that think they alone own virtue. If we make the mistake of going into the teeth of the establishment, we will eventually be chewed up and spit out by the courts which is lined with right wing bigoted judges from here to eternity.

Btw, I am not for or against anything at this point, just pondering the possiblities, so if my inane posts annoy you just put me on ignore

[dchill]

237. Framing, indeed...

There needs to be no Announcement of Intent to Impeach. There needs to be a series of important, relevant House and Senate investigations to get to the bottom of "Pre-war Intelligence" and the basis of the insanely twisted claims of Cheney and Bush which "misled" most of the country into "supporting" this criminal invasion.

With the power of subpoena in hand, this will come to pass. I can be nothing but certain that the outcomes of these inquiries will leave Congress no alternative to impeachment.

In the words of our illustrious Veep, after January 3rd, "It's full speed ahead."

[EVDebs]

36. Pelosi's position could change if the Hague acted first.....nt

[FormerDem06]

65. The Hague currently has no jurisdiction over the US as we are not

part of the Rome Treaty:


From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court), and yes this is accurate:

The General Assembly called the "United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court" in Italy, where the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was adopted on July 17, 1998. Almost all states participating in the conference voted in favor of the statute; the United States joined Israel, People's Republic of China, Iraq, Qatar, Libya, and Yemen in voting against it. Israel reversed its decision and signed the statute just before the conference closed, but later reversed again and nullified its signature. Initially, under Bill Clinton, the U.S. signed the treaty but never submitted it for ratification. When George W. Bush took office in 2001, he nullified the signature amid bipartisan consensus on the matter.

The Rome Statute became a binding treaty at the moment 60 states had ratified it, an event ceremonialized at the United Nations Headquarters on April 11, 2002. Ten countries (Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ireland, Jordan, Mongolia, Niger, Romania, and Slovakia) submitted their ratifications at this time, bringing the total to 66, so that no one nation would hold the honor of depositing the 60th ratification. The ICC legally came into existence on July 1, 2002, and can only prosecute crimes committed after that date.

The ICC became operational when the signatory nations met in the Assembly of State Parties to appoint a prosecutor and 18 judges. The ICC opened on March 11, 2003.


also:

====================================
Countries ratifying the treaty that created the ICC grant it authority to try their citizens for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. It provides for ICC jurisdiction over-state party or on the territory of a non-state party where that non-state party has entered into an agreement with the court providing for it to have such jurisdiction in a particular case (consent).

Many states wanted to add "aggression," "terrorism" and drug trafficking to the list of crimes covered by the Rome Statute; however other states opposed this, on the grounds that these crimes were difficult to define, and that dealing with less serious crimes such as terrorism and drug trafficking would distract from the seriousness of the crimes the ICC was established to deal with. As a compromise, the treaty merely brands "aggression" as a crime without providing a definition, pending adoption of an amendment to the Statute. It may also be amended to include other crimes. However, no amendments can be made to the Rome Statute until seven years after the Statute became legally binding.
====================================

also

====================================
How cases reach the ICC
Cases may be referred to the ICC by one of four methods:

1. A member country of the Assembly of States Parties (ratified the Court's Statute) sends the case;
2. A country that has chosen to accept the ICC's jurisdiction sends the case;
3. The Security Council sends the case (subject to veto from the permanent five members); or
4. The three-judge panel authorizes a case initiated by the ICC Prosecutor.


Even though the Court has jurisdiction over the crime of international aggression, it will not exercise such jurisdiction until the crime has been further defined. The statute that established the ICC mandates that the state parties attempt to define aggression in 2009.
====================================

[mmonk]

105. universal jurisdiction.

After office, they had better not travel much.

[EVDebs]

183. Right on, Bush and Cheney will be just like Pinochet and Kissinger

Also, check out this DU post re a lawsuit re Rummy to be filed in Germany. What others may be on tap ? Octoberfest, anyone ?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2656697

[TahitiNut]

66. Memo to Nancy Pelosi: "It's Your Duty! 'No' isn't an option!"

Ms Pelosi, your oath to uphold the Constitution has the HIGHEST priority. You have a DUTY to prtect and defend it ... and IMPEACHMENT is a requirement, not an option!

To those who say it takes too long and gets in the way of other high priority issues, I say "Practice! Practice! Practice!"

The ONLY reason the inquisition and impeachment of Clinton took so long was that "There was no 'There' there!"

Now that the GOP gave so many the experience and familiarity, Congress should be able to take advantage of the practice and do it better.

The more often Congress exercises its impeachment powers, the better off we are!

[civildisoBDence]

93. Imagine the backlash if Pelosi had started talking about impeachment before the election...

First, as the likely Speaker, she would have been accused of angling for the presidency.

Secondly, she would have been demonized on talk radio and elsewhere.

Thirdly, she would have worried independents and moderates about the real intentions and priorities of the Democrats.

Pelosi is very smart--if she'd answered questions about impeachment in any other way, we might not be in control of both houses of Congress.

Newsprism

[Annces]

94. She does seem very cunning

However I don't know if she is a career politician or someone willing to make waves.

[rosesaylavee]

169. She is diplomatic.

A people skill we haven't seen in the House for, oh, 12 years.

[AntiFascist]

101. Playing politics is one thing, but ultimately this should not be handled....

politically. My fear is that too many people interpret "off the table" as meaning it will never be considered as an option. All "off the table" really SHOULD mean is that it won't be used as a bargaining point.

[dchill]

185. You're right, of course...

but I think a case could be made for crimes committed in office, which would definitely take it out of the political arena. It should never be used as a bargaining chip - that would mean they could "get off" without punishment, and that's a really terrible thing to consider.

As we learned from Bush himself, "I have no war plans on my desk" merely meant that he literally didn't have any plans on his desk. They were maybe in a drawer, or on Cheney's desk or something. "Off the table" just means "Not on the table" - right this minute.

[TahitiNut]

104. I don't buy it.

I don't buy ANY rationalization of LIES and I don't buy the idea that there weren't other ways she could have responded if, indeed, she foresaw doing her Constitutional DUTY.

I don't buy any of that.

[Freeusfromthechurch]

182. i agree 100,000%

[pberq]

214. Memo from Robert Parry - look what happens when you don't hold them accountable

blm posted this important article in another thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2663206#2663325

The moral is - if there is no accountability for the crimes committed by the Bush administration, we will just get more of the same in the future.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0511-29.htm

Published on Thursday, May 11, 2006 by Consortium News
Hey Democrats, Truth Matters!
by Robert Parry


My book, Secrecy & Privilege, opens with a scene in spring 1994 when a guest at a White House social event asks Bill Clinton why his administration didn’t pursue unresolved scandals from the Reagan-Bush era, such as the Iraqgate secret support for Saddam Hussein’s government and clandestine arms shipments to Iran.

Clinton responds to the questions from the guest, documentary filmmaker Stuart Sender, by saying, in effect, that those historical questions had to take a back seat to Clinton’s domestic agenda and his desire for greater bipartisanship with the Republicans.

. . .

Clinton’s relatively low regard for the value of truth and accountability is relevant again today because other centrist Democrats are urging their party to give George W. Bush’s administration a similar pass if the Democrats win one or both houses of Congress.

. . .

Yet, before Democrats endorse the DLC’s don’t-look-back advice, they might want to examine the consequences of Clinton’s decision in 1993-94 to help the Republicans sweep the Reagan-Bush scandals under the rug. Most of what Clinton hoped for – bipartisanship and support for his domestic policies – never materialized.

. . .

Clinton’s generosity to George H.W. Bush and the Republicans, of course, didn’t turn out as he had hoped. Instead of bipartisanship and reciprocity, he was confronted with eight years of unrelenting GOP hostility, attacks on both his programs and his personal reputation.

Later, as tensions grew in the Middle East, the American people and even U.S. policymakers were flying partially blind, denied anything close to the full truth about the history of clandestine relationships between the Reagan-Bush team and hostile nations in the Middle East.

Clinton’s failure to expose that real history also led indirectly to the restoration of Bush Family control of the White House in 2001. Despite George W. Bush’s inexperience as a national leader, he drew support from many Americans who remembered his father’s presidency fondly.

If the full story of George H.W. Bush’s role in secret deals with Iraq and Iran had ever been made public, the Bush Family’s reputation would have been damaged to such a degree that George W. Bush’s candidacy would not have been conceivable.

Not only did Clinton inadvertently clear the way for the Bush restoration, but the Right’s political ascendancy wiped away much of the Clinton legacy, including a balanced federal budget and progress on income inequality. A poorly informed American public also was easily misled on what to do about U.S. relations with Iraq and Iran.

In retrospect, Clinton’s tolerance of Reagan-Bush cover-ups was a lose-lose-lose – the public was denied information it needed to understand dangerous complexities in the Middle East, George W. Bush built his presidential ambitions on the nation’s fuzzy memories of his dad, and Republicans got to enact a conservative agenda.

Clinton’s approach also reflected a lack of appreciation for the importance of truth in a democratic Republic. If the American people are expected to do their part in making sure democracy works, they need to be given at least a chance of being an informed electorate.

. . .

[Me.]

2. Excellent Points

Especially, "This is not a time to give in to fears that following the Constitutional process is somehow dangerous, or presents a threat to our democracy".

I understand the sentiment of not wanting to rock the boat just as we've had the chance to climb back in, however, I worry that if we don't address the ills that have occurred with this admin., no lesson will be learned from it. Treasonous acts have been committed by this WH and I don't see how we can ignore that. I believe we do so at our peril. And if we do, at some point in the future we will have six more ghastly years ahead of us.

*shadow government*

[bobbolink]

156. Picture in your mind your favorite Founder.

Now, can you imagine this person being afraid of "rocking the boat"??

That's an indication of just how far we have fallen in the bravery and commitment to our democracy department.

:cry:

I withstood a lot of ridicule on DU because I didn't trust the election outcome. Yet, some of those same people who blasted us for that fear, are now so fearful of using our power to actually protect our nation!

Something just doesn't quite connect.... :shrug:

[H2O Man]

222. Great point.

I think that we can add some of the more recent great Americans to that list of people who were not afraid to rock the boat. When we think of brave individuals like RFK and MLK, we remember that there were many people with that old, tired "bump on a log" mentality that said they should slow down and not rock the boat. But we honot the memory of those who were brave, while we tend to forget the names of those who wring their hands from the side-lines of history.

[bobbolink]

241. Handwringers are forgotten-- oh, what a phrase!

I like the way you turned that around!

Yes, I remember those days of the "bumps on a log".

Actually, if I remember correctly, I was one of 'em in the very early days of the second wave of the women's movement.. :blush:

thanks... I feel really good now... :blush: :blush:

Where's Jung when you need him... :hi:

[in_cog_ni_to]

4. Had the Democrats held Impeachment Hearings on Reagan, the world would be different today.

That was a huge mistake on the Democrats part. I'm hoping they learned a lesson from it. They must investigate this administration. They make Nixon and Reagan look like upstanding citizens.

<snip>
This is not a time to give in to fears that following the Constitutional process is somehow dangerous, or presents a threat to our democracy. Quite the opposite. It is the moving away from the Constitution that is the threat to democracy. Perhaps the illogical fear of the Constitution expressed by those who advocate not having congressional investigations comes from an ignorance of what the process entails.<snip>

GREAT piece!

[H2O Man]

5. Thank you.

The failure to impeach Reagan and his VP was one of the most serious errors made in our nation's history. It resulted in the present group of criminals coming to power. We cannot afford to make the same mistake again.

[in_cog_ni_to]

13. I AGREE wholeheartedly!

We must not let them get away with this again. I'm hoping our current crop of Democrats know how and why we are where we are today. Surely they do?

[H2O Man]

20. We need to remind them.

There are some rather conservative democrats who want to cool off the progressive movement that led the way to the recent victories at the polls. We have to make our voice heard. It is interesting to note that we are not asking for anything other than our government to honor the Constitution.

[in_cog_ni_to]

24. Have you forwarded this to any member of Congress yet?

If not, you SHOULD. If you don't want to, I will....if you wouldn't mind, that is.:)

[H2O Man]

27. I would

be honored if you would send the essay to our elected officials. Do you think that others should, too?

[in_cog_ni_to]

31. The more people they hear from, the better. IMO

They need to know we are watching them and expect them to honor the oath they took.

OK, I'm off to email some Congress critters!:hi:

[mmonk]

32. Yes.

I volunteer.

[in_cog_ni_to]

37. I just tried to email Pelosi and Waxman and they don't accept emails from NON-CONSTITUENTS!!

I-AM-SO-PISSED.

Is there another way? Should I snail mail this? I think it's the only way to "get to" these people.

I think I will spend tonight writing out envelopes to Congress people.

[mmonk]

39. Yes. Pretty much standard fare.

Email your reps. Snail mail other members of Congress.

[in_cog_ni_to]

40. OK. That's what I'll do then.

:kick:

[mmonk]

42. Also, check into faxing.

[in_cog_ni_to]

44. OK. I have a fax. That may be even better.

Good idea. Thanks.

:kick:

[Beam Me Up]

29. I just want to say

what you just said, only BOLDED:

The failure to impeach Reagan and his VP was one of the most serious errors made in our nation's history. It resulted in the present group of criminals coming to power. We cannot afford to make the same mistake again.

What is it going to take, people? We have laws. We have them for reasons -- to preserve and protect. What happens when you let thieves get away with theft or murderers get away with murder? This isn't about vengeance, this isn't about 'getting along', this is about our national security. THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION IS A DIRECT THREAT TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY. If you give them a pass, what kind of message is this sending to the future would-be tyrants of this world -- and you KNOW there will be future ones.

[Tatiana]

6. Why don't we shoot for impeaching Cheney? n/t

[H2O Man]

14. Exactly.

Impeaching Cheney is what I have advocated for several years now on DU. A large part of this essay concerns the idea that the Congress can and should impeach officials other than the President. I think that the vast majority of the crimes that have been committted thus far can be traced back to the Office of the Vice President.

I think it's interesting, for example, that after all the republican rattle snakes have claimed that Valerie Plame was not a NOC, and that her being exposed caused no harm to the Agency, that Scooter Libby's legal team filed a motion to keep all information regarding her status as a NOC and the damage to the Agency out of his trial. They don't want the jury to hear that information. I think that Congress should take a closer look at it. And they might start by taking a closer look at the VP's copy of Ambassador Wilson's NY Times op-ed, with Cheney's hand-written notations.

[Hubert Flottz]

17. If Bush goes Cheney will go too, IMHO!

And I say go they must, for their high crimes are a threat to our freedom and liberty.

[Tatiana]

30. I think part of the OP's point is that it we don't have to take an "all or nothing" approach.

Throughout history other officials besides the President have been impeached and removed from office. Impeachment is a vital tool used to remove incompetent or otherwise unfit judges, for example.

Cheney has certainly committed and covered up many crimes. I think it would be much easier to impeach him. It would send a message to Bush and the rest of the nation that our party does take corruption seriously and neocons will definitely think twice about returning to their wicked ways if someone like Cheney is impeached and removed from office.

Also, the hearings would have great potential to uncover evidence against other corrupt officials. Look at the snowball effect of the Abramoff scandal. Impeaching Cheney will have the effect of (to paraphrase Pelosi), "draining the swamp."

(By the way, I don't think we'd ever get the chance to actually convict Cheney. He'd resign first.)

[Hubert Flottz]

35. Exactly...A chain reaction.

Once the digging starts it might lead anywhere!

[bobbolink]

157. Go for Edgar Bergen, rather than Mortimer Snerd.

:evilgrin:

[vickitulsa]

221. Oh goodness, Bobbolink! You summed it up nicely and made me smile

at the same time!

I don't know HOW you manage to keep your great sense of humor with all you have to deal with, but I suspect it has something to do with that thing called "gallows humor," eh? ;) :hug: (I know it works for me!)

But yes, to your point, and the OP and others here have made it as well. I always appreciate how our Water-Man rinses all the smudges away and clearly elucidates issues, so often helping me order my thoughts and priorities.

Then, just to be sure, I also take another tack I've learned is so valuable as I get older (and hopefully wiser): Back up and look at the Big Picture. Or, as I say it so often and in so many contexts, "Gain Perspective." I rely on this tactic so much I even call it "the 'P' word"!

What H2O Man explained in its historical context, including the modern history we know best, also becomes clear when we simply stand back to get the long view of "it all."

When we do that, the buzzing of so many voices and muddled sub-issues fades, and the fog clears -- and it's easy to see what our duty is. What the duty of the newly minted Speaker of the House is ... and those who now hold gavels in Congressional Committees. What our wounded, staggering country NEEDS.

REMOVE THE CANCER! Cut out the core tumor! And by so doing, in effect we administer chemo and radiation therapy as required to the rest of the neocon "body politic" that could still pose a threat. I mean, even PNAC is quietly shutting its doors, almost unnoticed, and melting back into the woodwork ... I think they know the woim has toined for real!

Besides, in that Bigger Picture, we all want the killing and the meddling warring for profit and power to stop ASAP. As one poster indicated unequivocally and wisely, that is an URGENT IMPERATIVE. And how better to intervene in its continued progress and countermand the directives that keep us engaged than to remove the one we believe to be the "real architect" of the destructive policies of this administration? Cheney the Elder! Already his Chief of Staff has been indicted. Time for the next step toward demanding FULL accountability and justice.

I personally believe that the Chimp, who is accustomed to having his strings pulled and mouth manipulated, just as he reads the speeches others write and hand to him, will fairly easily adapt to a change of "masters," as it were. IOW, once his old connection to the "puppeteer" who is really in charge ceases to function when We The People cut the strings to Cheney by taking steps toward his impeachment, wouldn't the Chimp-who-would-be-Emperor but who really Had-No-Clothes pay heed to the instruction of those who remove his previous string-puller? Hmmm ... might he in fact almost hope for redemption by doing so? Hope to become "a real boy"?!

(Sorry for all the mixing of fairy tale metaphors, but you get the idea.) :blush:

[Tatiana]

234. *LOVE* the "Bigger Picture" and "real boy" metaphors!

Your post gets a standing 'O' from me. Cheney is the true root cause of the cancer that has infected this nation. Energy policy, Iraq Mess O Potamia, Valerie Plame's outing, nuclear proliferation in Korea, further deterioration in the Middle East, Abramoff, Colin Powell's WMD lies at the UN... just about every major scandal of this administration can be traced back to one source: the office of the vice president.

We nail Cheney, we excise the cancerous tumor. Then we go after other criminals such as Rumsfeld in an administration-wide radiation therapy treatment.

We can DO this. Impeaching Cheney is VERY POSSIBLE. But, like any issue, we have to LOBBY FOR IT. Get the facts out there in a way the American public can understand. Take impeachment mainstream.

[porphyrian]

7. I'm down. Let's go. - n/t

[Mnemosyne]

8. Thank you H2O Man, excellent points. knr#5 A post I made in

Laelth's thread earlier:

Bush must be impeached!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2657058

#65-

>>>>>
Possibly close to a million people dead for his lies.

* has violated the Constitution, the Geneva Conventions, the Nuremberg Principles and the UN Charter. How anyone can believe the world isn't waiting to see if we hold him accountable or instead act politically sweet and let it slide awhile to avoid internal conflict, is beyond me.

*&co are

WAR CRIMINALS

any way it reads and should be treated as such.

We

OWE

this to the dead and to those that continue to suffer due to these war criminals.

We

OWE

this to the

WORLD

to assure them we will not allow such tyranny to reign here ever again.
>>>>>

And I will continue to repeat this until I die.

[Laelth]

9. Hear, hear!

Bush MUST be impeached.

Here's my reasoning: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2657058

Nicely said, OP! :applause:

-Laelth

[gerrilea]

10. Thank you, Thank you, Thank you...for this post...

My hat goes off to you for all the very important points you made and make...

I too agree that the Constitution and the Country will not be "harmed" by impeachment...only strengthened...the Constitution must be used...not put up on a shelf or behind a piece of glass and admired...it was created by the people for our collective use...
:loveya: :grouphug:

[bigtree]

11. I like the careful way you've framed this.

It seems inevitable that Congress will eventually come to something like this.

[H2O Man]

22. I think that

once the Congress begins to turn the first furrow, the truth will become visible in a manner that will convince even our more hesitant democratic siblings -- and even our republican second cousins -- that we need to confront the threats to our democracy.

[bobbolink]

158. How to get that first plow into the ground?

Just letters, calls? LTTEs? Marches? Townhall meetings?
City Council resolutions?

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

217. Conyers will eventually hit something big in an oversight hearing

Officials will be subpoenaed and forced to testify under oath.

Once these crimes as uncovered, the process will take a life of it's own.

MSM will be forced to cover it. In the beginning that coverage will probably be snarky and dismissive, but once the American people start to see how many ways they have been lied to by this administration, they will pressure MSM and Congress for accountability.

Where LTTE come in is if MSM tries to play the "everybody is to blame" card, when clearly BushCo has committed an unprecedented number of crimes and assaults on the constitution.

[bobbolink]

240. I hope you're right. You have more faith in the media than I have.

It isn't your father's media anymore, as the saying goes.

:mad:

[BlueEyedSon]

15. k&r for this refreshing splash

[G_j]

18. Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld : The War Crimes Act of 1996

-Seems to me these three and others could be found guilty under this.

article | posted June 28, 2005 (July 18, 2005 issue)

Torture and Accountability
Elizabeth Holtzman

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050718/holtzman

<snip>
The War Crimes Act of 1996


No less a figure than Alberto Gonzales, then-White House counsel to George W. Bush and now US Attorney General, expressed deep concern about possible prosecutions under the War Crimes Act of 1996 for American mistreatment of Afghanistan war detainees.

This relatively obscure statute makes it a federal crime to violate certain provisions of the Geneva Conventions. The Act punishes any US national, military or civilian, who commits a "grave breach" of the Geneva Conventions. A grave breach, as defined by the Geneva Conventions, includes the deliberate "killing, torture or inhuman treatment" of detainees. Violations of the War Crimes Act that result in death carry the death penalty.

In a memo to President Bush, dated January 25, 2002, Gonzales urged that the United States opt out of the Geneva Conventions for the Afghanistan war--despite Secretary of State Colin Powell's objections. One of the two reasons he gave the President was that opting out "substantially reduces the likelihood of prosecution under the War Crimes Act."

<snip>


The key question is not whether detainees in Iraq were subjected to inhuman treatment in violation of the War Crimes Act, but how high up the responsibility goes for those abhorrent acts. Under well-established principles of international law, officials in the chain of command who order inhuman treatment or who, knowing about it, fail to stop it are responsible. The "chain of command" doctrine is undoubtedly applicable to War Crimes Act prosecutions. But even if it weren't, higher-ups could be held responsible under the principles of conspiracy or aiding and abetting the crime under normal federal criminal law. This was surely the reason that Gonzales wanted to block future prosecutions of higher-ups by "prosecutors and independent counsels."
<snip>

=====================
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Crimes_Act_of_199...

War Crimes Act of 1996
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The War Crimes Act of 1996 was passed with overwhelming majorities by the United States Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

The law defines a war crime to include a violation or grave breach of any of the Geneva Conventions.

The law applies if either the victim or the perpetrator is a national of the United States or a member of the U.S. armed forces. The penalty may be life imprisonment or death. The death penalty is only invoked if the conduct resulted in the death of one or more victims.


Legislative History
The law criminalized breaches of the Geneva Conventions that the United States could prosecute war criminals, specifically North Vietnamese soldiers that tortured U.S. soldiers during the Vietnam War. The Department of Defense "fully support" the bill, recommending that it be expanded to include a longer list of war crimes. Because the United States generally followed the Conventions, the military recommended making breaches by U.S. soldiers war crimes as well "because doing so set a high standard for others to follow." The bill passed by unanimous consent in the Senate and by a voice vote in the House, showing that it was entirely uncontroversial at the time.<1>

Ten years later, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applied to the War on Terrorism, with the unstated implication that any interrogation techniques that violated Common Article 3 constituted War Crimes<2>. The possibility that American officials and soldiers could be prosecuted for war crimes for committing the "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment" prohibited by the Conventions led to a series of proposals to make such actions legal in certain circumstances.
=========
War Crimes Act of 1996 (as amended)

18 U.S.C. § 2441. War crimes


(a) Offense.--Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.

(b) Circumstances.--The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such breach or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).

(c) Definition.--As used in this section the term ‘war crime’ means any conduct--

(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;

(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;

(3) which constitutes a violation of common Article 3 of the international conventions signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party and which deals with non- international armed conflict; or

(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.

[H2O Man]

23. One of the more

impressive things about the Democratic Underground is that we have people capable of researching these things for our elected representatives. Thank you!

[boomertuner]

205. War Crimes Act of 1996

Am I wrong in thinking that passage of the recent Military Commissions Act nullified the possibility of pursuing prosecution of officials for war crimes cited under the 1996 act? I thought it was "tacked on" to the proposal for tribunals Bush wanted to use. I think the Military Commissions Act specifically cited that anyone who used torture (as loosely defined by Geneva Conventions) was to remain immune to criminal and civil prosecution. I wonder if a closer reading of it might reveal that the Repugs also snuck in a CYA provision to prevent a more broad prosecution of the error of getting into the war in the first place. Has anyone actually read this thing?

[G_j]

245. good question

I have an awful feeling you may be right in that they foresaw the possibility of being found guilty under the war crimes act and attempted to cover themselves (with the help of the congressional enablers of course).

[Patsy Stone]

19. There is nothing unpatriotic or damaging

about exposing government and the head of the government to sunshine. If they did nothing, they have nothing to fear. Wouldn't they choose to be exonerated of the allegations if possible?

Right again, H2O Man. It is the Congress' duty to investigate if there are signs that anything even approaching criminal behavior may have occurred. Whether that leads to impeachment is a procedural decision, but investigations are a moral imperative.

[bobbolink]

160. It would be UNpatriotic Not to!

:hi:

[Patsy Stone]

187. That's very true!

Here's a look at the events of 1974 from the WaPo archives: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/watergatedoc.htm

"Each of the thirteen American impeachments involved charges of misconduct incompatible with the official position of the officeholder. This conduct falls into three broad categories: (1) exceeding the constitutional bounds of the powers of the office in derogation of the powers of another branch of government; (2) behaving in a manner grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of the office; and (3) employing the power of the office for an improper purpose or gain.

According to Hamilton in Federalist No. 65: Impeachment is warranted when "those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/watergatedoc_6.htm#behaving

Also, while we know there are criminal acts involved, the criminality of such acts has not, historically, been a requirement for proposing impeachment: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/watergatedoc_8.htm "The American experience with impeachment, which is summarized above, reflects the principle that impeachable conduct need not be criminal. Of the thirteen impeachments voted by the House since 1789, at least ten involved one or more allegations that did not charge a violation of criminal law."

[wiggs]

21. Let's do it. It must be done. Another reason to do it, although

not grounded in the constitution, is that there would be immediate foreign relations benefits. This is a chance (as was 2004 election) to regain squandered trust, respect, cooperation, and comraderie around the world...something we'll need as oil resources, global warming, global economy, and other issues are finally addressed in an appropriate manner.

[spuddonna]

25. Thank you for posting this!

If we are going to claim to be better than the Republicans in the administration of this government, then we must uphold the Constitution. Providing accountability and oversight, conducting hearings and investigations are all part of upholding the Constitution's system of checks and balances.

This is about justice, not revenge. Are we so afraid of 'what if's' that we don't have the courage to follow through on what is right?

"Justice denied anywhere diminishes justice everywhere." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

[SnoopDog]

26. Our ethics and principals warrant, at a minimum, investigations and hearings.

This is where we should start.

When there is the appearance of a crime or crimes, especially when it involves the highest offices of our government, it is mandated that we investigate the crimes and hold hearings.

This is especially true today as it appears that a President of the United States lied to the Congress and the citizenship to start a war.

The entire concept of our Constitution and the fundamentals of rule and law dictate that we insure that crimes are punished otherwise others will enter into office and be allowed to commit more crimes.

[Stand and Fight]

33. I largely agree with you, but I would point something out...

I will attempt to make my reply as coherent as possible, as I deserve that your most excellent post deserves nothing less.

There is no question in my mind after having read John Dean's book Worst Than Watergate that the Bush administration is guilty of high crimes and demeanors and perhaps even treason. Nonetheless, I believe that in order for our justice system to work effectively, we must also hold high the merit that everyone -- even Bush and company -- are innocent until proved guilty. It is my honest opinion that if Congress begins investigating this administration they will uncover matters far dirtier, far more criminal, than what we have found out to date. Things that rise above the Downing Street Minutes, the obvious lies that led us into Iraq, and the abandonment of national and international law. On that same token, I strongly feel that we CANNOT begin investigations with the singular purpose of forming a case for impeachment.

I believe that our party owes the American people more than that. Unlike the Republican led effort to impeach President Clinton, our first and primary goal must be to investigate the alleged crimes of this administration. After doing so we will then be able to more aptly decide the appropriate legal course to take. It is my belief that when Nancy Pelosi said that impeachment was off the table, this is what she meant. She was not saying that we would not investigate this administration, but rather we would investigate the alleged crimes and misconduct of the Bush administration and let the revelations lead us where they may. There is no doubt in my mind that such an investigation would lead to what will doubtlessly come to be called "the most impeachable administration in US history."

If we pursue investigations with honesty, integrity, and absent of pre-judgment, we will be on the moral high ground. What those investigations yield will not be the fault of Democrats, but the fault of the actions of the Bush administration. The revelations that will emerge will lead us to a conclusion that will no doubt place in squarely on the road to impeachment, but before we get on that road we have to follow the course set by precedence, and as you brilliantly pointed out, the wisdom of the Founding Figures and Constitutional law. Upon seeing that Democrats are doing just that -- with no stated objective -- it is my staunch belief that the American people will be behind us 100% should we pursue impeachment....

I look forward to your reply, as I value your keen analysis and input.

In fact, I have been thinking of writing my next article on this very subject.

ON EDIT: Unlike the Republicans, we will look at public opinion polls during and at the conclusion of our investigations and hearings. Should public opinion be on the side of impeachment at the conclusion of such, I do not feel that the Democrats will have any choice, and, as such, neither shall Republicans. After all, was public opinion NOT against the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton? Is it any wonder that their vindictive attempt met it rightful end?

[H2O Man]

50. One of the things that

I think is telling is that whenever it is mentioned that we were lied to in order to get us into the war in Iraq, some republicans say, "It doesn't matter what happened in the past; since we are in Iraq now, we need to be focused on that." As if the cause and the method of our being there are somehow distinct from the solution.

The elections indicate that it is not simply democrats who are unwilling to accept the administration's sick interpretation of what is taking place in Iraq. I think that the majority of Americans are very concerned with the terrible situation that Bush and Cheney (and, yes, Rumsfeld, too) have created. And it is simply not possible to address the situation by ignoring the cause.

When Watergate began to become public, there was little republican support for an investigation. Until the investigation partially uncovered the crimes, there wouldn't have been bipartisan support for going after Nixon. It was a process ... just as this is a process. And I believe that the vast majority of Americans will support honest efforts to confront threats to our democratic system.

People like to be told the truth. Even in politics.

[TahitiNut]

78. Just remember that the CIVIL standard is "preponderance of evidence"

... and not "beyond a reasonable doubt." While "presumption of innocence" is a standard in criminal proceedings, we're talking about an Office of Honor and Trust and an obligation to Protect and Defend the Constitution. We're NOT talking about abrogation of civil liberties - we're talking about the failure to meet a HIGHER STANDARD of public service.

Too many people rhetorically equate the removal of a politician from office as somehow the equivalent of imprisonment. IT'S NOT! It's 'promotion' to the status of ordinary citizen instead of Public Servant ... but it's also the failure to meet the standards of trust.

If you had a maid or butler and the silverware was being stolen, you don't need a Court of Law to fire them. If you don't TRUST THEM, they shouldn't be allowed to serve your family in your home.

It's the same with elected officials. They're PUBLIC employees. Servants. When they can't be trusted - affirmatively - then they go. Simple.

[Giant Robot]

38. I am not sure where I stand on impeachment

I think that it would be a tremendous drain on resources and time that could be better spent elsewhere, especially with how much of a fight these people will put up.

But...

I also think that this administration are full of criminals almost to the point of being treasonous. I believe that they should suffer an impeachment so that their metaphorical heads are planted on spikes for the next hundred generations to see so that all who come will know that what happened during this Presidency will NOT be tolerated ever again.

And as a side note, no this was not meant as an actual threat to anyone in the White House. I said metaphorical heads, not actual ones. Thanks Agent Mike!

[Wiley50]

41. I Admire Those Who Have So Much More Book Learning Than I.

And I admire many times more those blessed with the power of memory
that enables the ready recall of quotes from those books long ago
read and the use thereof in well thought out compositions such as
the one above.

Myself, I have trouble remembering in detail a web page that I
had only read the previous evening.

My ability, in this case, is limited to the understanding of both viewpoints
expressed, the one desirous of prompt impeachment, and the other, the logic
of those who are reluctant to be seen as interested in revenge. I see both
as being valid and necessary postures.

I do see a plan of action that preserves the need of Justice of the former,
as well as the public relations concerns of the latter.

Congressman John Conyers, who will now chair the Judicary Committee, has, even
though hampered by the lack of subpoena powers, the inability to hold official
hearings and the humiliation of having to hold these non-hearings in a cramped
basement meeting room; has built a substantial investigatory foundation on matters
such as the administrations manufacturing of evidence to support the invasion and
occupation of Iraq, and the the obvious Election Fraud of the past six years.

Congressman Waxman, who will also chair a committee, has likewise built a strong
foundation for investigation in the area of Financial Malfeasance, as he has been
well known for though out his career.

Various other congressmen have also accumulated evidence that will now also come to light.

I propose that these congressmen be given free hand to continue these pursuits, albeit now
with powers inherent in majority status.

As facts are uncovered and finally reach the public, the accumulation and magnification
of the mass media will induce a mighty clamor of the public demanding impeachment proceedings.
Thereby leaving intact Speaker Pelosi's carefully protected reputation.

Or, as I could have put much more concisely:

WHEN ALL THE SHIT THAT THE REPUKES HAVE BEEN SWEEPING UNDER THE RUG STARTS
COMING OUT AND HITTING THE FAN, THE PUBLIC WILL BE SCREAMING FOR IMPEACHMENT!

[in_cog_ni_to]

49. Absolutely! They will DEMAND it and this administration KNOWS that.

That's why they're trying to play this bi-partisanship...BULLSHIT card. They're making nice in hopes of the Dems dropping investigations. I hope the Dems are smart enough to see through it. Play their little game, hold the hearings and expose what they have done. THE PEOPLE will do the rest.


WHEN ALL THE SHIT THAT THE REPUKES HAVE BEEN SWEEPING UNDER THE RUG STARTS
COMING OUT AND HITTING THE FAN, THE PUBLIC WILL BE SCREAMING FOR IMPEACHMENT!

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. Impeachment, which a lot of DU'ers miss

IS A POLITICAL ACT, pure and simple. It should not, but it is

So we need to lobby, agreed

In fact, today I will take some time to write a LONG letter to send to my delegation... and impeachment is not on the top of the list... there are other things that top it... but I will remind them that is what we want done... AFTER the investigations

In fact, one reason Watergate happened was... the people demanded it

[H2O Man]

51. That's right.

It is not about "revenge." It is about justice, and about the form of government that past generations handed down to us. I feel responsible for trying to hand the same government, with that same Constitution, down to my grandchildren.

[Swamp Rat]

61. Yes, we DEMANDED it, so the republicans got scared and impeached Nixon.

This time we must do a THOROUGH job! We must clean house, in Congress AND the White House!

[nadinbrzezinski]

231. Very technically Nixon was NOT Inmpeached

the articles were ready... but the bastid RESIGNED the day before they were going to be introduced. This is a small but important point

[Swamp Rat]

243. Yes, I remember when he resigned.

My point was We the People forced him to resign, or else he was going to take an even harder fall. :)

[H2O Man]

244. It sure was nice

when Agnew and Nixon resigned.

[mmonk]

106. So is violating the constitution.

[nadinbrzezinski]

232. Violating the consitution is not a politial act

it is a high crime... but impeachment IS a political act

[yodermon]

47. Impeach Cheney first. Impeach Cheney first.

I will post this to every impeachment thread until he resigns.

Impeach
Cheney
First

Start at the top, work your way down.

[ms liberty]

48. Yes, I agree 100%...

They'd like to make it seem as if we want it for all the wrong reasons. But it's not about revenge or payback, it's not about hating Bush and Cheney. It's about the truth. The facts. It's about their subversion of our democracy and the rule of law. We have to know what happened, and if/when evidence proves wrongdoing we have to impeach. They swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. There isn't an asterisk in that oath. If what we all know now is correct, the Constitution itself demands we do our duty.

[theboss]

52. Oh Good Lord

Why not pass a progressive agenda, solidify our majority, and win the White House in two years? Why go down this self-destructive path that won't achieve anything (considering the Senate will not convict).

[shadowknows69]

56. The senate may be won over

There are some seats up for grab in 2008. If it is overwhelmingly the will of the people I think they'd rather throw Bush under the bus than obstruct at this point.

[stubtoe]

67. good point

.

[TahitiNut]

70. Upon presentation of the evidence, they have no choice.

Sure ... the most corrupt will remain corrupt. Hopefully, it'd be career-limiting just like during the Watergate era.

Impeachment for war crimes and crimes against humanity CANNOT be ethically avoided. The obligations and DUTIES of an oath to protect and defend the Constitution take the HIGHEST precedence.

[AntiFascist]

107. You miss the point....

bringing the corruption to light will achieve a lot, regardless of the ultimate outcome.

[shadowknows69]

54. I think an example needs to be made

this administration has besmirched the words of our constitution more than almost any preceding them. I want it to be clear that the people of this country won't tolerate a criminal in the WH. Dem or Republican. The biggest fear I have about the reluctance to impeach is it makes me think the Dems in power want to enjoy the unitary executive themselves.

[Straight Shooter]

55. I wholeheartedly support the concept of impeachment. I have one reticence:

The time and energy necessary to pursue impeachment which would otherwise be utilized to improving the sorry state in which this country finds itself, I worry that we will lose precious time.

I also contend, and perhaps I have too much faith in the average American citizen, that if Congress will investigate the scandals and corruption with the express agenda of uncovering the truth and bringing it into the sunlight for all to see, that the majority of American citizens will demand impeachment with such a roar that Congress will have no choice but to accede to their demands.

I remain ever the optimist in the ultimate wisdom of the American people.

[shadowknows69]

57. The only way I can look at it is this

Nearly 6,000 families scream for justice for blood that this man has either directly or indirectly caused. We HAVE to be a country that pursues justice.

[Swamp Rat]

60. WE WANT JUSTICE FOR NEW ORLEANS!!!!

[shadowknows69]

62. Bad on me Swamp

I didn't even include that in the butcher's bill I was talking Iraq and 9/11 but of course. Forgive me my friend.

[Swamp Rat]

64. No apology necessary... LET'S IMPEACH BUSHLER NOW!!!

CARPE DIEM!!! :kick:

[Straight Shooter]

76. Absolutely I agree in the pursuit of justice.

But justice is not always a straight line. Sometimes you must connect the dots, one to the other to the other, until you achieve the goal. By doing so, you accomplish more than one objective.

And I don't mean to be flippant with my metaphors. I take this issue very seriously. I do want bush and cheney impeached. But I want it to be with the absolute backing of the American people, with full knowledge of why impeachment -- and removal from office -- is necessary to correct the imperiled course this country is on.

[bobbolink]

163. Could we please also remember those dying from Medicaid cuts??

Please?!

The unsung deaths of those dying in poverty is criminal in itself!

[bobbolink]

162. That's why there are committees!

Different committees deal with different aspects of governance. While Conyers and Waxman concentrate on crimes, etc., other committees will be concentrating on setting things right again. Really, it can all work out. :hi:

[myrna minx]

58. Thank you for your well reasoned essay. n/t

[Swamp Rat]

59. DO NOT HESITATE! ... IMPEACH BUSH NOW!!! ... CARPE DIEM!!!

Why did we win the elections?

:patriot: BECAUSE WE THE PEOPLE ARE UNITED AGAINST BUSH!!! :patriot:

[Zomby Woof]

63. No one is saying he shouldn't be impeached EVER

Nor are we sayinng that he shouldn't be held accountable for criminal acts and shredding the Constitution. Of course he should. Impeachment was placed in the Constitution by the framers (I hate the quasi-religious paternalistic term 'Founding Fathers') for trying the executive for criminal acts, and in The Federalist, Madison made specific arguments against using it as a political tool.

Unfortunately, the two times impeachment proceedings were completed, they were motivated by political maneuvering. The Radical Republicans went after Andrew Johnson, and the Gingrich Republicans went after Bill Clinton - both as acts of politically neutralizing them. The Gingrich gang KNEW they wouldn't get Clinton removed, but they hoped the proceedings would weaken him. It did not.

The only time impeachment was attempted for criminal acts was with Richard Nixon, but he slipped through the cracks with a resignation and a pardon.

What we ARE saying is that he should be impeached only when we have the means to finish the job. Ultimately, it's a trial, and why try a person when you know the jury is fixed against you? Yes, yes, because it's our moral obligation and so forth, and yes, yes, because he did, like Nixon, commit criminal acts - but when it causes our own political neutralization when we're unable to complete the process, it will cause the republic GREATER harm than by moving forward with a progressive agenda in Congress, the one thing we indisputably SHOULD do, and would NOT cause harm to either us, or more importantly, the people.

Satisfying as it would be to see Bush and Cheney hauled off to prison, it just ain't gonna happen without a compliant Senate.

The bottom line is, impeachment is the wrong weapon at the wrong time. Forcing Bush to compromise on key legislative goals and to neutralize his Iraq war mess are much better weapons of justice. We must place the people FIRST above party, and our agenda serves the people.

In the best of all worlds, getting most (because let's face it, there will be compromises and disappointments on our side too) of our agenda passed would occur first, THEN we could impeach him if enough Republicans crossed party lines and voted in the Senate for his removal and conviction. But that is a fantasy. What's doable, and desirable for the PEOPLE, is to do the former, and none of the latter.

Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi are arguably the two most powerful people in our party. One is our appointed leader, and the other our elected leader, when she assumes the Speakership in January. They both oppose impeachment AS OF NOW, for the SAME reasons I outlined.

Dean and Pelosi are correct, and I intend to support their decision.

I am also done arguing about impeachment. I would rather fight Bush and the Republicans over Iraq, healthcare, the 'Patriot Act', wages, jobs, immigration, the environment, and a host of other issues than fight all of you over impeachment.

[Swamp Rat]

69. I don't disagree with what you say, but I WANT JUSTICE FOR NEW ORLEANS!!!

and before he can do any more damage with his new dictatorial powers, I say CARPE DIEM!

[Disturbed]

74. Has it not been proven that the Busholini Regime commited

at least 30 Felonies, The Warrentless Wiretapping, Violation of the FISA Law? Should those Violations be ignored?

[H2O Man]

82. Interesting.

You state that no one is saying that he should never be impeached, nor that he shouldn't be held accountable for his crimes and for shredding the Constitution .... just that it should only occur when it can be completed.

I assume you mean Bush, and although I have consistently advocated targeting Cheney, it matters not. My response would be the same, either way.

Bush and Cheney took office in January, 2001. They will leave, unless there is an impeachment/resignation, in January, '09. Despite our widely differing perceptions, I trust that we can agree that it is now November, '06.

That said, it seems unlikely that you would be suggesting that Bush (or Cheney) should be impeached in the past. Thus, we can remove January, 2001 to today from the possibilities. That leaves 25 months. Considering the new Congress will not be seated immediately, we should be able to agree that there is actually a little less than two years.

You mention that you have many other things on your plate, and do not wish to "fight all of" us here on impeachment. That sounds like a good idea. In all honesty, any plan to save the impeachment process for some better time in the future sounds like a "bump on a log" mentality to me. If you have energy to invest in other areas, good, great, and fantastic. Please do. I'm far more interested in joining together with those who aren't handcuffed by the anti-impeachment thinking that a few people express here today. It's a big party, and there's plenty of room for everyone.

[AntiFascist]

111. Consider this...

Bush and Cheney are put on trial, and an exhaustive investigation brings their criminality to light beyond the shadow of a doubt. A majority in the Senate then vote against impeachment. Does this not, then, impeach the credibility of those who vote against it?

[seemslikeadream]

68. So are people just not angry enough yet? What will it take?

I guess maybe 50,000 more of these?


or maybe these?

[Swamp Rat]

71. What is it? Post-traumatic stress???

I am starting to get pissed that not enough people HERE are as angy as I!

AMERICANS ARE DYING IN IRAQ+BUSH SAYS HE IS NOT LEAVING=WHAT THE FUCK ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT???

[seemslikeadream]

72. BUSH'S PLAN FOR PEACE IS THE PEACE OF THE COMMON GRAVE

EVERY DEATH CREATES NEW ENEMIES

MORE TERRORISTS

MORE DANGER

MORE DEATH

AND REMEMBER...

HE IS JUST GETTING STARTED...

BUSH'S PLAN FOR PEACE

IS THE PEACE OF THE COMMON GRAVE

http://www.bushflash.com/pax.html WATCH THIS VIDEO

[Swamp Rat]

73. BUSH'S PLAN IS TO KEEP AMERICAN SOLDIERS IN IRAQ UNTIL HE LEAVES

OFFICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[seemslikeadream]

79. Are we to allow him the chance to let this happen again?

He can not be left to lead this country, he is at best incompetent, at worst a war criminal

[bobbolink]

164. And I'm PISSED that those dying from cuts to HUD, Medicaid, etc,

are COMPLETELY forgotten!! What are we, chopped liver?!

Surely we can *all* be remembered!

[RagingInMiami]

172. I'm with you

But most dems don't have that killer instinct when it comes to politics -- something the republicans thrive on. If we don't try to impeach him, it will send out the same old, sorry message. That dems are pussies.

Bush's crimes transcends politics. Katrina, Iraq and corporate cronyism affects Americans of both parties. We need to impeach him to restore credibility to the presidential office. To restore credibility to the rest of the world. And to restore credibility to the US Constitution.

[EFerrari]

194. I think it is ptsd.

[nadinbrzezinski]

233. Oh I am pissed

but I also recognize the reality, this dog ain't hunting unless we show it there are damn squirels down that path

[shance]

75. Good work H2O. Thank you.

n/t

[Annces]

77. Yes Impeach - Bush and Cheney have used our country for their own interests

They have abused the office beyond imagination. Impeach. Also impeaching them would serve as a deterrent to future megalomaniacs that make their way into the oval office.

You don't make a bet with someone, and then when they lose the bet, you let them off.

[seemslikeadream]

80. Worse Than Watergate - HAVE WE FORGOTTEN THIS!

[H2O Man]

83. Thank you!

DUers would do well to review Dean's wonderful book.

[robertpaulsen]

81. What part of ITS NOT ABOUT REVENGE ITS ABOUT JUSTICE do DUers not get?

I don't understand how any DUer outside of a troll can think otherwise. I've got to give you credit H2O Man, because I'm really at a loss of words (lest I explode in a stream of obscenities) for anyone who thinks undertaking the impeachment process would risk the stability of the state. Thanks for illustrating the examples of how just the opposite is true. Whether it's initiating immediate impeachment proceedings come January (which I sincerely doubt will occur, given Pelosi and now Conyer's opposition) or investigations to determine what crimes the misadministration committed regarding Iraq, Plame, 9/11, Katrina etc., to determine if in fact impeachment should be considered, we must respect and encourage this process.

[H2O Man]

84. Right.

If the police arrest a bank robber or a murderer, it isn't "revenge." It's justice. The police don't decide not to arrest a robber or murderer, because the criminal might get mad. Or because the criminal's family might not approve of the arrest. No, the community correctly expects the police to make that arrest. The community cheers them on, because they recognize that this helps reinforce their community values.

Can you imagine any DUers saying that it would be wrong to arrest a bank robber or murderer? That the community should instead concentrate on trash removal? No, that's some stick-in-the-mud thinking, if you ask me.

[Swamp Rat]

85. That's why I started this thread:

I am cheering everyone on, RIGHT NOW! CARPE DIEM!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2628532

[Me.]

96. What Worries Me

Is that we will get in a let bygones be bygones mode and that such matters as creating a fake scenario for a war that has cost so much in lives and treasure, revealing the identity of a NOC for purposes of revenge and political convenience, collusion with corporations, secret meetings to develope energy policy, and perhaps one large North American country and so on and so forth, will become just so much "collateral" damage. Accountability is crucial if lessons are to be learned so the next guy who thinks an imperial presidency is a good idea, gets the message that it isn't.

And we're not the only ones who may be thinking that. There is a story floating out there that the Bushies bought 175,000 acres in Paraguay and had a deal for some kind of immunity in place. This week that immunity was rescinded.

*shadow government*

[robertpaulsen]

118. I am worried over Dems that choose expediency over justice.

You are right to worry about criminal activity becoming collateral damage. I have seen too many shocking posts in GD where there is a call not to impeach in the mistaken belief that this will win the Dems votes in 2008. I say what Jim Garrison said, "Let justice prevail though the heavens may fall". I'm not sure if that's Garrison or Oliver Stone, but I agree with the sentiment. We must not ignore justice in the pursuit of currying political favor. We've seen what compromising with criminals got us during Iran/Contra. I say, "NEVER AGAIN!"

[H2O Man]

119. It's mighty interesting

to see how many of our good friends at DU are saying that there can be no investigations that lead to impeachment. As if they decide for the country! My goodness, the Bush administration won't need to hire attorneys, with this many progressive democrats fighting so hard to protect them!

I think some people fear change. They might look for security in keeping things as they are. I can respect their right to cling to this position. But I do not respect their attempts to be a ball and chain on those who are not of like mind.

[robertpaulsen]

124. Perhaps, since our signature lines are turned off...

I should repost American Judas and ask if anyone can, in good conscience, claim that Dick Cheney does not deserve impeachment at the least, imprisonment at best. Then ask themselves how future generations will judge us for allowing such a tyrant to continue to enjoy his position of public service when we knew all about his criminal acts and had the power to bring him to justice.

[H2O Man]

125. I agree.

100%.

[flyarm]

226. this is a president who has overseen more death penalty cases...

than any governor in modern history..

seems he believed in the rule of law for others...

now he must face the consequences of his crimes or those around him...

I as an American believe this nation was founded on the rule of law..

Many who have worn our uniform, fought for just those values and many died for those values!

But the rule of law means a trial..and innocent until prov-en guilty..

that is our law..if we deviate we are no better than the bastards who have committed crimes on this nation and others around the world.

we must have hearings..real ones..not bogus commissions ..like the 9/11 commission..that was total bullshit trash ...in my opinion...

I want, as an American, hearings with people under subpoena..with whistle blowers getting immunity ..if rightly deserved...

Let the chips fall as they may..and anyone who is found guilty of crimes ..must..not should , but must be held accountable to the fullest extent of our laws, and international laws, according to our treaties.

The only way we hold onto democracy is transparency..total..

WE are a very ill nation right now..and the only way to full recovery ..is hearings..treated with the full respect our courts demand..and it is up to congress to treat any hearings as a full court proceeding ..and following the laws of our constitution to a "T"


I never want my legacy, when i leave this earth to be ..that I helped leave an ill nation to future generations..and bandages will not suffice..

This country needs the best surgeons we have, to disect the pus out of this wounded nation!..Surgeons with guts who are not afraid of treating the wound.

I fear we are on life support..and the smallest infection will kill what is the most incredible "idea" and experiment this world has ever seen.....democracy...

We have all fought so hard to take our democracy back, this far..we must not abandon her now...our journey has only begun...

fly

[bobbolink]

165. Yes, there is a strong component of conflict avoidance in the 'Murkin psyche.

Except, of course, when it comes to bombing the hell out of another country, or picking on poor people or minorities.

[AntiFascist]

114. Unless the alleged criminal is a highly respected member of the mafia...

therein lies the problem!

[Individualist]

86. Some don't want to get it, robertpaulsen

The neocon enablers who want nothing more than to pull the party to the right are pissing on the Constitution with their objections to impeachment.

[baby_mouse]

89. I agree.... with the LAST bit of what you said.

Like I've got any right to say anything, I don't even live in the States...

My feeling is that if investigations are the starting point, impeachment likely can't go wrong.

I see a lot of people calling for the trial, I pursue the CONVICTION.

But I have a caveat, I will not be disappointed if the Dems box clever and take the money rather than opening the box. They know where they live and a guaranteed victory in 2008 is worth more to them, in the end, and the rest of the World, than the public humiliation of one thoroughly used and powerless man.

In the absence of his impeachment BUT the presence of a Democratic president, my champagne will taste just as sweet in 2008...

INVESTIGATIONS. ABSOLUTELY.

The investigations are actively desired, by EVERYBODY...

Shall we let the story unfold chapter by chapter? I totally BET the bad guys get it in the end... :-)

[Solly Mack]

95. People who are deliberately and intentionally equating justice

with revenge are doing so in order to marginalize calls for accountability. It's also an attempt to paint those who desire accountability as "revenge seekers" instead of what we actually are - justice seekers.

Why else would anyone claim revenge and justice are the same things? Unless they don't know the difference and that makes them idiots.

The very people equating justice with revenge know there is a difference between the two concepts and that's what makes their dishonest equating of the two all the more despicable.



Investigations are an inherent component of holding anyone accountable. It's a "no-brainer" to quote war criminal Cheney.

The talking point that those calling for impeachment are somehow leaving out the investigation part is bullshit.

[H2O Man]

108. I agree.

This is just another form of "perception management." It is a shame that any sincere person would fall for it -- no matter if they are a democrat or a republican.

We need to treat it the same as if a bank robber said that we were wasting time looking for revenge when we ask the police to arrest him.

[Solly Mack]

136. "perception management." Precisely what it is

and that's how the guilty walk - it's exactly how "reality is created" or manufactured

You're a lot nice than me, H2O Man.

I suspect the motives and sincerity of any who equate the two. Though I do appreciate the subtleties of allowing people wiggle room to change their minds.

It is exactly like the robber claiming it's revenge to arrest and try him for his crimes.

I want the Bush administration to have what it denies others.

Actual investigations.
Arrest based on actual evidence and not lies.
A fair trial - free of illegal detention and free of torture - and in keeping with the Constitution.
A safe prison where he can spent the rest of days without fearing for his life.

I want justice. Nothing more.

[H2O Man]

141. There is a true story

found on page 5 of Richard Fenno, Jr.'s 1982 book ("The United States Senate: A Bicameral Perspective") about Jefferson asking Washington why he had agreed to a second chamber in Congress?

"Why did you pour that coffee into your saucer?" Washington Asked him.

"To cool it," Jefferson responded.

"Even so, we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it," Washington said.

Now, I said that to express -- in a nice way -- what I think some of the discussion on here is .... an attempt to "cool" the passions of the grass roots and progressive democrats. I do not doubt that it is being done by sincere people who are also democrats. After all, our party includes a wide range of people. And that's a good thing. However, they are wrong on this issue, and their error is not a good thing.

[Solly Mack]

143. It would come as no surprise then that I enjoy my coffee hot?

:)


Good story.

I agree - they're wrong.

But you're right, that doesn't make them bad, just wrong.

Thank you!

[H2O Man]

144. Minister Malcolm

used to tell a little story about those who attempt to "cool" the hot coffee of the civil rights movement. I'll have to find that, and send it along to you. (grin)

[robertpaulsen]

126. YES! If the #1 issue for voters in corruption...

Then what better way to hold the corrupt accountable than initiating investigations to examine the "possibility" of criminal activity? And if, by chance, any "high crimes and misdemeanors" were committed, how can you excuse NOT impeaching the bastards?!

Anyone who prefers political expediency to justice deserves neither.

[TahitiNut]

102. You and me both, robertpaulsen.

Some of the shit I read here is really devoid of principles, imho. I have enormous respect for H20 Man - not only for his patience in articulation and sound references, but for the obvious clear-headedness and obvious value-based stances that are consistent.

It would be compounding multiple crimes to fail to pursue impeachment against Cheney, Bush, Gonzales, and company - not only the crimes of this regime but the abominable perversion of the impeachment process during the Clinton administration.

If the GOP's hypocritical perversion of the Constitutional process of impeachment is at all permitted to dissuade (or excuse) Congress from doing its DUTY, then that's a clear indication of complicity between the establishment parties and good reason to abolish both.

[Zhade]

152. Someone here actually said that having a conscience was something to be pitied.

PITIED.

As if it's WRONG to seek justice.

Who the fuck ARE these people?

[Me.]

103. I Watched The * Mob Spread Out Today

There was Thornburgh saying how the elections proved the country was centrist and they didn't want those nasty investigations those crazy liberals online are pumping for. Nancy Pelosi would be a fool to listen to them. blah, blah, blah. You bet they don't want investigations. Scared to death of them.

*shadow government*

[robertpaulsen]

120. Oh yeah, their fear is palpable!

Everything they're saying:

"The Dems need to cooperate with us"

"The Dems need to make nice to work with us"

"Conservatives didn't lose this election"

They are all cries of fear coming from a position of weakness. And because many of those whining loudest are the worst criminals and they know it!

[Solly Mack]

87. You know where I stand

No Justice. No Peace.

I wish people really understood those words.

The chickens that will come home to roost to an America that doesn't seek justice is enough to give me nightmares.

We can seek justice now or pay a very steep price later.

[shadowknows69]

91. agree 100% Solly Mack

No peace without justice. Period.

[grizmaster]

88. Our Constitution has been endangered by bush

and it's our duty to protect it from him.


And there is certainly more danger in allowing bush to continued unchecked than in starting to investigate all the junta's crimes.

[earth mom]

90. Awesome Post! Thank You!

Please see my "Impeach Bush: Do it Yourself" thread here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2662784

[Tatiana]

92. Kick - for a rational and informative post about impeachment n/t

[readmoreoften]

97. If the Democrats refuse to press charges, can we get the ICJ to try them

at the Hague? Anybody know anything about international law?

[Nickster]

99. Excellent words as always H2OMan. What I fear is that people are way too willing

to want to rush past the bad things that have happened in this country hoping to get back to a status quo. Remember, Gerald Ford had much the same idea of reconciliation, putting the whole mess in the past,and letting the nation heal.

http://www.watergate.info/ford/pardon.shtml

"Theirs is an American tragedy in which we all have played a part. It could go on and on and on, or someone must write the end to it. I have concluded that only I can do that, and if I can, I must."

Look what avoiding the dark and dirty task of investigating the crimes and holding people accountable for those crimes against this nation only lead us to, cutting off the plant but leaving the roots firmly in place.

Then from those roots we got Iran-Contra. Again we looked the other way and avoided impeachment, for the sake of the nation. We cut down the re-grown plant. Then we got the Dubya administration, the same plant from the exact same roots.

If we avoid investigating and finally holding these people accountable, it will just be a matter of time and that plant will grow so strong and so tall that we might not be able to cut it down again. It might overgrow our Constitution and choke out the last remnants of Liberty that we have.

We have to learn the lessons of the past. We just can't afford to ignore it any longer.

Based on your writings H2OMan, I was inspired to start reading the Ervin report on Watergate to see what roadmaps we might have there. In just the first few pages, I saw many of the same issues and some great ideas to help that would still be useful today from election reform to seperation of powers. Thanks for the inspiration.

[H2O Man]

110. The Ervin report

is one of the most outstanding documents in our nation's proud history.

[Nickster]

113. And available for just 1.99 on Half.com! n/t

[brindis_desala]

109. While I applaud your thoughtfulness and patriotism

there is a key element missing for a successful drive towards impeachment: public awareness.
With Watergate we had the nation's top newspapers framing the case, laws that were easily understood had been broken and Nixon's own bungling arrogance hastened his demise (even if his paranoia was justified though misdirected). The reverse is true vis a vis Cheney and Bush because in several instances the corporate press has been their co-conspirators, with no small irony, the chief among them the estimable Bob Woodward himself. For all intents and purposes our democracy was hijacked by the 1980 October Surprise when a certain turncoat staffer in the Carter administration in all likelihood helped scuttle the president's secret deal to release the hostages. (Read Beni Sadr's account of the Republicans' subterfuge). The underminers of our democracy must be carefully and systematically weeded out, cutting off the head will not destroy this hydra. IMHO Vigilance, patience and steadiness are the virtues called for- first order of business the Senate's rejection of a certain turncoat by the name of Gates. Soldiers deserve a patriot running the Pentagon; it's emboldening.

[H2O Man]

115. I would again

point to Daniel Schorr's introduction to the Senate Watergate Report in book form: at the time of the Ervin Committee, relatively little was known. It is true that a few reporters, most importantly Woodward & Bernstein, had worked to uncover parts of the scandal. And there were some who were pretty well informed. But, if we look back to when McGovern attempted to make it an issue, it was not appreciated.

The amount of information that has been reported on, for example, the Plame scandal alone, is actually significant. It is a confusing scandal for the general public, but so was Watergate. A Congressional investigation would focus more attention. The country would benefit from having capable investigators present it to the public in an organized manner.

Other related scandals, including the neocon/AIPAC espionage case, are grossly under-reported. There is little appreciation for the connection between this and the conflicts in the Middle East. This is not that different than the lack of understanding of the Iran-Contra scandals. That failure to understand and appreciate these issues is what leads people to think that replacing Rumsfeld with Gates is somehow an improvement.

The grass roots needs to engage in a coordinated public awareness campaign. We can work on these issues at the same time.

[nolabels]

202. Replacing Rumsfeld with Gates is an improvement.

In a swoop it cuts away the fat and gets to the bone. This will end up being a really stupid move and it does show their hand quite nicely

[aein]

112. REAL justice is raising the minimum wage and getting the troops out of iraq

Justice is NOT some metaphysical equalization of karma. In the time that we would be TRYING to impeach Bush, we could be passing useful legislation. Your idealism is admirable, but harmful, and I'm glad that our party leaders are against it.

[H2O Man]

116. I think it takes

a lack of imagination to try to pit a congressional investigation of issues related to the lies that led to the war in Iraq against raising the minimum wage. It's hard for me to consider that as any more serious than "some metaphysical equalization of karma." Thanks for the giggle, though. No harm there.

[aein]

178. what would we uncover that we don't already know?

What exactly do you think will be uncovered by the investigation? That he lied us into war, or that he played cronyism with our taxmoney? That he had secret prisons? That he supports the torture of detainees, and the illegal deportation of aliens without evidence? That there are unwarranted wiretaps?

These are all terrible acts, known, and some admitted. But no matter what is uncovered (unless he had sex with an intern) we won't have the votes, and all that'll happen is an pro-longed unprincipled, political proceeding where the result is certainly determined. Such a result would not get Bush out of Office, hurt our political standing, and jeopardize our legislative agenda. It seems like an unreasonable way to spend the next two years to me. And I don't think I am unjustified in concluding that it'll hurt legislation that this country badly needs.

[nolabels]

227. This idea of being progressive should done with the...........

definition of the word at hand. People want to go forward, not backward. Thank goodness there is time between January and now for people to sort out things. Holding the anvil over their head should be sufficient to get things done. But if not and them issues become more pressing because of stubbornness then we might get our answer either way. In any case it will be interesting to see how it unfolds

[puebloknot]

199. "Equalization of Karma" isn't on the table

Let me say hello, and also say that I very heartily support a raising of the minimum wage, universal health care, educational funding. Those things are urgently needed, but large numbers of people have been getting by without them for lo, these last six years, and well before. Still they live, albeit with difficulty and perhaps a degree of hopelessness.

A few more dollars in the pocket each month would make a difference in some people's lives, and I do not look at that lightly. I do think, however, that those few dollars do not compensate for the personal freedoms guaranteed by our late, great Constitution (soon to be resurrected, we can only hope), which freedoms have been insolently taken away very recently by our "leaders," some of whom are less-than-admirable Democrats. A crust of bread in exchange for habeas corpus? A bad bargain, I think. I suspect the minimum wage raise is a done deal, given that Nancy Pelosi seems so confident that it will happen in the "first 100 hours."

A young woman who is a friend of my daughter is serving in Iraq right now. She joined the reserves to pay for college, having no family to help her. I want her out of Iraq, along with all the others. I want them come home to the country they knew, and are allegedly fighting for in Iraq. The streets will look the same when, if, they come home, but the very air has changed in their absence. We have lost our civil rights, and we want to go along to get along with the Bush administration????

I do not concur in your opinion that the idealism being expressed here is *harmful.* Without it, what are we as a nation? It isn't me asking that; it's the world!

November 7th has caused me to meditate upon our nation's founding, and the documents which enshrined our freedom. I also want to state that I'm not particularly religious, and I do not embrace worshiping of "The Founders," who, after all, were merely humans, like ourselves. But they cooked up a pretty good plan which has worked pretty well for most of our history, with some fearful exceptions, such as the McCarthy era (and this one). These words have been very much with me over the last 48 hours:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

The remedy to the "long train of abuses and usurpations" that we have suffered in this country over the last six years is outlined in our Constitution. *They* may say it's just a damned piece of paper, but I beg to differ. We seem to be caught up in an either/or dialogue here -- "investigate or impeach" -- but I think we're getting lost in semantics. We must investigate, and/or organize the material we already have at hand, quite obviously, before impeachment can be carried out. The causes we are considering on the part of the Bush Administration are *not* transient; we have endured them too long already. It is our duty, and by our direction, the duty of our leaders, to throw off the government we now are suffering by prescribed legal means. My own tired cynicism says that impeachment does not have a chance; however, the election on Tuesday has cut into that hopelessness a bit, statistics notwithstanding.

The mantra we are now hearing -- "impeachment is off the table" -- smacks of deal-making to me, and may be a first sign of a lack of courage on the part of our new Congress. I hope sincerely that I am wrong. John Conyers has no greater admirer than yours truly. I wait with bated breath to see what actions he intends when he is at last head of the Judiciary Committee. And I hope Nancy Pelosi redeems the impression she has left with many of us that she plans to avoid the subject altogether.

Yours seems to be a more sophisticated way of saying that calling for impeachment is reveling in revenge fantasies, avoiding the real work that needs to be done. I want to see useful legislation passed *in addition to* a legal holding to answer of those who have tortured in our name, and shamed our country before an incredulous world.

Best,

Judy Barrett

[understandinglife]

121. I am B Robert Franza MD and I applaud and concur with this post.

Just to make it clear that I'm not some "anonymous internet keyboarder" unwilling to be accountable for my statements ...

And, in_deed, "... all that lies beneath the surface will not be exposed unless Congress cuts the furrows."

Let's start digging, though, in the case of Bush and his minions, We the People ... do not need to go blow the surface to identify major transgressions of law and human dignity.


BE AMERICA. ---

[H2O Man]

122. Thank you!

I get a kick out of some of the things being said on a couple other threads. I like the individuals saying them, even thougfh I disagree -- strongly -- with what they are saying. And I would be willing to compare decades of dedicated work, experience, and direct participation in progressive social/political activities with anyone on this or any other forum.

[understandinglife]

161. You're welcome. And, I agree with an important operational issue ...

... you mentioned in another thread, i.e., We the People ... are more than capable of multi-tasking and that is what we are going to continue doing.

Certain folk will be motivated to focus and work on specific issues, but the key is that each of those distinct efforts need to run in parallel because we've got several major problems that must be confronted, not sequentially, but simultaneously.

My focus is on expanding our knowledge of biological systems, but that doesn't keep me from spending time helping those who are focused on restoring the rule of law in the United States of America, and holding accountable those who have violated US Code and international treaties that pertain to the conduct of war and the treatment of people suffering a variety of consequences of an illegal war of aggression.

Peace.

[puebloknot]

180. Hello...

...B Robert Franza MD. I haven't talked with you in some time, but you've inspired me to come out into the light here tonight. I just posted this message at this thread, and felt it appropriate to share it with you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=364&topic_id=2654265&mesg_id=2665487

It was UnderstandingLife who brought me to DU months ago, and who picked out my name, "Pueblo Knot," because of a project we were working on with a group here, and because he felt it was prudent to protect my identity.

He has just announced his real identity in another thread (a thread about impeachment by H20 Man), and I'm going to follow suit. I've never liked "handles," although I realize in some cases they are necessary. Personally, I don't want to cower in fear over what some of these right-wing nuts might try to do. I think they are paper dragons, and that November 7 helped to prove that. So.....

I am Judy James Barrett. I live in Santa Fe, New Mexico with my artist/dancer/editor daughter, who is so like-minded and so passionate about taking back our country that it gives me pleasure every day to talk with her. I work as an editor/trainer in the court reporting field, but my real love is writing/history/art. As an army brat, I saw a lot of the world as a child, from Korea to Germany, and both coasts of the U.S.

My family history says that we (The James Family) owned a plantation right next door to Monticello. Three of my ancestors were burned out by General Cornwallis in the Revolutionary War. I've got a dog in this fight, and I'm not going to cower under the shadow of the likes of George Bush and his tin soldiers, his lies, and his fear-mongering. I want George Bush and his cronies to enjoy just as many -- more -- sleepless nights and worried projections about their futures as I have experienced over the last six-plus years. But I want them all impeached because the Constitution says it should be so -- not because of personal revenge motives.

Congress serves at the pleasure of the People. We just got through showing this country who is in charge. Let us not forget it. Let us relentlessly pressure our servants in Congress to hold this administration to account for every minute instance of criminal activity which has led to suffering and death for our own people, and people all across the world.

[understandinglife]

190. "We just got through showing this country who is in charge. Let us not forget it."

Good evening my friend,

What a wonderful thing you have done. And, to have posted this in our beloved H20's thread is very, very special to me.

We the People ... have much to do, but we will prevail.

Thank you.

Peace,
Bob

[puebloknot]

123. Great article!

Thank you for helping me organize my own thoughts on the matter of impeachment. Your article has helped me to believe more strongly in my intuitive feeling that we must not allow ourselves to be labeled as "revenge seekers" in our heartfelt intention to see justice done in our beloved country.

I've posted my thoughts on this subject in another thread, in which I've stated that before healing can take place in this country (Dean and Pelosi are both making use of that meme), the wound must be cleaned.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2654265&mesg_id=2654912

[slipslidingaway]

127. Excellent and thank you. If we continue building on a base of

lies we will be forever haunted by these skeletons in the closet.

From your post "A decade after Watergate, the Reagan-Bush administration would engage in a series of criminal activities known as the Iran-Contra scandal. There came a point when the Congress uncovered evidence that President Reagan had likely committed crimes, and they debated if they should begin impeachment hearings. The democrats were convinced by republicans that the process would be damaging to our nation. It seems fair to say that this decision likely was the wrong one, considering that the full extent of the criminal activities was never made public, and the criminals were able to escape justice. Indeed, several would go on to serve in the Bush1 and Bush2 admministrations."


snip>>

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/011906.html

If there is a birth date for today’s American Imperium, it would be Jan. 20, 1981, exactly a quarter century ago, when Ronald Reagan was sworn in as President and Iran released 52 American hostages under circumstances that remain a mystery to this day.


New article

The Secret World of Robert Gates
By Robert Parry
November 9, 2006

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/110906.html

[H2O Man]

128. Thank you.

I strongly recommend that all those interested in the truth about the Iran-Contra scandals read Robert Parry's works. They are #1 in my opinion.

The two I consider to be the most important are: {1} Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq; and {2} Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & Project Truth.

[slipslidingaway]

133. You're welcome, maybe those books should be on my wish

list for the holidays :)

And thanks for the many prior posts of knowledge that I have bookmarked.

[BelgianMadCow]

130. Excellent. Not overly dramatic. Perspective & a call to let our voice be heard

I seond that as much as I second not screaming impeach now at this very moment, and putting some trust in the people just elected, like Conyers.

[H2O Man]

131. Thank you.

It's a worthy topic for discussion, and even civil debate.

[BelgianMadCow]

132. I am a big fan of civil debate. And the Iran/Contra perspective

and the way the same bunch of people came back to bite us in the collective ass is proof positive that a dem win now, or even one in 2008, is not going to cut it.

One can argue about tactics and timing and such. But cleaning house has to happen.

I found your post very timely.

[bahrbearian]

137. Send the whole lot of them to the Hauge

[Zhade]

138. Can't recommend this highly enough.

I stand with those like you, and our founding fathers' wisdom, and all those who refuse to excuse criminal behavior.

Well-said, Waterman. Well-said.

[H2O Man]

139. Thank you.

I do appreciate that.

[Zhade]

150. What confuses me is, why do some think letting criminals literally get away with murder...

...means those same criminals will not continue to commit crimes?

It's baffling.

And slightly infuriating.

[H2O Man]

153. Yes, I agree.

While I have no problem in believing that our friends on DU are sincere in their beliefs, I know that they are absolutely wrong. Taking the position that investigations of the criminal activities associated with this administration would pose a danger to the democratic party or the nation indicates they are not able to process the information about the actual threat correctly. It is the administration that lied us into the war in Iraq. It is the administration that is trampling the Constitution. This administration takes advantage of people's ignorance, and capitalizes on their fear .... and has them convinced that holding onto the Constitution is "dangerous."

I'm reminded of Malcolm X saying if you listen to the corporate media, you'll end up carrying an umbrella on a sunny day, and getting soaked when it rains.

[emald]

140. impeach and imprison now!!!

Bushit is responsible for lies that lead to invading a country that wasn't a threat. He LIED. LIED, goddamit. He lied and it has cost at least half a million lives that did not have to die. This miserable little goat of a man should be in prison and now. I know that dems will probably kowtow and give up. But in reality the goddamned little piece of shit running the show from the oval office should be in prison.

[texpatriot2004]

145. H20, in the history of the US has a veep ever been impeached?

I don't know. I should do some research. Do you know?

[H2O Man]

146. Not that I am aware of.

But there's always a "first"!!!!

[texpatriot2004]

147. YES! Let's make some history then shall we? I didn't think that

this had ever been done. Thanks for your speedy reply. He deserves nothing less eh.

[Me.]

148. Enquiring Mind Wanted To Know

“1. Q: How long would it take to eject a vice president from office by impeachment?

A: Theoretically it could be done in a day. In the morning a member of the House of Representatives could propose one or more Articles of Impeachment and then a vote could be called. A simple majority (50% plus one vote) is all that is needed to impeach. In the afternoon the Senate could try the case. A two-thirds vote is needed in the Senate to convict.

2. Q: Why is it so simple?

A: Because ejecting a person from high office is political, not judicial. The only punishment to be meted out is removal from office.

3. Q: What is an impeachable offense?

A: An impeachable offense can be as nebulous as “He practices cronyism.” We can call this a misdemeanor. According to the Constitution, Article II, Section 4, “The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” President Gerald Ford was correct when he said in 1970 that, “An impeachable offense is whatever the majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at any given moment in its history.”

4. Q: Is there any good argument against impeaching a vice president based on the notion that the person of greater authority – the president - should take responsibility for whatever happens in his administration?

A: No, none whatsoever.” Cont. through all 20 questions

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=MAX20051105&articleId=1185


*shadow government*

[H2O Man]

149. I'm confident that

progressive DUers could make a serious list that could be used as a resource for any Congressional aide interested in options for investigating the OVP.

[Me.]

151. More From The Same Site

11. Q: Regarding the current vice president, Richard Cheney, are we precluded from impeaching during the time that his former assistant, Mr. Lewis Libby, is facing prosecution for alleged crimes?

A: No. There is no reason to hold back - the Libby case may take years. However, persons wishing to take care not to prejudice Mr. Libby’s trial may wisely urge that any impeachable offense brought forward against the vice president be of a type pertaining specifically to him.

12. Q: Could the president offer a pardon to thwart the process of impeachment?

A: No. The Constitution puts only one restriction on the president’s power to pardon, namely it cannot be used in cases of impeachment.

13. Q: Does this mean that if by any chance Mr. Cheney has committed a crime he can never enjoy a pardon?

A: No, it does not mean that. President Bush, or a later president, could pardon Mr. Cheney. The president is prevented only from interfering in the process of impeachment.

14. Q: Could Mr. Cheney seek a presidential pardon right now?

A: Yes. Indeed, for all we know, the current president may be holding a batch of signed (and witnessed) pardons in his desk at this very moment.


*shadow government*

[H2O Man]

I agree

with all but #14: while Cheney could seek a pardon today, I believe that Bush and Rove will be willing to sacrifice him to save the presidency.

[LibertyorDeath]

154. Lets put some checks and balance on this Bastard.

[file83]

155. Am I missing something - did Bush do something wrong?

:rofl:!!!just kidding!!!:rofl:

I know Bush is guilty as hell. Excellent piece H20 MAN!!!

[alf4707]

159. YES

That was a great piece. Very well thought out.

[file83]

186. Welcome to the DU my friend!

:hi: I hope you enjoy it here!

[bud E. holly]

166. K & R

Excellent thread.
Impeachment for revenge is no better or worse than not pursuing justice at all.
We can't repeat the mistake of not pursuing justice to spare the country some pain (Iran/Contra) or pursuing it for political revenge (Clinton). At the minimum, Congress must investigate any possible criminal activity and let the process take it's course to a just conclusion, whatever that may be.

[NancyG]

167. Let's start with investigations

...lots of them. And not in the basement this time. Lights and microphone on as long as the investigations take.

[Tatiana]

168. Can we agree to at least *explore* the option of possibly impeaching Cheney?

<snip>

Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, who would chair the Senate Foreign Relations Committee if Democrats control the Senate, urged a "radical change in course" in Iraq.

"More troops or less troops won't solve the problem. We need a political solution in Iraq that will allow our forces to leave responsibly, with our interests intact and without trading dictator for chaos," he said in a statement.

Democrats, long stonewalled by Bush and now possessing the power to subpoena witnesses, will quickly launch aggressive public hearings on U.S. foreign policy, including "waste, fraud and abuse" in Iraq reconstruction contracts and failures that have led to a Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan, said Rep. Tom Lantos, who is expected to chair the House International Relations Committee.

http://elections.us.reuters.com/top/news/usnN08173511.html

<snip>

Sen. Joseph Biden, the top Democrat on the Senate foreign relations panel, told reporters Wednesday that if he gained control of the committee, he would hold Iraq hearings featuring "a consensus group of the brightest people — left, right and center — and actually have a serious, full-blown week or more of hearings on what alternatives are to present policy."

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/11/09/america/NA_GEN_US_Election_Foreign_Affairs.php

Biden knows that if we even scratch the surface of Iraq policy, we are going to hit paydirt. Don't be fooled by the statesmanspeak. Though he runs hot and cold, when he's hot, he's like a dog with a bone. He's been itching to hold hearings on Iraq for a long while. This, in my opinion, his THE PERFECT opportunity to get the ball running. Weeklong hearings on Iraq (which we know, because of the rampant corruption, would be extended).

Hearings are an important part of what begins the public's education on the issue and starts the process of drumming up that groundswell of public outrage. Make no mistake; the only reason we don't hear calls for impeachment shouted en masse from rooftops is because the average Joe/Jane is not aware of how ugly this thing is. All they know is that people are dying. When they find out why (and the majority party has to make that connection for them through publicly televised hearings), the support will be there for impeachment.

[bleever]

170. I'm not ready to make nice,

(if it means ignoring the legal responsibility to hold hearings and conduct investigations required by the Constitution to ensure the integrity of our governance);

I'm not ready to back down, (if it's a reaction to the perception management that serving the American people and making progress on matters of national welfare is mutually exclusive with holding our Constitutional officers accountable for fulfilling their oaths of office);

Cuz I'm mad as hell, and I don't have time to go round and round and round, (in a false choice between doing the jobs of making the truth known versus pursuing a positive legislative agenda.)


We can discipline and nurture our children at the same time. This is certainly true of our government as well.


Thank you for this well-considered post, H2O Man, and the thoughtful responses it elicited.

[slipslidingaway]

173. Old article 'The "trial of the decade" that never was'

The White House cover-up that no one wants you to understand.

By Robert Parry

July/August 1993 Issue

http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/1993/07/parry.html

[Time for change]

174. Absolutely

A decision not to proceed with impeachment or with investigations leading to impeachment would be the equivalent of saying that our pResident if above the law and has no responsibility to obey it. I fear that such a decision could mean the end of our democracy.

[Jcrowley]

175. Superb

Thank you my friend. As usual, clarity.

K&R

[lonestarnot]

177. Ah yes.... those are the reasons, thanks for the reminders.

[5X]

179. Brilliant. K & R.

Pleasure to read such a well researched and articulated
post.

[upi402]

189. leave Bush, as a reminder. GET CHENEY! n/t

Bush will remind America why they must not swallow Republican crap in 2008.

[marions ghost]

192. It is our duty

to hold these 'leaders' accountable as far as possible, including impeachment. Congress can carry out investigations and at the same time do other business. The next 2 years are going to be tumultuous anyway. OK allow a short grace period, but then let's help them get this back ON the table asap. In the end it will undermine the Dems if they do nothing on investigations/impeachment IMO.

Excellent article, H2O man.

[Cleita]

195. I guess impeachment is only an option for Republicans

to go after Democratic Presidents for nonsense. God forbid we should go after a Republican President for treason.

[dweller]

196. thank you, in fact THANK YOU, waterman for including

the wise words of Whitman in your post, for these are the ones i will keep to heart on this matter. Whether others took the time to read them, and recognize how important they are in this matter, let me repeat them here:
"as Walt Whitman warned, "There is no week nor day nor hour when tyranny may not enter upon this country, if the people lose their supreme confidence in themselves – and lose their roughness and spirit of defiance – Tyranny may always enter – there is no charm, no bar against it – the only bar against it is a large resolute breed of men."
("Notes for Lectures on Democracy")

if we are to be the large resolute breed,(and i believe the members here, and Democrats at large are) remains entirely up to us.

dp

[sss1977]

198. My first post here and my thoughts on impeachment

I've been an avid reader on this site for months now, and it's time I finally graduate to responding I figure thanks to this wonderfully written post by H2O. Thank you for it by the way.

As more than a few have mentioned, I think it's important to emphasize this isn't about revenge. This is about justice and the rule of law. Read that over and over until it sticks. Bush swore to uphold the Constitution. Read it for yourself:

"I, George Walker Bush, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Now go ahead and Google the words "Bush Constitution" and you'll immediately learn the following if you haven't already read it somewhere else.

“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”
“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”
“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

The Constitution is just an obstacle for the Bush administration to find their way around. It always has been. Now this doesn't necessarily mean he's guilty of anything, but it certainly puts everything in context doesn't it? It's imperative we return our vital system of checks and balances to remind those elected that they serve us, not the other way around. This isn't about political maneuvering, this isn't about holding something in your pocket or over someone's head to get what you want, this isn't about the fear of losing what we've just gained in 2008. This is about preserving the Constitution and all it stands for. This is about reaffirming the framework of government to function within the boundaries the people have provided it.

It is vital and of great urgency, to begin investigations now that we can, and we can do this while we go about trying to reverse the messes created since the 2000 election, or at least stop them from getting worse. We don't have to choose one or the other. And if those investigations bring to light evidence that begs for impeachment, it must be done. The Constitution is not just a god-damned piece of paper, it is the framework of this country. When it is defied, by those we elect to preserve, protect, and defend it, they must be removed to make way for someone that can perform those duties.

People need to stop caring so much about what will happen or won't happen if they do or don't do something. This country has grown too much towards focus groups and poll numbers. We need to start holding our politicians to task, and part of that is ensuring impeachment as a vital tool of our democracy, and not as the perversion it was twisted into by the Republicans in the late 90s. It's high time we sharpen those tools lest we lose their intended functions.

[puebloknot]

200. ...focus groups and poll numbers.

Hello, and let me welcome you. I'm night-owling it tonight, and I don't know if there's anyone else to respond to you at this hour.

I've also been reading and lurking for several months now. The election has inspired me to get back into the fray, and participate in DU's "democracy in microcosm" group here (my description).

I agree that just as some children think milk comes from a carton, some adults think political reality can be found in polls and sound bytes. I've enjoyed your post, and hope to "hear" more of what you have to say.

Judy Barrett

[goodboy]

204. Nice post. Welcome to DU. (nt)

[Tatiana]

235. Welcome to DU!

:hi: Fabulous post! And I agree, we need to stop caring so much about what others will think and just do what's right.

[focusfan]

208. I heard something about instead of Impeachment

that they were going to humilate Bush by making him a lame
Duck.

[tommcintyre]

209. National Groups Announce Movement for Impeachment

This group will help to mobilize the masses.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2671967

[Cooley Hurd]

210. Ultimately, they will have NO chioce BUT to impeach Bush & Cheney...

There is little doubt that laws have been broken.

K&R - thanks for the constitutional primer, H20man!:thumbsup:

[H2O Man]

211. I think it is both

amazing and amusing that those who are pro-investigations which can lead to impeachment,and who are being called dangerous, extremists, and unrealistic by our good friends on DU, are those who have the greater understanding of and appreciation for the Constitution of the United States.

[Cooley Hurd]

213. It's the rule of law. To fail to investigate the executive branch...

...would be, in itself, a breach of their constitutional oath.

There is soooo much work to do, but I think the incoming congress can multitask. ;)

[TacticalPeek]

215. Bush and Cheney might be innocent.

It would be premature for them to fear that the Democratic Congress is coming to impeach them.

Thorough investigations are needed to determine if crimes were committed, oaths violated, and so forth. If they have done no wrong, then they have nothing to fear from such investigations. Privately, they might even be clamoring for them as a way to clear their names and restore their reputations, which have become somewhat tarnished.

Innocent men have nothing to fear from inquiry.





:evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin:

[In Truth We Trust]

216. Paging Speaker Pelosi: Rule of Law on line one. Impeach NOW!!!

[katinmn]

218. Send a message to the new Congress on Jan 15

http://impeachforpeace.org/ImpeachNow.html

[H2O Man]

219. Thank you. n/t

[robbedvoter]

220. TRUTH MUST OUT! for the sake of the present and the future!

On that, we all agree (including democrats in congress). Accountabliity is the word.
And it'll be probably up to us to make our voices heard when crimes are uncovered - that this will not be swept under the table. And I want * & Dick to testify under oath for a change. On stuff.

[cyclezealot]

223. Love the idea.

But first, we must carefully use supboena power to reveal the truth about Iraq war lies and then let the chips fall where they may, with the uninformed American people. A rush to judgement might backfire. But, we must all demand investigations. Maybe the ones to lobby besides Pelosi are Murtha , Kucinich, Waxman, Hoyer. Investigate Halliburton courrpution, Iraq lies , and illegal government snooping, and who authorized the torturing.

[elehhhhna]

224. K&R 96

[nam78_two]

225. K&R/nt

[Herman74]

228. We Impeach not Primarily for Our Generation...

...but for generations yet to come. Impeachment sets a good example, showing that deceit, lawlessness and the devaluation of human life, all done for the sake of assuaging right-wing paranoia, were not tolerated in the early 21st Century, and should never be tolerated.

[H2O Man]

229. That's true. n/t

[Me.]

242. !

*shadow government*

[BelgianMadCow]

230. Someone put his thread out of it's misery and give 100th rec :-)

[TahitiNut]

238. "The Impeachment Process in a Nutshell"

What is Impeachment?

Technically, impeachment is the Senate's quasi-criminal proceeding instituted to remove a public officer, not the actual act of removal. Most references to impeachment, however, encompass the entire process, beginning with the House's impeachment inquiry. The term will be used in that broader sense here. By design, impeachment is a complex series of steps and procedures undertaken by the legislature. The process roughly resembles a grand jury inquest, conducted by the House, followed by a full-blown trial, conducted by the Senate with the Chief Justice presiding. Impeachment is not directed exclusively at Presidents. The Constitutional language, "all civil officers," includes such positions as Federal judgeships. The legislature, however, provides a slightly more streamlined process for lower offices by delegating much of it to committees. See Nixon v. US, 506 U.S. 224 (1993)(involving removal of a Federal judge). Presidential impeachments involve the full, public participation of both branches of Congress.

The Impeachment Process in a Nutshell

1. The House Judiciary Committee deliberates over whether to initiate an impeachment inquiry.
   
   
2. The Judiciary Committee adopts a resolution seeking authority from the entire House of Representatives to conduct an inquiry. Before voting, the House debates and considers the resolution. Approval requires a majority vote.
   
   
3. The Judiciary Committee conducts an impeachment inquiry, possibly through public hearings. At the conclusion of the inquiry, articles of impeachment are prepared. They must be approved by a majority of the Committee.
   
   
4. The House of Representatives considers and debates the articles of impeachment. A majority vote of the entire House is required to pass each article. Once an article is approved, the President is, technically speaking, "impeached" -- that is subject to trial in the Senate.
   
   
5. The Senate holds trial on the articles of impeachment approved by the House. The Senate sits as a jury while the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the trial.
   
   
6. At the conclusion of the trial, the Senate votes on whether to remove the President from office. A two-thirds vote by the Members present in the Senate is required for removal.
   
   
7. If the President is removed, the Vice-President assumes the Presidency under the chain of succession established by Amendment XXV.
   

http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/impeach/impeach.htm

The general DU ignorance of impeachment is abominable.

[H2O Man]

239. Thank you

for the information from Cornell.

I think that the level of misunderstanding about impeachment results from a purposeful disinformation campaign that has taken place since 1980. There are agents of disinformation that pose as our friends in the corporate media, and have been able to confuse some of the public. I'm actually very encouraged by the discussion on DU in the past 72 hours. I think that most progressives have a healthy sense of what is right and wrong, and even those who have been fooled into believing that the Constitutional process is "dangerous" might begin to have their minds opened by being exposed to the truth.

[spanone]

246. Kick

& R