|
Post by SeattleDan on Jun 24, 2007 2:04:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Jun 24, 2007 18:04:04 GMT -5
I didn't find the Durbin piece, though all sorts of good stuff comes up with this link.
The Wash. Post is doing a series on Cheney that is well worth reading. I think someone already said this, but Article II of the Constitution, governing the Executive Branch, clearly includes the VP as part of that branch. Yes, one of his duties, presiding over the Senate, is described under Article I. So is the Chief Justice's role in presiding over an impeachment of the President. I wonder if Cheney then thinks the Judicial Branch is also part of Congress.
I think he gets away with this effrontery because people are just too drained after 6+ years of BS to fight back. It's been one fight after another, one continuous battle over whether we have a monarchy or a republic. Cheney won't be impeached because no one has the kind of fire in the belly that motivated all those Puritan Republicans to impeach Clinton. The left just can't drum up that kind of Grand Inquisitor mentality.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Jun 26, 2007 11:58:47 GMT -5
Of course the VP is part of the Executive Branch.
Cheney won't be impeached because most Senators and Representatives have enough residual sense to avoid making impeachment a political tool. We learned that lesson, supposedly, with Andrew Johnson.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Jun 26, 2007 19:34:58 GMT -5
"most Senators and Representatives have enough residual sense to avoid making impeachment a political tool."
Oh? Where were they in 1999?
I don't think we have to go all the way back to Johnson to look for impeachment as a political tool. And, where Cheney is concerned, why should anyone balk at employing any tool available?
|
|
|
Post by joew on Jun 26, 2007 20:16:26 GMT -5
"most Senators and Representatives have enough residual sense to avoid making impeachment a political tool." Oh? Where were they in 1999? … Yes. Well. All the more so, then, for those who opposed the '99 impeachment; but I'm not in the best position to bring it up.
|
|
|
Post by booklady on Jun 27, 2007 15:50:16 GMT -5
From Sunday's Globe:
The 'I' word Why a growing grassroots movement on the left wants to impeach the president -- and why Democrats in Washington don't even want to talk about it. By Drake Bennett | June 24, 2007
FOR ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN it was the discovery, in late 2005, that the Bush administration had been monitoring Americans' phone and email conversations without warrants that convinced her that the President shouldn't be allowed to serve out the remainder of his term.
As a young congresswoman from New York, Holtzman, who now practices law in New York City, had served on the House Judiciary Committee that in 1974 adopted articles of impeachment against President Nixon. Among the charges, she points out, was that Nixon had overseen an illegal electronic surveillance program.
"Having participated in that," she says, "you don't forget it."
Today Holtzman is one of the leading voices in a small but energetic movement seeking to impeach not only President Bush but his vice president, Dick Cheney. In March, the Massachusetts Democratic Party joined 13 others, in states like California, Nevada, and New Hampshire, in passing a resolution in support of impeachment. The legislatures of nearly 80 towns and cities (most in Massachusetts, Vermont, and California) have passed similar resolutions, and state legislators in 11 states have introduced impeachment bills.
But given how controversial and deeply unpopular the administration has become, it is surprising how little mainstream political traction the movement has gained. Polls show the public does not think impeachment should be a priority. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly declared impeachment to be "off the table," and even Congress's most liberal members oppose the idea. It is a sign, say many, that the nation's most vivid memories of impeachment are of the deeply divisive Clinton proceedings, not the Nixon drama that eventually allowed the country to heal.
"Somehow along the way in this country we have become really afraid of impeaching," says Darcy Sweeney, a Massachusetts coordinator for Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) and one of the activists who brought the impeachment resolution before the Massachusetts Democratic Party.
The only impeachment resolution currently before Congress, introduced by Ohio Congressman and presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich this spring, is directed solely at Cheney, and when asked, Kucinich refuses to say whether he'd support impeaching Bush. "I'm pretty much staying focused on the effort to impeach the Vice President," he says.
At a panel at last week's Take Back America conference, an annual gathering of progressive activists and politicians, three of the Senate's most liberal members -- Sherrod Brown, Bernie Sanders, and Amy Klobuchar -- flatly declared themselves against impeachment. Even Rep. John Conyers, a fierce Bush critic who in 2005 filed a bill calling for possible impeachment proceedings, has backed away from the idea -- despite the fact that his wife sponsored the Detroit city council's own unanimously approved impeachment resolution.
Most Democratic politicians and strategists see impeachment as a loser. Right now, President Bush is one of the least popular presidents in American history, and Democratic leaders don't see any point in turning him into a political martyr. Just as important, they argue, the time-consuming, rancorous debates that the process would occasion would elbow any other business off the legislative agenda, leaving the Democratic Party little to show for its return to power on Capitol Hill.
To impeachment's champions, however, these tactical arguments are worth little. What's at stake, they argue, is the Constitution itself. "I'd like to see [Bush and Cheney] tried and convicted and put behind bars," says Washington's David Swanson, co-founder of After Downing Street, an organization dedicated to doing just that. "That would be a satisfactory outcome. Not because I dislike them or think they're unpleasant people, but I don't want future presidents to think they can do these things."
The case against Bush does echo certain elements of the case against Nixon. As articulated by organizations like PDA and After Downing Street -- and as laid out in a spate of recent books by lawyers like Holtzman; John Bonifaz, a former Massachusetts Secretary of State candidate and After Downing Street co-founder; and Barbara Olshansky, who represents several Guantanamo detainees -- Bush stands accused of overseeing illegal surveillance and of lying to Congress and withholding information.
In 1973, the House Judiciary Committee approved articles of impeachment charging Nixon with similar crimes -- obstructing justice and spying on and harassing political opponents -- for personal political gain. Nixon resigned rather than face impeachment.
"We felt that the Constitutional system had worked," Holtzman recalls.
But the brief the would-be impeachers bring against Bush and Cheney is more sweeping than the 1973 case against Nixon. A list of impeachable offenses listed on After Downing Street's website includes the President's "allowing his administration to condone torture," threatening the use of force against Iran, his use of presidential signing statements to revise laws passed by Congress, the dropping of cluster bombs in Iraq, and Bush's failure to take reasonable steps to protect New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina.
Most mainstream legal scholars, including many who have been deeply critical of the Bush administration, would disagree that most of these alleged offenses fit the "high crimes and misdemeanors" requirement set out in the Constitution for impeachment. But on wiretapping in particular, some allow that there is an argument to be made.
"It's an allegation of serious criminal misconduct arising out of the exercise of the power of the presidency," says Mark Tushnet, a professor at Harvard Law School. "If it turns out that the President was authorizing illegal activity, it's comparable to Nixon."
For Democratic strategists, though, legal arguments are beside the point. Their case against pursuing impeachment is straightforwardly political. While every poll shows deep dissatisfaction with Bush and some show a conditional support for impeachment, even registered Democrats don't tend to list impeachment among their top priorities.
Pursuing impeachment today, Democratic leaders argue, would galvanize a Republican Party that's currently quite discouraged with Bush.
"In an ironic way it does George Bush a favor," says Rep. Barney Frank, Democrat from Newton. "He is losing the national debate on most issues, he is losing support among Republicans, and impeachment would almost certainly allow him to rally lots of Republicans."
It would also, they argue, put an end to any hope of passing significant legislation in the remaining year and a half of the current Congress. Congressional politics, says Ruy Teixeira, a political analyst at the liberal Center for American Progress, "is a zero-sum game: the resources and energy you put into trying to impeach Bush don't go into other things."
That legislative sclerosis, Frank argues, would only be worsened by the inevitable sharpening of partisan lines that impeachment would create. "The single most important thing for Congress to do is to get us out of Iraq," says Frank. "And especially in the Senate, that can't be done without Republican votes."
For impeachment proponents like Carpenter and Swanson -- who are optimistic that their cause will find broad support in the coming months -- gridlock would be a small price to pay to restore the Constitution's balance of powers. But they also dispute the zero-sum argument. Again, they look to Nixon.
"The overwhelming pressure of impeachment forced Nixon to back off, to not veto bills," says Swanson. "It put Nixon on the defensive."
According to Swanson, the impending threat of impeachment allowed the Democratic-controlled Congress to create the Endangered Species Act, to raise the minimum wage, and cut off funding for the Vietnam War.
"There's a grain of truth to that," concedes Stanley Kutler, a retired professor of law and history at the University of Wisconsin and the author of "The Wars of Watergate." Nixon was weakened, Kutler says, by the prospect of impeachment. But what truly cost Nixon, Kutler points out, was not Democratic support for impeachment, overwhelming though it was, but Republican support for it. "I can flat-out tell you there's not going to be any impeachment until and unless you have Republican votes," Kutler says.
And the difficulties that the impeachment movement is having convincing Democrats to sign on suggests that it's going to have even less luck with Republicans.
Ultimately, the decision is a political one. Even in Nixon's case, Kutler points out, some Republicans stood by the president until the bitter end. Among them was a first-term Mississippi congressman on the judiciary committee named Trent Lott, who declared himself opposed to impeaching presidents. A quarter-century later, as Senate majority leader, he helped lead the drive to impeach Clinton.
Drake Bennett is the staff writer for Ideas. E-mail drbennett@globe.com.
© Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company.
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Taz on Jun 27, 2007 22:18:47 GMT -5
From Sunday's Globe: The 'I' word Ultimately, the decision is a political one. Even in Nixon's case, Kutler points out, some Republicans stood by the president until the bitter end. Among them was a first-term Mississippi congressman on the judiciary committee named Trent Lott, who declared himself opposed to impeaching presidents. A quarter-century later, as Senate majority leader, he helped lead the drive to impeach Clinton. I think Bush & Cheney and their Grey Imminence Karl Rove are all guilty of treason, genocide, and murder, among other things: You lie to get us into war you lose really big time. Definitely should be jailed and the balance of power restored and, most importantly, every single one of his judiciary appointments reviewed with an eye to reversing them. This so that no one can figure that seizing control of the US for the next 40 years is worth the personal sacrifice involved. I also believe that we need to review certain Reconstruction measures, such as the "two senators to a state" construct, so that a key 6.5% of the nation's electorate can no longer control the nation. And, finally, as long as I'm queene of the universe, mandate the study of civics for every year that an individual is enrolled in a certified school. I know you've been dying to know, so I hasten to let y'all know what I think.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Jun 27, 2007 23:43:33 GMT -5
I'd like to see Bush, Cheney and their neo-con cohorts like Rumsfeld all made to account for what they've done to this country and to the rule of law. They've manipulated the Constitution, violated the Geneva conventions, overthrown bedrock principles like habeas corpus - they need to pay. But do we want to endure another impeachment? I'm as unsure as all the Dems referred to in the Globe.
Still, we're getting very little legislation passed anyway, so why not blow 6 -12 months on impeachment? At least that might preoccupy the White House Gang and keep them from causing any more trouble - like starting a war with Iran. And unless we get them for abuses of power in their current roles, they get off scot-free. I doubt anyone could bring criminal charges against them after they leave office.
Of course, parents and spouses of dead soldiers could file suit in civil court. George is hellbent on leaving a legacy; that would be perfect.
|
|
|
Post by edsfam on Aug 6, 2007 12:12:44 GMT -5
What a difference a day makes!?!?!
When the Dems were looking to make points with their followers, the scornful term used was "warrant-less wiretaps" a were grounds for impeachment if not immediate execution.
After the vote and passage of basically the same program in the House, it is now "terrorist surveillance" and is a necessary action in defending our citizens and nation.
The amount of ink wasted and media time filled with this agenda driven drivel is incalculable. It would be laughable if it just wasn't so damn sad that it happened the way it did.
_E_
|
|
|
Post by ptcaffey on Aug 7, 2007 0:10:18 GMT -5
"Warrantless wiretaps" is not a scornful term; it simply describes the powers now extended to Bush years after he illegally assumed them for himself. Bush's "win" can be chalked up to yet more effective fear-mongering. It's not hard to stampede a few people in Congress as the anniversary of 9/11 nears and vague talk of terrorist "chatter" fills the airwaves.
The law expires in 6 months.
Bush's incompetent crew packs up in about 532 days.
The light at the end of the tunnel begins to shine.
|
|
|
Post by edsfam on Aug 7, 2007 6:43:26 GMT -5
"Warrantless wiretaps" is not a scornful term; it simply describes the powers now extended to Bush years after he illegally assumed them for himself. A. It is scornful, derisive term used for propaganda purposes. B. Read FISA. No laws were broken. The directive was legal. C. Read the Constitution. No laws were broken. The directive was legal. D. Happy Birthday Garrison E. You need more stuff in your life if a change of Presidents is considered "a light" worth noticing. Get a hobby! _E_
|
|
|
Post by ptcaffey on Aug 7, 2007 16:30:05 GMT -5
//A. It ["warrantless wiretaps'] is scornful, derisive term used for propaganda purposes.//
Here's a recent headline taken from the Fox News website (Aug 5, 2007):
"REPORT: FBI SEARCHES HOME OF ATTORNEY IN WARRANTLESS WIRETAP PROGRAM CASE"
Accordingly, by your lights, Fox News is now part of the left-wing propaganda machine. This logic is patently insane.
//B. Read FISA. No laws were broken. The directive was legal.//
It's not my reading (or yours) that counts. The FISA Court itself declared a key element of the program illegal. You read it yourself. The source, again, is Fox News:
//JUDGE'S SECRET RULING CURBED SPY PROGRAM Rep. John Boehner disclosed elements of a secret ruling in a FOX TV interview.
WASHINGTON — A federal intelligence-court judge earlier this year secretly declared a key element of the Bush administration's wiretapping efforts illegal, according to a lawmaker and government sources, providing a previously unstated rationale for fevered efforts by lawmakers this week to expand the president's spying powers.
House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, disclosed elements of the judge's decision Tuesday to Fox News as he was promoting the administration-backed wiretapping legislation.
Boehner has denied revealing classified information, but two government officials privy to the details confirmed that his remarks concerned classified information.
The judge, whose name could not be learned, concluded early this year that the government had overstepped its authority in attempting to broadly monitor communications between two locations overseas that are passed through routing stations in the United States, said two other government sources familiar with the decision.
The decision was a blow to the administration, which had long held that all the National Security Agency's (NSA) enhanced surveillance efforts since 2001 were legal...
//C. Read the Constitution. No laws were broken. The directive was legal.//
I've read the Constitution. Here's the Fourth Amendment--not simply broken, but shattered:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
//D. Happy Birthday Garrison//
He's older. A birthday will only make him more morose.
//E. You need more stuff in your life if a change of Presidents is considered "a light" worth noticing. Get a hobby!//
A change in presidents will, I hope, mean a change in Iraq policy. I consider fewer Americans dying in Iraq a "light" worth noticing.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Aug 7, 2007 17:28:00 GMT -5
Thank you for the facts, PT. I find the whole issue rather confusing, but your citations make the dispute and the issues surrounding it, more comprehensible to me.
A news report a few days ago noted that for the first time in years, the number of US citizens emigrating to Canada exceeds the number of Canadians immigrating to the US, and the absolute numbers are the greatest in over 30 years, at the height of the Viet Nam War controversy.
I can't imagine leaving my home country because of a political disagreement; maybe I am hopelessly naive in maintaining a believe in our democratic system. But I guess many people are indeed voting with their feet. As a card-carrying Republican, I too look forward to January 2009, as I am sure the next president will be an improvement over the current administration, which has been a deep disappointment.
And I admit that when my son (starting university in British Columbia this fall) told me he will be eligible for employment in his field in Canada once he graduates, and could become a Canadian citizen, I thought that was a real bonus for the payment of "non-Canadian" tuition for four years.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Aug 7, 2007 19:57:46 GMT -5
This could be a win-win! Canada gets an influx of citizens, and we get rid of a lot of Democrats!
|
|
|
Post by ptcaffey on Aug 7, 2007 20:05:25 GMT -5
This could be a win-win! Canada gets an influx of citizens, and we get rid of a lot of Democrats! This sounds reasonable. We can begin with those Democrats who voted in favor of warrantless wiretaps. Oops--I mean, scornless electronic surveillance performed without warrant but with solid pro-American intentions. ;0)
|
|
|
Post by joew on Aug 7, 2007 20:10:47 GMT -5
I don't think that the crypto-fascists who entered Congress on the Democratic ticket are the ones most likely to want to take up residence in our Neighbor to the North.
|
|
|
Post by edsfam on Aug 7, 2007 22:21:13 GMT -5
from PTC, whom I consider a friend,
Accordingly, by your lights, Fox News is now part of the left-wing propaganda machine. This logic is patently insane.
Using shorthand names (warrant-less wiretaps) does not indicate propaganda, using different names for the same thing when it suits the mood and agenda does. IMHO.
//B. Read FISA. No laws were broken. The directive was legal.//
WASHINGTON — A federal intelligence-court judge earlier this year secretly declared a key element of the Bush administration's wiretapping efforts illegal, according to a lawmaker and government sources, providing a previously unstated rationale for fevered efforts by lawmakers this week to expand the president's spying powers.
--Well theres your problem ... when using the term "warrant-less wiretap" no distinction is made as to "all or part". The MSM and others always make it sound like the ENTIRE program and therefore the concept of terrorist surveillance illegal. Not so, parts maybe in certain instances, but not in it's entirety ... and thanks for backing me up with your citation.
//C. Read the Constitution. No laws were broken. The directive was legal.//
I've read the Constitution. Here's the Fourth Amendment--not simply broken, but shattered:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Note the word "unreasonable". I wonder who decides "unreasonableness"? Pretty sticky mess there in that one word.
//D. Happy Birthday Garrison//
He's older. A birthday will only make him more morose.
Maybe his kids will keep him young a heart. Nahhhh. not likely
//E. You need more stuff in your life if a change of Presidents is considered "a light" worth noticing. Get a hobby!//
A change in presidents will, I hope, mean a change in Iraq policy. I consider fewer Americans dying in Iraq a "light" worth noticing.
Maybe you do have a hobby after all ... worrying about really big, complicated problems in a narrow, simple sort of way.
_E_
|
|
|
Post by joew on Aug 7, 2007 23:11:25 GMT -5
Another thing, if it were unconstitutional, an act of Congress would not suffice to legalize it, as the Democratic-controlled Congress seems to think it will.
|
|
|
Post by ptcaffey on Aug 8, 2007 0:47:39 GMT -5
//E: Maybe you do have a hobby after all ... worrying about really big, complicated problems in a narrow, simple sort of way.//
Well, look here. I believe a gift of the Almighty to all is freedom. And I will tell you that is a principle that no one can convince me doesn't exist. If that sounds narrow and simple to you, then I guess you have my number. ;-)
//Joe: Another thing, if it were unconstitutional, an act of Congress would not suffice to legalize it, as the Democratic-controlled Congress seems to think it will.//
So how then does one launch and maintain an unconstitutional surveillance program? First, you don't tell anyone you have one. This forecloses oversight and nips, bud-wise, any check or balance. Should word of the program leak out, you then call for legislation that removes court supervision from the mix. In fact, you do everything to avoid court review at all costs. Because the program remains classified, no innocent victim of its operations will ever know of his or her victimhood; thus no lawsuit from him. And no non-victim will have legal standing to pursue judicial redress. It's foolproof!
Don't count on Congress. Only the voters can save our republic from such despotism.
|
|
|
Post by edsfam on Aug 8, 2007 6:45:58 GMT -5
From PTC .. "So how then does one launch and maintain an unconstitutional surveillance program?"
Here we have the transference of constitutional protections to all citizens of all nations, world wide. By my reading, the Constititution reasonably protects American Citizens, not everyone, everywhere and not even then in absolutely all cases. Secondly, the use of wireless technology to communicate falls under the complicated rules of the FCC. Broadcasting a transmission into the ether does not assure privacy of that conversation the same way a transmission over land lines may. How that wrinkle plays into this debate is unclear, but is another case of complications brought about by technology and the legal system having to play catch-up.
I hope the voters can save us from socialism. Can't count on Congress for that either.
_E_
|
|
|
Post by ptcaffey on Aug 8, 2007 15:01:00 GMT -5
//I hope the voters can save us from socialism. Can't count on Congress for that either.//
"Socialism" is a scornful, derisive term used for propaganda purposes.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Aug 8, 2007 15:36:46 GMT -5
Lenin scorned and derided the system he favored?
|
|
|
Post by Brit on Aug 8, 2007 15:39:56 GMT -5
Universally agreed surely?
Either that, or I am in the wrong company.
|
|
|
Post by ptcaffey on Aug 8, 2007 16:33:25 GMT -5
//Universally agreed surely?//
Please don't call me Shirley.
|
|
|
Post by edsfam on Aug 8, 2007 16:47:08 GMT -5
//I hope the voters can save us from socialism. Can't count on Congress for that either.// "Socialism" is a scornful, derisive term used for propaganda purposes. "Socialism" is not a propaganda term because it says exactly what it means. "Progressive" is a propaganda term because it means "socialism" but the "progressives" are afraid to say so. ... and don't call me squirrly. _E_
|
|
|
Post by ptcaffey on Aug 8, 2007 19:19:32 GMT -5
//I hope the voters can save us from socialism. Can't count on Congress for that either.// "Socialism" is a scornful, derisive term used for propaganda purposes. "Socialism" is not a propaganda term because it says exactly what it means. "Progressive" is a propaganda term because it means "socialism" but the "progressives" are afraid to say so. ... and don't call me squirrly. _E_ Refusing to see the distinction between socialists and American progressives is a narrow, simple way of looking at something that's rather more complicated, as are squirrels.
|
|
|
Post by edsfam on Aug 8, 2007 22:08:28 GMT -5
Refusing to see the distinction between socialists and American progressives is a narrow, simple way of looking at something that's rather more complicated, as are squirrels. Please tell me the difference, really. If the definition and end result is identical, what is the diff? Stop staring at my tail, you freak. _E_
|
|
|
Post by ptcaffey on Aug 9, 2007 0:46:27 GMT -5
Refusing to see the distinction between socialists and American progressives is a narrow, simple way of looking at something that's rather more complicated, as are squirrels. Please tell me the difference, really. If the definition and end result is identical, what is the diff? Stop staring at my tail, you freak. _E_ The leading candidate for the Democratic nomination for president refuses to stop taking money from corporations and lobbyists and you're worried about a socialist takeover? We have a two party system: far right and moderate Republican. Eugene V. Debs is dead; there is no modern equivalent. Just as there is only one flying squirrel.
|
|
|
Post by SeattleDan on Aug 9, 2007 1:28:18 GMT -5
Rocky? Friend of Bullwinkle? They were socialists, too.
BTW, my politics are basically socialist. But not Leninist Try reading a history of Socialist thought. To the Finland Station is a good place to start. Edmund Wilson. Still in print. Neo-Con thought is derived from right-wing Trotskyist imangings. Where does one think Kristol began?
|
|
|
Post by hartlikeawheel on Aug 13, 2007 23:25:02 GMT -5
What's the problem with _E_'s tail Shirley? I always thought it was nice and fluffy.
|
|