The impending impeachment
Amoung the dozens of lies to the Senate, GOA, and FBI, <a href="http://balkin.blogspot.com/2005/06/gtmo-where-was-law-whither-ucmj.html">Marty Ledermen ways in</a> with another angle in Bush's impeachment (by way of MFGR). Was there a written directive from President Bush for torture use? All the legal items are in line from the DoD to suggest such.
This is not a "what did he know, when did he know it" thing.
This is simply "did Bush do it?"
The world is watching our "torture camp," but Cheney says everything's fine. He might have to change that sentiment, if he becomes President...
_______________________________
_______________________________
As I see it: The US has the enviable position of having a military that takes orders from civilian leadership. I highly doubt that the military decided to ignore i) Geneva, ii) Article 16 of CAT, iii) a presidential directive, and iv) the UCMJ on its own without some direction from the people who don't wear uniforms at the Pentagon.
And so it begins...
I really can't wait for shit to go down.... It will also help keep Jeb out.
<img src="http://images.villagevoice.com/issues/0525/tmw-big.jpg">
I do not think that Rove should be executed as I am not a big fan of capital punishment, but a lifetime in jail seems about right.
America is not really into hitting a man when he's down, so Bush may stay...
Great question: Should Rove have security clearance during the investigation? This is actually up to the Dept. of Defense, when Rove is not personally escorted by the President.
It was a good run Karl...
Three days gazing out to sea will do that.
---
Some interesting points I picked up from Charlie Rose last night:
McClellan is already on the record as saying he was personally assured by Rove that Rove was not involved in this. Does McClellan trust Rove anymore? As much as McClellan comes across as an ass, he always uses precise language and never says something he doesn't mean.
Does Bush value loyalty over silence? This adminstration is nearly fanatical in it's disdain for leaks. Personally, I don't see Rove getting run out of town for this.
Is Brooks on the Bush payroll, like other "reporters?" He works for the New York Times right? This whole thing is a shit sandwich, and poor Scott McClellan is getting it the hardest.
I say the firing squad for Rove...
John Dean expects Rove to be held to the same standards as other government leakers the past 5 years. I'm not that confident. I'd expect Rove to get special treatment from this DoJ.
There's just no -- sex -- in all of this, that's why nothing might come of it.
Maybe Rove committed perjury during his grand jury testimony, that might do it. Does lying about leaking get as many people riled as lying about screwing?
Dean raises the specter of conspiracy, that might get juicy.
"A law enacted in 1994 bars torture by U.S. military personnel anywhere in the world. But the Pentagon working group's 2003 report, prepared under the supervision of general counsel William J. Haynes II, said that "in order to respect the President's inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign . . . [the prohibition against torture] must be construed as inapplicable to interrogations undertaken pursuant to his Commander-in-Chief authority."
Let's be clear, this does not say Bush directly ordered the military's use of torture, but why would he have a report made to argue he may? Add the fact that JAG's now claim it is no longer an operational report, and you've got one big mess.
The Rove leak stories, Novak denials, Cheney lies about uranium and Iraq, Bush claiming he was allowed to use torture, Bush lying (via Scott McClellan) about Rove etc... I just got caught up in it all.
An impeachment of one of the worst presidents in American history, would undoubtly be a good thing. But what's at stake for me personally is dirt compared to our troops and the future of the country. The NY Time's Frank Rich <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/17/opinion/17rich.html?pagewanted=1&hp">hits it on the head today:</a>
"This case is about Iraq, not Niger. The real victims are the American people, not the Wilsons. The real culprit - the big enchilada, to borrow a 1973 John Ehrlichman phrase from the Nixon tapes - is not Mr. Rove, but the gang that sent American sons and daughters to war on trumped-up grounds and in so doing diverted finite resources, human and otherwise, from fighting the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. "
Yeah, Bush/Cheney/Rove should go, but it's not personal for me anymore. It's logical.
As always, thought-provoking, Dawn.
<tr>
<td><img width=100 src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/04/07/opinion/rich-new.184.jpg">
<td>
That smile is smug? Knowing?
</tr>
</table>
<p>
I'm nervous: All these pundits saying this is the start of a correction to America's aberrant behavior. I'm not ready to believe, yet.
----
Re: the downfall of Rove
So he takes a fall? Do we then assume that Bush really doesn't know a thing about what goes on in this administration? Are Bush supporters going to defend their man: "Well, Bush didn't actually _know_ anything." Makes me queasy.
All the Right has are character attacks on Wilson (a pompous ninny, sure, _he_posed_for_Vanity_Fair_ !) and the standard liberal media whimpering.
They're avoiding these questions:
Did Hussein try to obtain uranium from Niger? No.
Did Rove and Libby pass on sensitive information without knowing the consequences of that information when the country was preparing for war? Yes.
---
If no crime was committed, why is Fitzgerald taking so long to determine who did not commit a crime?
It is becoming increasingly clear Bush authorized torture, and the fact that he may veto for the FIRST TIME to defend his right to torture, shows how scared and cowardly he actually is.
Look, even if Congress passes a bill that states rights and guidelines for "enemy combatants", Bush would most likely be grandfathered into safety. But this stance that he's allowed to torture says a lot...
From 2.1.b:
"U.S. Armed Forces are continuously trained to take the legal and moral "high-road" in the conduct of our military operations regardless of how others may operate. While the detainees' status as unlawful belligerents may not entitle them to protections of the Geneva Conventions, that is a legal distinction that may be lost on the members of the armed forces. Approving exceptional interrogation techniques may be seen as giving official approval and legal sanction to the application of interrogation techniques that U.S. Armed Forces have heretofore been trained are unlawful. In addition, consideration should be given to whether implementation of such techniques is likely to result in adverse impacts for DoD personnel who become POWs, including possible perceptions by other nations that the United States is lowering standards related to the treatment of prisoners, generally."
From 3.4:
"It must be conceded, however, that we are preparing to treat these detainees very differently than we treat any other group, and differently than we permit our own people to be treated either at home or abroad. At a minimum, I recommend that decision-makers be made fully aware of the very narrow set of circumstances-factually and legally-upon which the policy rests. Moreover, I recommend that we consider asking decision-makers directly: is this the "right thing" for U.S. military personnel?"
---
This is not the ACLU or a liberal lawyer form New England, this is the JAG's, with decades of military service, essentially telling Bush and Rumsfeld not to do this.
So who authorized the torture? Let's ask Bush under oath, shall we?
"Compasionate conservative" indeed.
Clinton was impeached, and he didn't even lie. (Note: that the Senate acquitted him of the perjury charge, so he stayed in office.)
<img src=http://prodtn.cafepress.com/1/25483631_F_tn.jpg>
Back:
<img src=http://prodtn.cafepress.com/1/25483631_B_tn.jpg>
I'm going to order several.
Anyone else want one besides me, my dad, and rladew?
Guess who got impeached?
Please have fun with it if you like it though, Dawn.
_______________________________
Um.. that I have to disagree with, after the thousands of "What would Johnny Damon do?"/ "who would Jesus Kill?" t-shirts around Boston.
Plus the whole Jesus thing... brings religion into it, making it possibly offensive. Even Bush himself won't answer questions about his faith. (He claims to be Christian behind the camera, yet he kills thousands of people. Good question actually, but he won't even acknowledge his religion when asked.)
It also let's people know that support for the war has nothing to with support for the troops. (Honestly, does anyone know of anybody who doesn't support the troops?)
I'll get you one in burnt sienna.
Anyone wanna bet our Fearless Leader can Lead out of this one?
Wait... where has he led us so far?
I frankly don't care if Bush gets impeached or not. Other than gross ineptitude, I'm on the fence as to whether he's committed impeachable offenses. I'm primarily concerned that his policies get discredited. It would seem to me that they will be, at this early junction.
"Not but that crimes of a strictly legal character fall within the scope of the power; but that it has a more enlarged operation, and reaches, what are aptly termed political offenses, growing out of personal misconduct or gross neglect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard of the public interests, various in their character, and so indefinable in their actual involutions, that it is almost impossible to provide systematically for them by positive law."
House Minority Leader <a href = "http://www.ford.utexas.edu/library/speeches/700415f.htm">Gerald Ford on impeachment</a> in 1970.
<a href = "http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed65.htm">Alexander Hamilton on impeachment</a>, from the Federalist Papers.
exerpt: "The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust."
In my opinion this violation does not necessarily have to be intentional on the part of the president - it could just be due to following principles and policies that end up being dreadfully wrong. Even if you thought they were right, and they totally ruined your country, you'd still be accountable.
That being said, realistically it's up to the party in power to decide to go through with impeachment proceedings...or their constituents, I suppose, if they're loud enough. A lot of it has to do with public perception of the high crime or misdemeanor, and how the press frames it. Also, it would be sort of bizarre for a Republican House and Senate to draw up articles of impeachment on a Republican president, especially with majority leaders in both chambers being rather loyal to Bush.
It's been too long since the last impeachment proceedings - I'm looking forward to another long, bare-knuckled brawl.
<a href="http://afterdowningstreet.org/">Decent site</a> they were promoting.
Again I don't suppose a full party change will happen in '06, but it's looking good.
"I knew you would be wondering and sorry to keep you so long guessing but
evacuations are difficult when: so many are affected, there is no gas and
you are under tremendous stress, anger at the govenment and tremendously sad
for neighbors who could not leave and were at the mercy of such an amazingly
incompetant governement.
My "hurricane family"and i have been rolling all week and waiting on gas or
car repairs as we witness tragedy after tragedy unfold and watch old people
try to cope.
i am great.i have means, a sense of humour and all that. i am in nashville
and i may land in ny. i amworried as you must have been about me, about my
friends from whom i have yet to hear.
Let your friend know that people on the Gulf Coast need EVERYTHING. And then
lets drum bush out of office-impeachment?????
Love leslie"
Plain and simple, the reason Katrina was a disaster, and Bush must go:
<a href="http://www.fema.gov/about/bios/brown.shtm">1 Secretary</a>
<a href="http://www.fema.gov/about/bios/rhode.shtm">2 Chief of Staff</a>
<a href="http://www.fema.gov/about/bios/smorris.shtm">3 Deputy</a>
So the FEMA Chief of staff and Deputy, by their own admission, got into politics by being "advance" guys for Republican campaigns.
What the fuck!!! At some point we have to put competent people into public positions, not just buddies and GOP diehards. I know the Republican's hold government shouldn't help out that much, but to put people in positions who have no clue what to do...
Bush, you are cooked.
the new season of 'Joey' did just start. Once again TGL is right on the $$$
<img src="http://www.darkhorizons.com/news04/nbc-joey.jpg">
_______________________________
<img src="http://www.uncensoredpress.com/img/US%20torture%20in%20Iraq.jpg">
<img src="http://www.rattapallax.com/fusebox4/prison_torture2.jpg">
I emailed Kennedy's office again about impeachment proceedings. The momentum is getting bigger. Encouraging stuff.
_______________________________
"Bush has brought the deepest dishonor imaginable on his office. The last president was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice in a civil lawsuit. Our current one has legalized torture in the U.S. military, and is thereby responsible for the deaths from torture of scores and the staining of the military's honor for ever. Which crime is worse?"
I can answer that one. By the way: Kerry might have been worse, as people say, but I can't imagine him undermining the military in the same way.
<img src="http://www.erheadquarters.com/images/media/screencaps/opening/12.jpg">
_______________________________
_______________________________
I'm increasingly becoming less susceptible to humour on this particular topic. Otherwise, I'm all chuckles.
How is it possible that the Chief of Staff of the State Deptartment, under Secretary of State Colin Powell, <b> doesn't know why we went into Iraq?</b>
Think about that for a second.
Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, the #2 of our country's foreign policy from '00 to '04, Powell's right hand man, doesn't know why we invaded Iraq. A life long Republican and one who believes George Bush Sr. was "one of the finest Presidents we've ever had," his words are too strong to ignore.
"The Cabal of Cheney and Rumsfeld" has damaged our country beyond belief, and it scares him and me that so many, so high up in the Bush administration are saying such. Wilkerson's lecture is trenchant.
Again, I ask you all to call and email your Senator and Representatives and demand impeachment.
_______________________________
Go against the people complaining loudly that a few people / bad eggs on the night shift represent the entire military and you advocate torture. uggh.
_______________________________
Yeah, I'd say that's a problem.
Still reading the Opinion Journal, rladew? For real or for giggles?
Advocate is the wrong word... apologist?
[sarcasm]I don't know what's more upsetting, that we have secret torture camps, or that I don't get to see pictures of the abuse. I paid for that waterboarding, dammit![/sarcasm]
Yep, even life long Republicans who work for the Armed forces are coming out against Cheney & Rumsfailed.
"The former Powell aide is 31-year military veteran and former director of the Marine Corps War College. Some have noted that he often expresses what Colin Powell believes, but can't or won't say."
My guess is we get a statement from Powell (sadly) in 2009...
And its looking like <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/front/v-pfriendly/story/363529p-309592c.html">Cheney is losing influence.</a> Actually that could work out. Bush without Cheney, Rumsfailed, Libby, and Turd-blossom, is much less dangerous. Good day for America, if I may sing Patriotic praises.
_______________________________
______________
<i>Cha ching!</i>
_______________________________
(Are we there yet? Are we are we?)
_______________________________
So, it's a "the crime doesn't really matter" argument from (now I am assuming here...) the same crowd that is willing to impeach a president for lying about a peronsal transgression, or hog ties judges with mandatory sentencing rules? Nice.
Skirting the issue all the same: at this point, it's not the outing of Plame that is the administrations problem; it's the lying about the outing. Sounds familiar...
I'm assuming you meant this as a rebuttal to whether or not the administration is culpable for "outing" Valerie Plame. Not whether or not Cheney has fallen from grace and Bush is looking more and more lost in the woods. Both of which seem valid.
_______________________________
_______________________________
_______________________________
_______________________________
_______________________________
_______________________________
"... Langley's operatives (who are, let us be frank, probably overwhelmingly antiwar and anti-Bush)."
Well, let's be frank, does anyone agree with that? Most CIA operatives are antiwar / anti-Bush? News to me.
Also, the kids I work with had a dance three weeks ago and were asked to bring personal hygiene items for Katrina relief. There were several bottles of Axe Body Wash, one tube of Clinique Body Firming Lotion, and a variety of other hilarious things that most people would consider superfluous, not necessary. At least their hearts were in the right place. Most of them brought bars of soap and tooth brushes and toothpaste.
If the Dems get the majority of the House back by this time next year, swap 16 Reps out of 435, (no small task, but almost probable) I would imagine the impeachment precedings start by Feb. 1st, 2007.
Life long Republicans are trying to distance themselves from Bush, and ABC news even pointed out Republicans stopped calling themselves "Republicans" in the election last week, instead calling themselves "centrists" or "moderates". The intelligent design ploy of the Dover, PA school board was a bigger disaster than anybody could have fathomed, and Cheney... well Cheney has alienated everyone except for his wife. Good times are soon to follow...
HT, <a href="http://www.wonkette.com/politics/polls/if-only-we-could-warn-our-past-selves-about-brokeback-mountain-jokes-158660.php">wonkette</a>. Maybe someone, er... NP?, can check out the source WSJ article and find out why they are warning Dems against impeachment.
Let's see about that Clinton-impeachment-backlash: 8 (well, after the '06 elections, maybe only 6) years of one-party rule. Sounds like an OK trade-off.
I think I read that someone on FOX News was freting over these same <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184362,00.html">numbers</a>.
Any other reason to be flogging the line item veto this week?
Sung in the vein of the talking Heads:
"We're on a Bridge To Nowhere"...
Although the "emergency" nomination of US attornies would seem to be an egregious over-reach of power. Is it un-Consitutional if the Congress passes a law saying it's Constitutional? That's rhetorical... of course it is.
Should Constitutional be capitalized/
"Impending Impeachment" Oh, How I've missed thee...
<img src="http://greatinventions.tv/products/images/flag_large1.jpg">