Slashdot Mirror
Resolution To Impeach VP Cheney Submitted
Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) has submitted a resolution, HR 333, to impeach VP Dick Cheney on charges of "high crimes and misdemeanors." The charges were submitted on 24 April 2007. Congressman Kucinich has posted his supporting documents online, including a brief summary of the impeachment procedure (PDF), a synopsis (PDF), and the full text (PDF) of the impeachment resolution.
"Congressman Dennis Kucinich is invited to go hunting with Cheney."
In addition, once this road is crossed -- impeaching for , and every time the president/vp is in office, and a different party has a majority in the senate and house, you'll see an impeachment. It's the same thing that happened once the line was crossed with judicial appointments. Partisian politics has made almost every parties' political victory a Pyrrhic one for the American people. We get the shaft, while the politicians get rich fighting each other. We need a 3rd party...
Finally, does Kucinich this this will help him get elected President?
Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm
Woa -- I think you're off base here on two levels.
One -- If you can't win, you still have to do it. You cannot let crimes go, even if you cannot succeed in convicting. The problem is not this president/VP. The problem is the next one. To not impeach is to say "if the congress isn't dominated by the other house, you can do anything you want."
Two -- Cheny's not the target. Cheney's going to have to defend himself, and his interactions with the president will come out. It's at least possible that real solid evidence against the president will emerge.
This isn't stupid, it's both the right thing to do, and may help land the big one.
Besides, even Republicans hate Cheney. He's an easier target.
What exactly is a centrist? The right has fought a successful campaign over the last 30 years or so to move the center to the right. What was once moderate left is now considered far left. What was moderate right is now considered centrist. What was far right is now right, and what was once considered bug-fuck insane is now simply far right.
The whole left right thing is a bit of a red herring anyway. I prefer to skip the shorthand and go straight to candidates' records on the issues that are important to me.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
First, given that you dudes (i.e. the US) planned, financed and partially executed the overthrow of the first ever(!) democratically elected president in the entire third world, and that that happened to be Iran, their hostility is more than understandeable, isn't it? The direct result of the forceful institution of the Sha regime was, of course, the islamic revolution. You made your bed, now lie in it.
Two, nuclear infrastructure is no threat to the USA. Even a working nuke isn't. You still need delivery vehicles. As for that, I think the ratio of USA to Iran is roughly 20,000:0
Finally, the position in the paper I read was "Cheney lied and betrayed the public while holding an office where he swore an oath to protect and serve that same public". Iraq/Iran is merely what he lied about.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
The Democrats are a far-right party by the standards of the rest of the world.
Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development.-- Frontinus, 1st cent. AD
There is more to the Libertarian party then just the whole free market ideology. I am a Libertarian, but I even refer to the free market as absolutely stupid and almost unmanageable. You can still have libertarianism without a free market. What do I want as a Libertarian? Lower taxes, less government aid programs, protection of Bill of Rights (you cannot deny this has been assaulted by BOTH parties), protection of states' rights (sort of relates to the last one), and a general protection of civil liberties and rights.
At some point of our 230 year existence, we began to evaporate the states' rights for federal ones. It is impossible to deny that this is a LARGE country with varied demographics by region. Many things currently decided by federal laws, should have remained within the rights of the states, and this is what I support more than anything. As for a totally free market, it would probably never exist, but if our government seriously wants to keep up the song and dance like they are trying to enforce some sort of market regulation, I guess we can at least sit back and laugh. (I love AT&T as the prime example of how the government has no real control. Break them up and watch a "Baby Bell" buy back the others and eventually the parent company.)
So? If 5 billion people say 1+1=3, that doesn't mean I have to listen to them.
But on the other hand if 5 billion people say 1+1=2 and you insist that it's 3, you're probably the one that's wrong.
Why are Libertarians insane? Because they willfully disregard any evidence that their simplistic theories will not and do not work in the real world. The free market is not magic and infallible. It is a complex system of feedback loops that does not posses any sort of true homeostasis and therefore needs external management in order to maintain its state of freedom.
Not all Libertarians are as "bug-fuck insane" as you're making them out to be; there is a clear line between Libertarianism and economic anarchism -- Libertarians generally advocate a form of government which creates as level a playing field as possible, and then lets individual actors do the rest; this is generally summed up by saying that it is OK for government to create a framework where individuals can make decisions on their own, but not to act redistributively. Although this would not allow for conventional anti-trust regulation in the conventional sense, their stance is -- and I think they have a very good point here -- much of the danger of monopolies and trusts isn't inherent in the monopoly itself, but in the accrual of power in a single organization which is then used to influence government and suppress competition; if you removed all the corporate welfare and protective legislation that large corporations have bought themselves, they would tend to be lumbering behemoths and, excepting some special cases which tend towards natural monopolies, generally aren't as competitive as they appear to be today.
There is a lot of debate within Libertarian organizations as to how those special cases should be treated, and setting aside orthodoxy, I think the vast majority of self-identified Libertarians would support some form of minimalist interventionism in order to counterbalance the distortive effects that some monopolies have had on the government, while the laws and welfare that they have purchased are repealed or dismantled.
In short, I think you're getting dangerously close to creating a straw man when you attempt to pigeonhole Libertarians so narrowly; like it or not, they're the closest thing that the United States has to a third political party, and their views are not nearly as simplistic as you seem to think they are.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Street protests are a normal part of politics in a democracy, you dough-head. Including in the US. You just don't see it because All Your Media are belong to about 3 people.
Let's look at the articles objectively (if that's even possible). Did Cheney commit any crimes, according to Kucinich? Note that lying in a political speech is not a crime (nearly every politician in the country would be behind bars if it were). Neither is lying to Congress, unless it's under oath, and we know how fervently the Bush Administration opposes testifying under oath. It's also not a crime to break a solemn promise, like the oath of office an elected official takes. These may be reasons not to reelect somebody (except that America did), but they're not crimes.
Article I: Cheney lied about Iraqi WMDs. Reprehensible, yes. Cynical and morally bankrupt, yes. Criminal, unfortunately not.
Article II: Cheney lied about a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. But again, not a crime under any law.
Article III: Cheney's been rattling his saber at Iran. It may be foreign policy by sledgehammer rather than Xacto knife, but there's no law against this either.
So although I would really, really like to see Cheney removed from office, Kucinich's articles of impeachment don't contain any actual crimes for which he could be tried. Not that that's stopped impeachment proceedings before, but there was a better case against Clinton, because he actually testified under oath. We have some truly reprehensible people leading our country, and they should be stopped before they get us into even more trouble, but unfortunately this isn't going to do it.
To crib from Sorkin, there are times when we're fifty states, and there are times when we're one country solving problems that require the pooling of resources.
Your passport says "The United States of America."
You nailed it. The political spectrum has been moving right but the social spectrum is moving left (gay marriage, medicinal pot,etc) and thus you have this tension, this sharp divide between red state and blue state.
CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
Where exactly did you study the political process? Street protests are used by groups that are in the minority to bring awareness and supporters to their cause. A lack of street protests means a suppression of the minority. The abortion issue will cause street protests forever, no matter which side wins, because the other side will always be pissed. Right now the pro-life people are in a pretty sharp minority (only 30-40% of our population), notice how much they protest?
Mathematics has a well known liberal bias.
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Well, I pretty much fit exactly your "Moderate A". I'm pro choice, anti gun control, pro death penalty, and anti war. But I don't whine, and I'm offended by you characterizing me as silly for my positions.
BTW, the "middle ground" on Iraq was:
1. There's obviously no WMD in Iraq.
2. Saddam Hussein is still an asshole.
3. We've effectively contained him so he's not much of a threat.
4. We may have to do something about him in the future, but now is not the right time.
5. There's obviously no connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda.
6. "I don't think our nation's military should be used for what's called nation building".
7. You don't cut taxes by 1.5 trillion and then start a war.
8. Let's deal with the important issues first (Afghanistan and al-Qaeda), but keep an eye on Iraq.
As a native Charlestonian, the city that invented the State's rights argument, and a descendant of slave-owning Confederate cavalry veterans, I'm so glad the Federal government won the four points you've made. Extremely glad, otherwise I would not be anywhere near as secure in my liberties as I am now.
You see, State's rights is a load of crap. It's really about fiefdom, controlling interests in a particular state don't like the Feds coming in and telling them that they can't violate Federal law. The legal establishment of second class citizenry is a threat to the Constitution and to the peace, the last three points you make were solutions to this threat. You're outdated republican view of the state is unworkable, especially in a modern society with the infrastructure required to compete for the wealth necessary to defend any of our rights.
We legally and rightfully changed our form of government from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution. The Federalist Papers in support of the Constitution are considered to be the "finest treatise on government in existence", not the anti-Federalist Papers in support of the Articles.
At that point, we, as a free people, specifically abandoned the republican view of states that you refer too. It was not working and we needed something better, a "more perfect union".
The Civil War (and again, I was raised 2 miles from where the damn thing started) was an act of immoral rebellion against a legitimate authority. Advocacy of violent secession was not a defense of some inherent rights, it was a betrayal of the underpinnings of Anglo-Saxon Protestant beliefs and culture that formed this nation's laws and the rationale for the Revolution. The Civil War was a fraud perpetuated by the wealthy of the South upon the poor and middle class. The only honor that came out of the Civil War for the South was the same honor that every soldier who believes he is fighting for his family and home. There is no honor in claiming that states have rights that supersedes the Federal government or that they have sovereign status, because there is no integrity to the argument. If states had the right to secession, the Federal Constitution would have no power. It would be a suicidal clause that would make the institutional structure unworkable, that is why the Constitution concentrates more power centrally than the Articles did. South Carolina agreed and ratified the Constitution, there was no justification for secession or the violence that followed, they committed immoral rebellion.
LBJ's Presidency, when the Great Society expanded the social safety net to include such frivolities as "Medicare" and we enacted "The Civil Rights Act of 1964" and "The Voting Rights Act of 1965."
You are in support of this erosion of "states rights to terrorize its citizens" aren't you? Otherwise I'd have to say that you have a delusional and unobjective view of freedom. This is obviously cribbing from ol'Milty Friedman with the horror and shock that brought you the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. I hope you don't think Brown v Board was judicial activism too. The stupidity of the argument that racism is some personal moral issue vs an issue that affects the interests of the state is the acceptance of different classes of citizens. This is not a viable situation. We cannot have inequality before the law for any human, regardless of their circumstances. If a person legally falls under the jurisdiction of the United States, they must be given the same legal protections as any other citizen of the United States. If you do not live up to this, then you invite tyranny (this is why torture advocates must be purged from our government). After all, if you can legally separate someone who has not violated the rights of another for an accident of birth or a matter of conscience then no one is safe. These are two factors upon which the state must seek equality. We can never be free people if we can be denied wealth accumulation, access to markets or equality in civil rights
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
This is not really a joking matter. Most people in the U.S. have no idea how corrupt the U.S. government is. If you knew, you wouldn't joke.
We need to help each other educate ourselves about the corruption. Here is my summary of U.S. government corruption. Where's yours?