Slashdot Mirror
House Narrowly Avoids Having to Debate Impeachment of Cheney
An anonymous reader writes "Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) yesterday successfully moved articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney to the House Judiciary committee. 'Today's resolution from Kucinich (D-Ohio) was essentially the same as the legislation he introduced earlier this year, which included three articles of impeachment against Cheney based largely on allegations that he manipulated intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war. The last article accuses Cheney of threatening "aggression" against Iran "absent any real threat."'"
But Iran has rockets that can reach US personnel and allies (like say... Europe, Israel, India, Japan and so on... May I suggest you read up on NATO also). Do we wait until they have nuclear tipped rockets that can reach the US? Do we do nothing until NY glows in the dark?
The US has rockets that can reach anywhere in the world. Europe, Israel, India, Japan, and so on. May I suggest you read up on your own country. Does the rest of the world wait until the US has nuclear tipped rockets that can reach elsewhere? Oh wait... they already do! Do they do nothing until the US uses a nuke to destroy a city? Oh wait... they already did. (granted it was world war 2, but since the dawn of nuclear technology the only country that has ever attacked with a nuclear warheads is the US.)
"Yeah but the President of Iran is a crazy religious idiot." you might say. Fair comment, but then the same can be said about George Bush. And what about your next president, the republican front runner is currently "Mayor 9/11". That doesn't exactly bode well.
As much as I despise the guy for his wacko ideas the President of the US is just as out of touch with reality, and unlike the Iranians, Bush is actively prosecuting multiple wars without much regard for the fact that its costing countless innocent civilians their lives. The thousands of innocent civilians killed by American's in these wars far outweighs any moral right they might have appealed to. 2000 deaths 6 years ago is a tragedgy. "Incidently" Killing thousands of innocent civilians per year for the next 6 years while seeking revenge on the perpetrators is utter madness.
Besides, certain terror groups didn't have rockets that could reach the USA from Afghanistan either and look how that turned out.
That's easy. Some terrorists hijacked a few planes and rammed them into buildings. So what are you suggesting? The US should bomb any foreign country with pilots? Good luck with that.
1. In 1913, the dictator Victoriano Huerta was president of Mexico. He gave the congress an ultimatum: dissolve themselves, or he would dissolve them. The communication was read to a quorum of the body; they referred the matter to a committee and passed a motion to adjourn. Shortly thereafter most of the congressmen were arrested, but the congress was technically not dissolved because they had not acted on the motion.
2. Just a couple weeks ago, my city council voted unanimously to deny an application to erect a cell-phone tower in a certain residential neighborhood. After the vote, the chair of the committee stated that the committee had thought it might be a good idea to develop a master plan identifying areas that actually would be good locations for cell-phone towers within the city boundaries. The council president moved to "receive the report", which means exactly nothing.
Most governmental bodies (both legsilative and judicial) have a lot of different ways to not do something. Sometimes that's a good thing; both sides in a dispute can be angry at the government until they both grow up, or move to another city, or something.
Ahmedinajad did not say that he wanted to wipe israel off the map.
i repeat.
Ahmedinajad did not say that he wanted to wipe israel off the map.
He didn't say it. yes, he said something *similar*, i.e. that the zionist regime would vanish from the pages of history. but he did not ever ever say he wanted to wipe israel off the map.
Now... what IS interesting is that YOU think he said he wanted to wipe israel off the map. why do you think that? because you have been MADE to think that by people who want to wipe HIM off the map. This, just like the iraqi "ripping babies out of incubators" story is being fed to you by people who really really want you to support what they're about to do to iran.
think about it.
you are being lied to.
why are you being lied to?
I know you were being sarcastic (the giant SARCASM tags were a dead giveaway), but that's actually a valid argument. If the democrats believe even half of the accusations they're constantly bandying about, they absolutely SHOULD refuse to compromise. Certainly if I believed that the Prime Minister of my country had gotten us into a war with the sole purpose of enriching himself and his "oil buddies", and that we had no way in hell of ever seeing a positive result from that war, I would INSIST that my representatives do everything in their power to immediately end that war and bring those responsible to justice, up to and including refusing to discuss all other issues until that one is resolved.
The problem seems to be that even the Democrats don't really believe all of the things which they've accused the Bush administration of. Either that or they really ARE "spineless".
I think you're having trouble with definitions.
A witch hunt is when one creates a fictional enemy and then goes looking for real people to foot the bill. See McCarthyism.
Clinton was actually the victim of a prolonged "fishing expedition" Which is "Legal grasping at straws; the use of pre-trial investigation (discovery) or witness questioning in an unfocused attempt to uncover damaging evidence you can use against your adversary." Basically, they asked him enough questions about enough stuff that they eventually were able to paint him into an embarrassing corner that no president in U.S. history had every been painted into -- i.e., publicly explain your mistresses or lie on the stand. We all know now what his error was.
Cheney is not a witch hunt, nor is it a fishing expedition. There is real and substantial evidence that that man is just a little less scrupulous than Satan. He doesn't make Faustian deals; he insists on waterboarding suspected rag heads until they confess to wearing their mother's underpants. And, perhaps, the problem is that Cheney has made a Faustian deal on behalf of the country, trading our liberty for security that doesn't actually make us more secure.
But Nixon was a pussycat compared to Cheney. So he broke into the Democratic headquarters and spied on them; so he made the White House Secret Service detail wear uniforms reminiscent of the Beefeaters; so he was a bit of an asshole who walked all over our civil liberties -- he did not start any wars and he did not funnel any contracts to any companies that he was a major stockholder of. I'm not a fan of the guy, but I'd never go so far as to compare him to Cheney. It's like comparing a drunk driver to a serial killer. Neither are good, but one is wantonly, ridiculously worse than the other.
Property is theft.
Ok, you are rational enough to be worth a followup post. Apology in advance, I just looked at a preview and this one is long. I got on a roll. :)
> If you're not a prisoner in a criminal case with rights afforded by the criminal
> justice system, and you're not a prisoner of war, then what are you, exactly?
Well we can look to the Geneva Conventions themselves for some of the answer. Combatants out of uniform, hiding behind civilian populations, etc. are mentioned. And what it has to say about an 'unlawful combatant' ain't pretty. Basically we could just line em up and shoot em on sight and be 100% in compliance. Read some history of the French Resistance for an example as they are a fairly close case except that they were careful to target military/political targets. The Germans shot em and nobody uttered a peep about the Geneva Conventions because it was kosher. For all their other sins the German Army considered itself to be professional and 'civilized', certain notorious units obviously excepted, thus they generally adhered to the Geneva Conventions[1]. We should be doing likewise in Iraq and Afganistan. In this case I doubt prompt public executions would discourage them very much but it certainly couldn't hurt.
In a nutshell the original Geneva Conventions were designed to define the conduct of war between Great Powers using ranked formations of conscript soldiers. Later additions (some of which the US didn't sign onto) are mostly Cold War relics where the Soviets were making it easier for their proxy states and revolutionaries to win by conning Western Civilization into fighting with one hand tied behind it's back.
None of which is applicable to the current GWOT being fought with no massed armies and one side without even a proxy nation state to sign the GC even if they believed all that 'touchy feelly crap that just illustrates how weak and spinless the West is' was something they wanted to be a part of. But notice that Taliban soldiers in uniform did get GC protection. We didn't get bogged down with rule book lawyer questions as to whether the Taliban were the lawful descendent of the previous soviet puppet state that had signed, they were recognizable soldiers so we extended them the protection of the GC.
Terrorists hiding in civilian populations and as often as not attacking those same civilians deserve no protection. Catch em, give some minimal justice where needed to try to make sure the Mohammad you caught really is the same Mohammad that blew up a marketplace last week and then shoot the bastard.
For all that most of the action is taking place away from the TV cameras this IS a total war because they won't stop until we kill em or they cut our heads off. Longer term we have to change the conditions that breed this brand of nutter but GWB's drain the swamp and plant democracy theory certainly hasn't been working out all that well.
So we try, try again until we find a way that works since failure isn't an option. I'm an agnostic so I'll get my head cut off right behind the queers and athiests.... assuming I don't go out shooting earlier.
> Yes, it can be debated that there's a legal distinction between me as a US
> citizen sitting at my desk and a farmer in Afghanistan with respect to the
> provision of rights under US law.
No it can't be debated because it is obvious to any sane persion that there is a night and day difference. The expectations a Free People have regarding their relationship with their own government can and indeed must be vastly different from that governments's obligation to enemies taken on the field of combat. Even if taken inside the camp of an enemy a known US citizen (John Walker Lindh for example) has the expectation of certain rights. Inalienable Rights.
Just like there is a world of difference between law enforcement and intelligence. Rules that apply in the context of criminal investigations of citizens have almost to resemblence to how the law of the
Democrat delenda est