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."'"
At this rate I think Gallup will have a historical first - negative numbers for job approval ratings.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
k. Done. And?
rewriting history since 2109
The summary here is misleading (On /. Imagine That!). Sending something to committee is like calling your trashcan the inbox. He introduced something that didn't have enough support so it got referred to committee where it can be squashed into oblivion. Only if he could have gotten an open house vote on it would it have been a "success", now it will die quietly as have his other attempts to impeach Cheney.
"To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." - Tennyson
You don't think America is that stupid...
Never mind. Doesn't Bush have 6 years and 1 day yet? Your only allowed to be President for 10 years.
Said they would not give the war anymore money without a pull out date. Decided to "investigate" steriods in baseball(May of been last year, don't remeber). Burned a couple of hours trying to get approval to TALK about *maybe* impeaching the Vice President.
And what were the results?
The war is still going on, there is no pull out date.
A few key players got free publicity for there books. Helped me waste 3 minutes writing a response on slashdot that will be modded to -35, for retard.
God bless America.
So basically, -1 troll/offtopic is really slashdots way of saying "I hate that you thought of something before me."
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
An even bigger landslide victory for the Democrats?
'Loose' is when your pants are three sizes too big. 'Lose' is when you misuse 'loose'.
I'm sick of finger pointing. Focus on your agenda and work to get it passed. How many democrat bills have been passed vs. how many resolutions against bush and/or cheney?
If they aren't passing because bush is vetoing, that means they aren't working hard enough to work together.
It was bullshit when the impeached clinton, it's bullshit now.
Gone!
Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
However, I would rather hunt with Dick Cheney than ride with Ted Kennedy.
Iran doesn't have rockets, at least ones that are any kind of threat to the U.S.
"Any crazy person with rockets is a threat to me."
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have lots more missiles at their disposal than Iran's government, so.........
After having watched their performance for the last 7 years, I think their sanity is certainly an open question. George W. was also an alcoholic and drug abuser for most of his adult life which also calls in to question his stability. When you have two people who have done nothing positive for their entire reign, and almost single handedly turned America in to a globally hated and despised country you generally have to wonder....what were they thinking. Just observe the fact the U.S. dollar is plunging relative to most other currencies. Markets are ruthlessly efficient at finding truth and the plunging dollar indicates America has been officially run in to the ground by our fearless leaders.
Kucinich is kind of a space cadet sometimes but he was right on trying to get Cheney impeached first. You have to get him impeached before you can impeach Bush otherwise he would take over and President Cheney would be a nightmare come true.
Unlike, say, North Korea. Who we know has nuclear weapons and rockets capable of reacing the US.
Turkey--and you can thank Pelosi for that one.
What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
251-162 to even debate impeachment, and then rather than holding the debate that was voted for, it was decided to move it forward, failing 218-194.
sounds weird and not all that narrow. its split down the middle (more or less), just like the parties (more or less). is anyone suprised??
and how many abstained from voting or just didnt show up?
3-4 is narrow, 24 (four less than the difference in parties) is not.
Yes but the maximum length that a person can be president for is 10 years. From the 22nd Amendment:
Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
From the FAQ: Why did you post story X?
Slashdot is many things to many people. Some people think it's a Linux site. To others, it's a geek hangout. I've always worked very hard to make sure that Slashdot matches up with my interests and the interests of my authors. We think we're pretty typical Slashdot readers... but that does mean that occasionally one of us might post something that you think is inappropriate. You might be interested in my Omelette rant.
Personally, I have a pet peeve when people post comments saying things like "That's not News For Nerds!" and "That's not Stuff that Matters!" Slashdot has been running for almost 5 years, and over that time, I have always been the final decision maker on what ends up on the homepage. It turns out that a lot of people agree with me: Linux, Legos, Penguins, Sci (both real and fiction). If you've been reading Slashdot, you know what the subjects commonly are, but we might deviate occasionally. It's just more fun that way. Variety Is The Spice Of Life and all that, right? We've been running Slashdot for a long time, and if we occasionally want to post something that someone doesn't think is right for Slashdot, well, we're the ones who get to make the call. It's the mix of stories that makes Slashdot the fun place that it is.
The original generic sig.
Article I: Cheney lied about intelligence regarding banned weapon programs
Whether the result of lies, a lack of willingness to believe contrary viewpoints, or maybe even idiocy (I think he's too smart for that, evil or not), the accusations carry no mention of where he made statements under oath. Statements included are from two press interactions, five interviews, and a speech. While in some cases very public, there are no cases there where he was speaking under oath.
Article II: Cheney lied about connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda
Again, there was no oath taken for the occasions mentioned. Four speeches and five interviews are mentioned, but again, at no time during these was he under oath.
Article III: Cheney has threatened use of force against Iran
Three cases where he said that no options are off the table and one where he explained the placement of an extra carrier in the Persian Gulf are used as evidence here. Every president for the last few decades has used carriers to send messages to other countries, and saying that no options are off the table is application of diplomatic pressure. He never said that if Iran doesn't stop, the US will flatten it.
Impeachment is for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." He has not committed treason as defined in the Constitution ("levying War against [the Untied States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort"); he is not accused of taking bribes; and it's unlikely that misdirection of the sort listed would come under a "high Crime" or "Misdemeanor," or else every person subject to impeachment could probably be pulled from office for making a political statement that someone on the opposing party doesn't like.
I wasn't especially fond of the idea of Clinton's impeachment, and I don't think Cheney warrants it here. This is a waste of time given that a) it's unlikely to garner enough House votes to continue even if it does get past committee, and b) it's essentially impossible for it to get a conviction in the Senate.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Let's see....
Is Kucinich running for President? Yes
Is he frontrunner for the Dem's? No
Does he need to improve his profile? Yes
By submitting these articles, is he taking 'initiatives' the public would want taken given the certain ambiguities that remain, with regard to why we are now in this mid-east Debacle (impeaching those who lied to the American People)? Yes
Was there any chance for these articles to come to fruition? NO CHANCE IN HELL!!!
Its political posturing people....
Move along, nothing to see here.
On a sideone, he's at least smart enough to score a trophy wife, right?
Please explain to me exactly *WHY* impeachment is not on the table. There have never been a President and Vice President of the United States *MORE* deserving of impeachment. The Vice President falsified an official intelligence report that was to become the basis of deciding whether or not to send this country to war, for crying out loud. The Vice President outed a CIA operative to settle a political score. The President has institutionalized the breaking of the Fourth Amendment on a massive scale and won't even let Congress, let alone the American people, have all the facts about what he's been doing. *NOT* impeaching them both has got to rank as one of the most gross miscarriages of justice in this nation's history.
Pelosi, Hoyer: GROW A PAIR! Stand up for what's right! Do your job and uphold the Constitution!
-----Chaz
Here it is straight from Youtube!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJYbgouqlMw
What do you mean?
The original generic sig.
Do we wait until they have nuclear tipped rockets that can reach the US? Do we do nothing until NY glows in the dark?
Maybe wait until there is actual proof these nations wish to launch rockets at the US/NATO.
If you are suggesting that the US strikes before there is an actual threat then what is to stop other countries doing the same?
North Korea will have to launch because the US is a threat, same for everyone else.
There IS an alternative to shoot first & invent evidence later.
I do not think that word means what you think it means. You have to impeach and convict to get kicked out. Clinton was impeached. Unless Bush really screws up, I'm sure it won't happen because there's 1 year left before elections and I don't think they push for it.
I'm sorry - whether you hate the president/vp or not (and for the record I don't) - you have to say that this is a gross waste of time for this congress.
As a republican, I actually had hope when we lost control of the house and senate that perhaps we'd see some movement in government with an aggressive party taking control at a pivotal time in our history. It's not that I wanted much of what the Democrats wanted, it's that I wanted someone to stand up and do something.
I was wrong.
-- I really need to bleed off some of this
The deaths of possibly hundreds of thousands of civilians and thousands of our own troops maimed and killed is not technically Cheney's fault, in purely legal terms. Nor the fault of the administration who supported and executed the war. I just have one question for these technical excuses for the immoral conduct of our entire government: where exactly does the buck stop? Who has the integrity to accept responsibility for their actions?
They LIED about EVERY threat that Iraq and Saddam Hussein posed, and not only once and in government reports, but MULTIPLE times while addressing the public. The fact that they weren't under oath is actually more evidence that they knew they weren't just being vague or coy, but completely dishonest. Anyone who claims otherwise is as full of shit as they were/are.
do nothing?
well, treating sovereign nations with a bit of respect rather than attempting to play off regional conflicts in order to control their natural resources ( yes, its all about the oil ), is probably as close to 'doing nothing' as you need in order to ward off the spectre of an arms race ( implied just yesterday by hans blix: http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/sydney-peace-prize-for-blunt-blix/2007/05/20/1179601243747.html ).
see the problem is, the americans dont want peace, they want peace on their terms, which is to ensure america(ns) are rich and powerful, with scraps thrown out for whoever bends over for them.
its really not that difficult to stop the world going to shit, but how would the rich get richer ( which brings us back OT: please impeach chaney )
PBS recently had a one hour episode of Frontline about Dick Cheney on October 16, 2007. It well researched and went into great detail about Dick Cheney and David Addington's quest to expand presidential power in ways that were both legally and constitutionally questionable. Expanding presidential power was a major part of their efforts to perform domestic spying and to be allowed to use torture on suspected terrorists.
If I remember correctly, that episode of Frontline did not say very much, about the alleged manipulating of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war. Most of its criticisms of Dick Cheney were for different reasons than what were mentioned in the Washington Post article.
The head of the CIA has testified they can reach the US, so we at least ostensibly believe they do.
So, impeachment is proposed. Everyones going to vote against it.
And then the REPUBLICANS, see a chance to embarrass the DEMOCRATS, and decide to vote for it.
Because the DEMS would be shamed to express their views that the VP is a liar and a cheat.
And then the DEMS, not wanting to admit their shame, bury this in committee.
So the REPUB VP, a liar and a cheat, gets to keep lying and cheating.
And even though there's a valid proposal to look into it, no-one is willing to.
Wow. Land of the free, home of the brave, right?
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
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.
"Do we wait until they have nuclear tipped rockets that can reach the US? Do we do nothing until NY glows in the dark?"
Damn, I thought it was sweeps month, and here I am getting reruns:
"Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." - G.W. Bush, 7 Oct 2002
Sorry, but I've been down this road before, and I didn't really buy it the first time. Iran could hypothetically have anti-matter planet busters, but the only way I'll believe it coming from this administration is if they take me personally on a tour of Iran and show them to me. That's the funny thing about credibility. Once it's shot, it's REALLY hard to get it back.
Ironically, I always believed Iran to be a more credible threat to US interests than Iraq anyway. I was never in favor of the Iraq war, but the right argument with solid evidence might have got me behind hitting Iran. But that ship has sailed, and I won't be getting on the next one.
I see. You know, one way to help keep US troops out of reach of Iranian rockets is to pull back US troops so that they're within the US or its territories. That might have the added affect of lessening the amount of anti-American sentiment seen worldover, when perfectly indiginous countries occasionally wonder why there are US military bases on their soil..
Incidentally, the man who's pledged to bring our troops back not only from Iraq but from everywhere is Ron Paul.
Let me make a comparison:
bitorrent client: possession of a bittorrent client is not sufficient grounds to accuse someone of piracy and throw them in jail
nuke: possibility of posession of a nuclear weapon is sufficient grounds to pre-emptively attack them.
Once upon a time, this country tried really hard to avoid war. Not because we're a bunch of sissy pacifists (generally), but because war isn't a hobby one should make, either individually or collectively.
I think it's fair to wait until you've been attacked before you go attacking someone else. History has shown that we typically win defensive wars and there's not much arguing about if we were in the right or not. History has shown that we lose offensive wars and that it deeply divisive towards the soliders, citizens, and rest of the world.
I'm hoping that nobody ever nukes Manhattan. But bombing Iran isn't going to lower the chances of that happening.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
You might want to have a look at this:
http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares
"This film explores the origins in the 1940s and 50s of Islamic Fundamentalism in the Middle East, and Neoconservatism in America, parallels between these movements, and their effect on the world today. From the introduction to Part 1:
"Both [the Islamists and Neoconservatives] were idealists who were born out of the failure of the liberal dream to build a better world. And both had a very similar explanation for what caused that failure. These two groups have changed the world, but not in the way that either intended. Together, they created todays nightmare vision of a secret, organized evil that threatens the world. A fantasy that politicians then found restored their power and authority in a disillusioned age. And those with the darkest fears became the most powerful. " The Power of Nightmares, Baby It's Cold Outside.
Part 1 - Baby it's Cold Outside | 64kbps | 256 kbps | mpeg2
Part 2 - The Phantom Victory | 64kbps | 256 kbps | mpeg2
Part 3 - The Shadows in the Cave | 64kbps | 256 kbps | mpeg2
An NTSC DVD ISO is available to make burning this to DVD easier.
This item is part of the collection: Feature Films"
Need Mercedes parts ?
I have never heard a clear explanation of exactly why Pelosi and Reid are so against the concept of impeachment. I mean, they actually seem hostile to it. Why is this? The only argument I've seen is that they are somehow "afraid of a backlash" but that seems like a very flimsy reason given the obvious sentiment rising in this country. It seems almost as if the Democrats are somehow actually on Bush's side in some way, and not on the side of "the people" any more. It's almost like the "Opposition party" got taken over by a bunch of Republicans who now take great pains to squelch anything that feels like actual opposition. And they make noises about stopping Bush, but then roll over at every opportunity and give him exactly what he asked for.
I really, really dislike Bush, Cheney & Co. But I am truthfully starting to dislike the Democrats even more, if that's even possible - because it's somehow even worse to be stabbed in the back by a supposed friend than it is to be kicked in the face by your enemy (which you kind of expect). I feel like this country is now being betrayed just as much by the inaction of the Democrats as by the actions of the Republicans.
Worrying about who would replace an impeached Bush is beside the point. The point is that Bush, Cheney, et. al. BROKE THE LAW. Repeatedly. The congress has a responsibility to impeach such behavior because failing to do so condones the illegal behavior. A terrible precedent has been made. A cabal can steal two presidential elections, trash the constitution, and start illegal agressive wars of conquest, and that's a-okay.
-- Democracy in America July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001 R I P
-- QED
Congress was elected with as clear a mandate as I have ever seen in 2006: end the Iraq war. All it would have taken would have been a simple majority against the funding bill in the House, or 40 senators to support a filibuster in the Senate. Instead we get a bunch of hand-wringing and poor excuses (lies) about supporting the troops. "Support the troops; keep them in the middle of a civil war with no chance of victory and don't give them even the basics they need." We need a new government here in the US, one that puts the people of this nation first, second, and third.
The Tea Party is just the GOP with a bag over its head.
Dude, he still killed her. I never understand why people look up to him as this moral authority, when he's -- at the very least -- guilty of manslaughter, and probably negligent homicide. It has totally colored my feelings towards a whole generation of "yeah, but he's a Kennedy" baby boomer libs.
Dude, I think I can see my house from here.
First all of all Iran hos no rocket that could ever hope to be a threat to you or your family. They simply do not have the military, technology, or capability to be a threat to the USA. To people who say they may have nuke grade uranium in 5-10 years, what about the cold war? Russia had litterally thousands of nukes(on rockerts that could actually make it to us soil unlike iran), and it was possible to get out of that situation without a prempive attack infact a preemptive attack (which chaney is trying to setup on iran) could very well have started a war that destroyed the planet. Iran is NOT a threat to the USA, iran is a threat to oil, and (I admit) a threat to isreal. but thats it. SLet me repeat this IRAN IS NOT A THREAT TO USA, and WILL NOT FOR A LONG TIME. the biggest threat to the USA is is warmongers and profitiers.
Remember when pople used to give their life for our freedom? Why are we now giving our freedom for our life?
This article got tagged as "slashdotliberalwhining"? Are you fucking serious? Conservatives or liberal, you've got to be kidding if you don't think that George Bush and his administration has done more to damage this country than any president in your lifetime. No, seriously: forget about your pet cause, let go of the the party affiliation. Look at where we were five, ten, twenty years ago -- tell me where the improvements have been. By any measure, even conservative social goals, Bush and his administration have accomplished little if any good, and in every other area enormous bad. His approval rating is below what Nixon's was at the point of impeachment. And this article is "slashdotliberalwhining"? Get real.
I'm a moderate. I respect candidates from across the spectrum. George Bush and his administration have been a goddamn nightmare.
I don't care what your religious, political, or social affiliation is. If you don't recognize this administration as crap, you are in deep ignorance or denial.
I love this country. And I could cry over what these people have done to us.
How did anyone get this idea that Slashdot is not supposed to post political or non-technology stories? For one, the slogan of the site is "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters." Second, there is a Politics main section on Slashdot, and the slogan for it (look at the very top of this page) is "Politics for Nerds. Your vote matters." Third, this story came from the Firehose, so it was likely voted up by Slashdot readers themselves.
To me, all this indicates that Slashdot posts and promotes stories that intelligent people might be interested in reading and discussing.
Besides all that, Slashdot gives you the ability to filter out from the front page stories from any section that you don't like, right here: Customize Slashdot's Display
Hey, at least it isn't like Digg.
I'm not saying they're correct, I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies in their drive for war with Ira*.
Impeaching Bush without getting rid of Dick Cheney first would lead to President Cheney. Even typing that revolted me.
We are all just people.
Sounds like what they need is your wisdom leading the way on the front lines. From what I understand they're pretty open to guys like you, too. Why don't you go enlist today? http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/2005/07/operation-yellow-elephant-overview.html probably has all the info needed on a guy (or whatever) like you.
The Tea Party is just the GOP with a bag over its head.
It never ceases to amaze me that the USA (speaking as your northern neighbor) could possibly see states like Iran or North Korea or, even more laughable, Iraq, as a possible threat to the USA.
You guys stared down the USSR for the entirety of the cold war, facing an enemy with superior numbers and brutal methods who you were very much aware had nukes, and you got by just fine.
OK, they might get nukes, but so what? Lots of countries have nukes. If you wanna take bets on who's going to be the first country to actually _use_ them, my money's on Israel.
Look, the deal with the non-proliferation treaty goes like this. The countries that don't have nukes agree not to produce them, and those that do agree to gradually phase out their stockpiles.
If the US doesn't feel the need to rid themselves of nukes, why should Iran or anybody else feel the need to obey the Anti-Proliferation Treaty?
The country that has the dubious honor of being the only country to ever use nuclear weapons on humans doesn't get to take the moral high ground and lecture Iran about their nuclear ambitions.
The plural form of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not "evidence".
All the people on this thread are missing the point that the Republicans voted to debate the issue on the floor and the Democrats moved the debate into the Judiciary Committee. The Democrats didn't want the debate in public and wanted it buried. Regardless of a person's political views, this is not a victory for people that want to impeach Bush/Cheney. Far from it... The Republicans want a public debate because the people that want to impeach are significantly in the minority, but the statements the fringe make will be used against every Democrat in a general election. It's easy for people that are antiwar to assume that dissatisfaction with the conduct of the war is support for never fighting the war.
It's debatable if someone who had served ten years could even be sworn into office as vice president, but even if possible, and the role of the president became vacant, the vice president would be passed over in favor of the Speaker of the House, as anyone who is sworn in must be eligible under the Constitution to serve.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Exactly, our guys say totally different stuff-- and they don't behead, they just pump out thousands of rounds of depleted-uranium or drop bombs from thousands of feet! And they don't like to do their killing on videotape, either. Oh, and they don't do the killing themselves, they order poor kids to do it! Yeah, neocons and radical islamists are totally different kinds of killers. You're right.
I use friend/foe to signal strong [dis]agreement instead of mod points. What else are f/f good for?
Yes it does if you have served for more than 6 years as president you can not serve as vice president.
What is this war you (ArcherB) keep prattling on about as if you are suffering from early-onset Alzheimers??? The term "insurgents" indicates the locals who are rebelling against foreign invaders. (No doubt a subliterate such as yourself believes that term to mean "al Qaeda.")
There is an OCCUPATION of Iraq by foreign invaders, namely, the US of A, clown, get that? Our intel??? Would that be the intel from the very same sixteen intel entities which are unable to locate Osama (that would be Counsin Osama to the Bush family) nor that anthrax assassin who killed and attempted to kill US Congress persons (specifically democratic congresspersons, don't forget)? You never make any sense -- that Iranian president - who has continuously been purposively misquoted (although I am no fan of his nor any other religious wacko) by the US and Israeli corporate meda said the following: "If a Holocaust really took place during WWII, then why don't they give the Jews land in either Germany or Europe, instead of stealing the Palestinian's land?" (I'm paraphrasing here, but I received that translation from a former CIA agent who is skillfully fluent in Farsi, Arabic and several other languages and once served in Iran.)
While the 12th Amendment says "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States", the 22nd prohibits only the ELECTION to office, not serving therein. Nothing I see in the Constitution talks about eligibility to serve as President (other than natural born citizen and the age limit.) It is reasonable to assume that when the word "elected" is used, it is limited to that action, and that the 12th Amendment serves only to ensure that the citizen and age limits apply to the office of VP so that the VP can assume the role of Pres. if necessary. (There was nothing in the Constitution preventing someone for running for Pres. who was too young or not a natural born citizen, only that he could not serve. Apparently, he could serve as VP.)
If you thought the furor over SCOTUS stopping Gore's shenanigans trying to keep Florida's electors from being certified according to Florida's laws was something, just wait until SCOTUS has to rule on whether the 22nd A means one cannot SERVE despite clear terminology that the limit is "elected", and Bill gets passed over for a Republican speaker of the house when Hill steps down. I'd almost pay to watch that.
I attempted to quote you above, but something keeps happening to the bold text. Let me try again:
Okay, one more try:
I give up.
Raoul Mitgong: Unhelpful.
America is a conservative country with conservative voters following a conservative agenda.
Bush is not a conservative. Conservatism is generally against foreign adventures, against foreign borrowing, against big government, and against government interference in private matters. Bush has engaged in multiple military adventures, has borrowed like no president before him, has increased government spending to unprecedented levels, and has been pushing government interference in religious and private matters.
Bush actually presents himself as a populist nationalist. But like many populist nationalists, he really hides corporatism and borderline corruption under that veneer.
He wasn't successful at all. Heck, the Republicans were voting in favor of the debate. It is more accurate to say: the articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney have been buried in the House Judiciary committee, and will not be seen again.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
As of July, a majority favored impeaching Cheney, and it was close on Bush:
So the Congressional Democrats are distancing themselves from the majority and certainly from their party members. Probably partly because they get saturated with "info" from all the boot-licking media and consultants based in Washington and NY.
Of course many people try to characterize impeachment as a fringe movement... because that's the only rhetorical angle left: per the Constitution or the will of the people, impeachment of Cheney is quite reasonable. Particularly considering the damage done to the country.
Hopefully we'll see criminal proceedings at some point. There's a lot of personal responsibility that still needs to be apportioned.
Don't think for one moment that after Bush leaves office, they're going to stop trying to implement their "Project for the New American Century". They've been trying ever since the Nixon administration (where do you think Cheney and Rumsfeld come from?), if they can wait 30 years, they aren't going to just give up just because it's the end of an inning.
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. What I don't understand is that most people also seem to think that there's a valid moral distinction as well. Frankly, that creeps me out. "They're not people like the rest of us," is a very scary philosophy for people who are debating basic human rights to hold, but it seems to be the prevailing one. Why do I deserve a fair trial when foreigners do not?
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
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
I've got no sympathy for Hussein, or any other dictator; the sooner they're given the Mussolini treatment, the better. But it's not our part to sacrifice for the sake of others, giving money and lives for alleviating suffering. Prosperity in this world isn't an automatic; it's the product of a rational mind fully engaged in one's reality to serve one's goals. The prosperity enjoyed by the European states, and later America, is a direct product of the ideals of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, the ideals of *objective reality*, of *reason*, in the concrete form of the Industrial Revolution. We can rebuild Iraq, but will it do any good? The ultimate drive behind jihad (and it's counterpart/antagonist, the Arab nationalism that led to Hussein and is still strong in Egypt and Syria (to the extent that the latter isn't an Iranian proxy)) is ultimately that the fundamentalist Muslims want to have their cake and eat it too. They want the prosperity and the cultural dominance we have (Islamic culture peaked around the time of the Abbasids and has been going downhill ever since) while continuing to blank out reality and live according to the whims of their sky-god. They're not alone, either; show me an impoverished country, and I'll show you people who have thrown their reason to the curb and are praying for grain to fall into their hands. To the extent that we provide aid, we help them to continue this evasion (yeah, we do it here too, hopefully *that* reckoning isn't too far off).
Jesus is coming -- look busy!
My major problem is the question you didn't answer: What's the appropriate burden of proof for executing an unarmed person in the field or disappearing him to a prison site for the rest of his natural life? I'll accept for the sake of argument that these things are effective ways of dealing with the problem, but I'd like to see some serious rules applied before I give the nod to classifying somebody as a person with no rights, locking him up, and throwing away the key. So far, I haven't seen a lot of evidence that we're doing a good job of figuring out who we should be disappearing, and I've seen enough evidence that we aren't to be hesitant to give the government an "arbitrarily disappear, torture, and execute whoever you want as long as it's not me" card. When you combine death / permanent imprisonment with accusations and evidence that look like a scene out of The Crucible, I get nervous.
Hmmm... I think that we look at the world in a fundamentally different way, then. I tend to think that in all but the most extreme circumstances, it is universally wrong to deprive somebody of life or liberty without a way of meaningfully defending himself. To me, that principle isn't just a convenient legal fiction that happens to work out well for me. It's a fundamental concern about the unfairness of being kidnapped in the middle of the night and shipped off to be held incognito in the middle of nowhere until you die. Add to that the fact that it's bad PR at a time when we're losing a PR war to the types of people who blow up hospitals, and I think that you have the makings for a policy we'll be embarrassed about in the hindsight of history.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
Some of the torture prisons are in Turkey, and other nations that permit legal "water-boarding" and other tortures. I suggest you check for the articles in the New York Times: it's an ongoing program to transfer prisoners in Iraq and other places and transfer them to nations where torture is legal. And there's been fascinating testimony, in front of Congress, that the US still engages in "waterboarding" in our own prisons in Iraq. This is a banned torture involving drowing the victim to just shy of death. It does occasionally kill, adn these are prisoners who have never been tried, much less convicted, of anything.
This secret extradition and torture treatment is also in direct violation of the US code of military justice, a set of US laws, which describes court procedures for military procedures and has no magic clause for this newly invented "military non-combatants". I'm afraid you've not glanced at the set of laws being violated: please spend a bit of time checking out the news articles on these tortures and on
We signed the Geneva Convention. We also wrote the US constitution, and numerous court decisions since then provide a minimum of human rights for even enemies in combat, much more for prisoners. The Geneva Convetion is an agreement *by* nation stat4es, and includes their handling of non-signatories. And like parents without children paying taxes for schools, many nations sign it to help prevent trouble worldwide. Better yet, it also includes standards for how nations treat their own citizens, forbidding genocide and yes, torture. So it's not just aimed at protecting one's citizens oversees, it sets a legal minimum standard of behavior worldwide. So let's not pretend that there's only one reason for signing it. That kind of rationalized thinking leads to people only obeying traffic laws when it feels important to them, and it's not safe.
Please examine the history of the US code of military justice, if not of the Geneva Convention, to see how many ways we're violating it. I'm not saying that it justifies beheading of innocent victims, but one does not justify the other: both are illegal and violations of international treaty, and need to stop for either practicioners to be treated as just.
While the national party flipped in the 1960s, the segregationists controlled state Democratic parties in many southern states at least through the 1970s. Take a look at Alabama: George Wallace ran and won the 1970s Democratic primary against an incumbent governor on an explicitly racist message, attacking Albert Brewer for reaching out to blacks. Wallace remained governor through 1979, and served as governor again 1983-87, though he claimed to no longer be a racist during his last term. I mean it's still mind-boggling to me that the Democratic Party didn't dump George Fucking Wallace until 1987. And things are worse if you look at the Democratic machines in rural areas---the clean-up there is going far slower than at the state level.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I'm not 100% sure where you're going with your argument. Bush has run his administration in a manner that has been completely contrary to both of his campaigns. Is it really the voter's fault that we didn't get what was advertised? Don't forget our original point that Bush and Cheney have been spewing lies from the start, and that those lies didn't become quite so apparent until his second term.
Couldn't you also blame the democrats for pitching two candidates in a row that didn't have clearly defined campaigns? Although I think most will agree that Al Gore was a good candidate, he had an absolutely horrible campaign. John Kerry also had the disadvantage of not having clearly defined campaign goals, and was also the subject of a smear campaign. Such a bland candidate had absolutely no chance running against an "idealist" like Bush -- someone like Howard Dean would have fared much better in this situation.
In the business world, good products fail all of the time because of bad marketing. Any marketer who blames consumers for failing to properly appreciate the product will quickly find himself out of a job.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
The difference is that a course of action in Iraq can (in my or your opinion) be wiser or "dumber". My unwillingness to join the army has nothing at all to do with what is best for the US or Iraq. People who attack character instead of the issue at hand are usually being deliberately evasive, though I'll allow that they can also just be too stupid to explain why they believe something on its own merits.
As to your contention that Arabs (Shia and Sunni) cannot be civilized, I will point to Europe as a counter-example. Europe was in more or less continuous warfare for thousands of years. When they weren't fighting in Europe, they were fighting through proxies. Western Europe has not had a significant conflict since World War II. Certainly the Middle East can get 50 years of peace, no?
I would also contend that giving up after a few years would be short-sighted, though I agree that the administration severely underestimated the consequences of getting involved (or at least did so publicly).
I certainly agree that we wouldn't even be over there if it weren't for oil, and we can debate the merits of that if you like. But that, too, has little to do with what the best course of action is right now. I am arguing that to leave the country in the midst of a civil war of our creation is irresponsible, and the end results are probably not in the best interest of the US or the bulk of the Iraqi people.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Right, because ignoring "other people's problems" worked so well for us in World War 2.
We didn't enter WWII for humanitarian reasons. We entered the war because Japan drew us in with a massive attack on our naval base at Pearl Harbor.
Up until that day in December 1941, there was a strong sense that the US should stay out of the war, because we remembered what happened in WWI. We were sending supplies to Britain, and providing other resources to our allies, but there was no support for declaring war on anyone.
When Japan made it clear that they intended to work with the other Axis powers to rule all of the world, there was no question that we needed to fight back, and so we did. The difference between WWII and all other conflicts since is huge. The Axis powers were clearly an existential threat to the continental US (Hawaii first, lower 48 next); unlike the theoretical threats embodied in "domino theory" and "global war on terror".
Sure, Al Qaeda did attack us, and we attacked back -- in Afghanistan. We were making some good progress there, too... Until the majority of our resources and attention were refocused on the Iraq boondoggle. Now look what's happening in Afghanistan: the Taliban is coming back, poppy/cannabis harvests are booming, and Afghanistan's neighbor Pakistan is having major problems due in no small part to the increasing influence of radical islamists who operate from the safety of the afghanistan/pakistan border.
The only entities that are benefitting from this Iraq shitstorm are Al Qaeda (it's a fucking recruiting wet dream) and the guys like Halliburton, Blackwater, and all the other Military-Industrial Complex hangers-on.
Feh.
A host is a host from coast to coast...
Unless it's down, or slow, or fails to POST!
I also think that the Democrats have not done a job at all in showing that their were wrong doings from this government. If you ask me they could have spread a lot more information around to people to get them to realize how wrong this war and policies are. We on slashdot are fortunate we read news keep up to date in breaches of privacy and such, but the majority of people globally don't seem to care. They are too busy with other things, and it's not being pumped out into the mainstream media half as much as it should. The media is to blame, the American people are to blame and the government is to blame. In the end you bring it on yourself when you don't get involved. If your not involved you let these travesties go unchecked. Some of the major ones like treatment of prisoners are dealt with quickly because of pressure from media outlets and people. These are two large things, if they put pressure on the government they have no choice but to act, but that kind of pressure has not been put on anyone.
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe more Americans do seem to care than I think, but I think they are more concerned on what is going to happen on American idol than the Nation. People just don't care, and I don't think the Democrats are going to push something so controversial if it's not publicly charged.
That's a sad thing because in the end if the Democrats pushed for it, it would become publicly charged. So I don't think it will happen. The people won't act before the Democrats and the Democrats won't act before they know it is a safe topic. It's a bloody Mexican standoff.
----------
I know my grammer are bad.
Clinton lied to cover up the fact that he got a hummer from an intern. Bush/Cheney lied to start an unprovoked war of convenience.
Clinton was subjected to a political show trial that was (to borrow a phrase) full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Bush/Cheney continue to operate as if the laws of the land do not apply to them.
The human cost of Clinton's lies are utterly insignificant. The same cannot cannot be said to be even remotely true for Bush/Cheney.
Yet Clinton was the president who was impeached...
Honestly - what's wrong with you people?
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
What the Iraqis do to each other is no concern of ours. It wasn't in 2003, and it isn't now.
It's OUR mess. We made it our mess when we invaded. While Saddam was no paragon of moral superiority, the number of innocents who died under his charge were less than under ours. It's like Valdiz incident. While it would have surely been profitable for Exxon to retreat and say "Not our problem", you cause a mess, you clean it. There wasn't Islamic Jihad, Muslim Brotherhood, or any other suicide bombing group in Iraq before the invasion.
I'm all in favor of a pull-out, but for God's sake, we've got a moral responsibility to clean up our own mess before we do as best we can.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
Idiot!
The US did not "stay out of the war".
We fired the first "shot" at Japan, when we took sides, and embargoed their oil supply.
They were busy building an empire, and having no domestic oil supply of their own, got kind of pissed when we cut them off. Do you blame them for attacking us?
If Saudi Arabia said to us tomorrow; "Hey, America, we don't like what you're doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, so we're cutting you off until you get out - " how long do you think it would take for the order to go from the White House to a Submarine in the Persian Gulf to fire a barrage of SLCM's at Ryadh? All of 5 minutes?
Yes.
WW II was also, about oil.
Growing, industrial superpowers, Japan and Germany, as soon as they ran out of domestic energy supplies, and as soon as they got sick of being extorted by their neighbors for energy, they took matters into their own hands. And when their neighbors got nervous, and cut them off, Japan and Germany went ballistic. Literally.
Does any of this sound familliar?
Maybe history does not repeat itself.
But as Mark Twain said; "it does rhyme."
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.