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."'"
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
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."
Congress' approval rating is a meaningless metric. The approval rating of congress is almost always bad. It is rarely (if ever) higher than the president's. However, if you ask people about their particular senators and representatives, their ratings are generally much better. Remember, it is not my representative that is the problem -- just everyone else's.
Rhapsody in Numbers
"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.
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.
Nope. Probably because they're the most useless Congress we've had in over a decade. They haven't done anything useful, they pulled a bait-and-switch on their arguments for why they should be elected last year. i.e. "Elect us and we'll get out of Iraq... oh, sorry, you voted for us but now you also need to give us the presidency. We couldn't do anything before and we still can't do anything."
No, the reason why Congress's approval ratings are so low is because they've shown the public what they have to offer, and they don't have anything. The Democrats should've tried to lose 2006 so they'd have a chance in 2008. In 2008, the Republicans have Bush dragging them down but Democrats have the Congress dragging them down even more. It's entirely possible the Democrats peaked in 2006 and won't be able to get the job done in 2008. By the time the election comes, they'll have had 2 years in Congress and nothing to show for it. Not a good way to go into a presidential election.
I think the congressional Democrat's numbers are low because they have completely failed to rein in the Bush administration, which is what the Democrats were put in power to do. They were installed to get America out of Iraq, instead there are more troops there now than there were during the election with no end in sight. The Democrats cry they don't have the votes to override a veto which is B.S. All the Democrats have to do is not allocate funds for Iraq which takes a simple majority and then the troops come home. That's why the founding fathers gave them the power of the purse.
Impeaching Cheney would have done nothing but improve the approval rating of Congressional Democrats. He is widely despised throughout the nation for having suckered the nation in to Iraq, and for promoting the use of torture which has turned America in to an outlaw nation.
Impeaching him for Iraq and Iran is off the mark. He should be impeached for:
A. single handedly pushing authorization for torture which was done entirely by his office and his aides
B. single handedly pushing authorization of illegal spying on American citizens without a warrant also lead out of his office
Those are both slam dunk grounds for impeachment because they are both clearly illegal, unpopular, unnecessary and were just plain stupid.
@de_machina
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[1] Rememeber that the Democratic Party is the home of instituitional racism. Jim Crow? Democrat. Those guys with the firehoses back in the civil rights movement? Lifelong Democrats all. Only KKK member serving in Washington? Lifelong Democrat and former Kleagle of the KKK: The Honorable Senator Robert C. Byrd. Who was anklebiting Lincoln at every turn and attempting to sabotage that war effort? The Democratic Party. Just because they have some tame colored folks (Jesse Jackson & ilk come to mind) who keep the 'urban' vote solidly showing up on election day in exchange for largesse from the Treasury doesn't mean the average Democrat isn't a condescending bigot.
Damn, I love tired old horseshit day on Slashdot...every day.
You do understand that everything in that paragraph you wrote is true, up until 50 years ago, right? Most of the "democrats" you describe were southerners and switched to the GOP in the 60s.
Granted, I don't understand why somebody like Byrd is even drawing breath, but the R and D parties you describe don't exist anymore and have almost zero relevance on today's politics.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
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
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"
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!