Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Cheney Impeachment Not Off the Table

By Ray McGovern, Consortium News. Posted March 21, 2008.


The path to impeachment is clear. Democrats just need to show a little courage.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Ray McGovern

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

You would not know it for the news blackout, but New Yorkers of Rep. Jerrold Nadler's district held a Town Hall/Impeachment Forum last Sunday to encourage Nadler, chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, to begin impeachment proceedings against Vice President Dick Cheney.

Panelists included former congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman, former Reagan Justice Department attorney Bruce Fein, human rights attorney and Harper's commentator Scott Horton, and John Nirenberg, the activist who at the turn of the year walked from Boston to Washington, D.C., in a futile attempt to meet with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on impeachment.

The organizers had asked me to be on the panel, but I had to send regrets and submitted a statement instead (see below). A video of the proceedings will be posted on afterdowningstreet.org.

Taking Stock

In a post mortem the next evening, the organizers reflected on what seemed to be a mixed picture of good and bad news.

On the positive side, Judson Memorial Church was crammed to overflowing with 300 folks. And this, despite the fact that most were already aware that Nadler had announced (late Friday afternoon) that he would be a no-show. He did not even send a representative.

The panelists' remarks were compelling. Blame for inaction on impeachment was laid squarely on our invertebrate Congress. (But ouch, that familiar whining can get a bit tiresome.)

The audience was described as well-educated, nonfringe, and polite.

On the negative side, despite Herculean efforts to interest the "mainstream media," no one showed. And the enthusiasm of those hardy souls trying to spur action on impeachment was dampened by continuing frustration at the obstacles, as politicians like Nadler continue to put political expedience above their sworn duty to protect and defend the Constitution.

Tories back in charge

It took some 230 years, but the Tories are back in charge -- I mean the Nadlers, the Conyers, the Pelosis, so bereft of the courage of our forebears to defy a new King George, preferring to let him dis us the people and trash the Constitution. Remember those stirring final words of the Declaration of Independence? "We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor." We have come a long way. Surely, the Founders are rolling over in their graves.

Many of our forebears were also well-educated and nonfringe; fortunately, they were NOT polite.

Is it not clear, finally, that the time for politeness is over?

It is up to us, now, whether we shall have constitutional separation of powers or shall have kings. It is up to us whether an unrestrained executive will be able to march our children and grandchildren off to an endless series of resource wars likely to dominate this century.

The time for talking is over. Impeachment proceedings must begin. And no one is going to get that done but us.

We need to acknowledge that one of the hurdles is outrage fatigue; it is hard to decide where to start among the many high crimes and misdemeanors of which Vice President Cheney is demonstrably guilty. From my perspective as a former intelligence officer, we certainly cannot allow to escape censure Cheney's conjuring up false "intelligence" to justify what Nuremberg defined as the "supreme international crime" -- a war of aggression -- in Iraq.

My colleagues and I in Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity could see what was happening early on. That is why, in the first appeal of its kind by an intelligence alumni group, we wrote to President George W. Bush on July 14, 2003: "We strongly recommend that you ask for Cheney's immediate resignation (Memorandum for the President, "Intelligence Unglued").

As I mention in my statement to the NYC Town Hall, former CIA director George Tenet has since written that Cheney's warmongering "went well beyond what our analysis would support," and apparently came as something of a surprise to the president himself.

The Founders knew that, human nature being what it is, abuses like these were inevitable somewhere down the line. That's why they took such pains to provide an orderly political procedure to enable us to deal promptly and responsibly with such high crimes and misdemeanors. I doubt it ever entered their minds that their successors, for perceived partisan political advantage, would shun that orderly procedure upon which so much now depends.

The process is called impeachment; the rules are clear.

All it takes is courage. And I do not refer here to the invertebrates in Congress.

I mean us. Can we handle the truth? Can we press for our rights as courageously as the Founders? Everything hinges on our answers to these questions.

--------------------------------------------------

Statement

Is Impeachment Necessary to Protect the Constitution?
Town Hall Meeting/Impeachment Forum
March 9, 2008

Congressman Nadler, I am Ray McGovern, born and bred in the Bronx a bit north of your district.

I regret not being able to be with you in person to give my perspective on whether impeachment is necessary to protect the Constitution -- and specifically, whether the manufacturing of false intelligence to "justify" an unprovoked war fits the category of "high crime or misdemeanor."


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: impeachment, cheney

Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Impeachment? Yeah right.
Posted by: Sil on Mar 21, 2008 12:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Believe me, with these Democrats, impeachment is most certainly off the table. And that's certainly something they should be ashamed of.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Y Be Ashamed
Posted by: reverend revlon on Mar 21, 2008 4:27 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At this point,why be bothered. Our concentration needs to be right where it is, on getting the right democrat elected, so we can get our troops home and start to redevelop and move our country in a positive direction. The country, for the most realizes they made amistake by voting for the Bush-Cheney team for as long as they did. The only ppl pushing for impeachment trials, are those who would like to take the American focus off the presidential race. We don't want that, believe me. We don't need to be like the Republicans, we need to us and focus on what good this country has in store and not on the bad that is only a few months in our past.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Y Be Ashamed Posted by: nochicagoboys
» RE: NO - Y Be Ashamed Posted by: left_libertarian
» Re: Y be ashamed Posted by: soybeing
» RE: Y Be Ashamed Posted by: TrueBlueHueMan
» RE: Y Be Ashamed Posted by: harryf200
Is this some kind of a joke?
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Mar 21, 2008 5:04 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Last time I checked, impeachment required cooperation between Republicans and Democrats, as well as a press that was willing to cover the story.

For example, in Nixon's impeachment,

"The new Special Prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, who had been appointed by the Justice Department, pursued Nixon's tapes all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. On July 24, 1974, the Court unanimously ruled that Nixon had to surrender the tapes.

On Saturday, July 27, the House Judiciary Committee approved its first article of impeachment charging President Nixon with obstruction of justice. Six of the Committee's 17 Republicans joined all 21 Democrats in voting for the article. The following Monday the Committee approved its second article charging Nixon with abuse of power. The next day, the third and final article, contempt of Congress, was approved.

First of all, there is no special prosecutor - that rule was used to attack the Clintons, and then the rule was tossed - and now the President can commit crimes willy-nilly with no fear of prosecution.

If the Congress wants to pursue impeachment, first they'd have to reinstate the Special Prosecutor law and then they would have to assign someone to the job (Eliot Spitzer?). WIth Joe Lieberman being a
Republican in all but name, there's little hope of any legislation being passed on this that wouldn't get the veto - but Congress should be pushing the issue.

Ever since Ray McGovern got up and made statements about "whatever it was that hit the Pentagon" I've had doubts about his actual intentions. Don't forget, this is a long-time CIA officer active in the Nixon, Reagan and Bush Sr. Administrations:

"McGovern was a mid-level officer in the CIA in the 1960s where his focus was analysis of Soviet policy toward Vietnam. McGovern was one of President Ronald Reagan's intelligence briefers from 1981-85; he was in charge of preparing daily security briefs for Reagan, Vice President George H.W. Bush, the National Security Advisor, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Cabinet. Later, McGovern was one of several senior CIA analysts who prepared the President's Daily Brief (PDB) during the first Bush administration."

I suppose that means that the CIA had to vet this article? Ex-CIA officers have to send all their books to be reviewed - did this one get the OK?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Is this some kind of a joke? No Joke Posted by: left_libertarian
MAKE IMPEACHMENT HAPPEN: HERE'S HOW!
Posted by: aharlib on Mar 21, 2008 5:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Impeach Bush and Cheney NOW

Defense of the Constitution Knows No Party


The Bush administration has illegally seized and imprisoned Americans without benefit of their trial by jury, has spied on Americans without warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, has lied America into a disastrous war, and has betrayed an American intelligence officer, who was working on weapons of mass destruction networks, to our enemies (Valerie Plame.)

Impeachment hearings against Vice President Dick Cheney are now a distinct possibility, thanks to a recent outpouring of public support for impeachment by Americans across the political spectrum. Your calls and faxes to House Judiciary Committee members are needed to keep up the pressure.

Leave a message for your Congressman, to demand he obey his oath to "defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Act now to restore your rights and the rule of law bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers, which brave men have died defending throughout our history.

Call the House Judiciary Committee

202-225-3951
and demand that Impeachment hearings begin ASAP!





*What Happened to Make This All Possible?

On November 6, 2007, Rep. Dennis Kucinich brought H.Res.799, for the impeachment of Cheney, to the House Floor for debate. It was broadcast on CSPAN. A sudden outpouring of public support for impeachment forced lawmakers to keep the resolution alive. Democrats, most of whom currently resist demands for impeachment, were unwilling to kill the bill with the public watching. Republicans and some Democrats, mindful of impeachment sentiment, voted to debate the bill, but failed. At the end of the day, Americans of both parties had made it clear whose "table" this is, and that they want to see impeachment on it.



For more information go to
NEImpeach.org

ALSO:
WE NEED A NATIONAL FAST FROM CONSUMERISM !! If you want to literally do a FAST from eating- that is your choice- Make sure Congress knows you are also calling for NATIONAL CONSUMER FAST asap - AND A NATIONAL STRIKE !! this is the perfect opportunity to grow the movement !!!!

They dont care if we don't eat, they care if we dont BUY FOOD, GAS, and products that make these corporations money !!! THEY CARE ABOUT THE STOCK MARKET CRASHING ANOTHER 300 POINTS TODAY !!!

www.pledgetoimpeach.org
www.wexlerwantshearings.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Did you actually read Kucinich's articles?? Posted by: democracynowiniraq
Get impeachment back on the table -- where it has always belonged
Posted by: nochicagoboys on Mar 21, 2008 5:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"When once a republic is corrupted there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption . . . every other correction is either useless or a new evil." - Thomas Jefferson

Thank you Mr. McGovern for your excellent article, and more specifically, your unending and personal resolve to help place impeachment back on the table, where it has always belonged.

How is it possible that a member of Congress can say it is “a waste of time” to impeach a president who has lied—under oath of office—to justify invading a nonbelligerent country, conspired to torture prisoners and to strip them of their constitutional rights, illegally spied on American citizens, violated international treaties against aggressive war and treatment of prisoners of war, and, quite possibly, is complicit in treason and war profiteering?

What will it take short of fellatio in the Oval Office for politicians to show some spine and stop hiding behind self-serving excuses: “we don’t want to be seen as vindictive” or “it would be political suicide” or “let the electorate ‘impeach’ him at the polls” or “the country needs to move on” or “we need to do things for the country . . .etc., etc., etc. ?” The excuses have been endless; the reasoning frivolous and patronizing toward the American public.

The Constitution is barely seven paragraphs old before our Founding Fathers gave the people’s elected representatives the power to impeach the president, and whomever in the executive branch, for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

The Framers never intended impeachment to be either extreme or rare. It was meant to be used forcefully, and unapologetically, and as often as necessary to check the excesses of power, or wanton corruption, of the temporary occupants of the White House.

We cannot hope to rejuvenate a decaying democracy unless we have the fortitude to endure the unpleasant political process of impeachment. It's time for the American people and Congress to act.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Impeach The Criminals Bush and Cheney
Posted by: left_libertarian on Mar 21, 2008 5:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Justice demands this for they knowingly lied about WMD in Iraq so as to start an illegal war.

If this is not an impeachable offense, then nothing is....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Caesar77
Posted by: Caesar77 on Mar 21, 2008 5:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Impeachment, Cheney and Bush should be tried for mass murder. As long as Americans are distracted, ( not hard ) by American idol, Dancing with the Stars and Brittney, these criminals will literally get away with murder. The Democrats are no better than Republicans, they are both corrupt.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Caesar77 Posted by: democracynowiniraq
Terrorist
Posted by: HeKnew on Mar 21, 2008 5:59 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
IMPEACH PELOSI

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Terrorist Posted by: MyLeftFoot
» RE: Terrorist Posted by: nochicagoboys
The Constitution's Potemkin Impeachment Clause helps Bush/Cheney
Posted by: milfordkid on Mar 21, 2008 6:15 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no way, short of historical accident, that a president can be impeached under the Constitution's Impeachment Clause, which depends wholly on who controls the House and whether there is a supermajority for conviction in the Senate at the time an impeachment is proposed.

If the Founders had listened to George Mason in writing Article II, Section 4, maladministration" (incompetence) might have become the standard, much as in parliamentary systems. But James Madison, who favored impeachment only for criminal behavior, prevailed, and so we have a wholly political, non-substantive impeachment process, however idealistic and gallant the proponents of impeachment for Bush and Cheney may sound.

Each member of Congress has the duty to defend the Constitution. There is no duty to impeach -- sorry. The Bill of Rights and the division of War Powers are issues that hang in the balance with the most dangerous president in history sitting in the White House. We need the full energy of progressives to work for goals that can be accomplished: Helping everyone, including people of color, to obtain voter IDs in states like Indiana that have laws designed to depress the minority vote; pressing Congress not to bow to the White House on illegal NSA surveillance; encouraging Congress to stop giving Bush a blank check to pursue wars of choice; working in the upcoming election campaign to make universal health care and economic equity core issues in debates at every level.

There is effectively no Impeachment Clause in the Constitution that weighs a president's conduct, rather than his or her weight in the House and Senate. Forgeddaboutit.

We need effective effective strategies to oppose war, despotism, and broken elections.
Shouting "Impeachment!" may make you feel good, but it will do nothing to save this ailing republic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I went to a town hall meeting staged by my Dem congressman
Posted by: Ellie1 on Mar 21, 2008 6:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
a few months back. I brought up impeachment, and he asked the crowd how many were in favor. He seemed shocked when all but two (Repuke shills) raised their hands. Dems in the belt way are so out of touch.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

bigtime
Posted by: pnut on Mar 21, 2008 6:23 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have typed this for so long my fingers are just nubs over and over impeach Mr. Bush & Co. impeach Mr. Bush & Co., but here I go again Impeasch Mr. Bush & Co. well this time something will get done (I think). All of the reasons to impeach Mr. Bush & Co. are here so why do we not? I do not think the news media have the balls to impeach and with out the news no congress person will take up arms and impeach so here we are back to the IMPEACH MR. BUSH&CO. and back to making my fingers stubs again. Bill Davidson

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

rabrophy
Posted by: rraabrophy on Mar 21, 2008 6:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What ever is done now will be wasted effort. Bush will just pardon them all. Waite till after the election and then hold hearing in the house and senate. Threaten those Neo-con scum with jail and they'll spill there guts!
Then we can get to the bottom of this mess!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Democratic majority in the senate is a joke
Posted by: mercianomad on Mar 21, 2008 6:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Impeachment from this bunch is an absurd expectation, but finding anyone guilty after the impeachment is even more absurd. Thinking that there's any kind of "progressive" majority in the senate is even more absurd than that.

Sure, plenty of Dems in the House of Representatives, which would presumably initiate impeachment proceedings, but in the senate, which would do the actual judging? No way. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, and Ben Nelson (among quite a few others) are nothing more than neocons re-branded with a "D" next to their names.

Look at their congressional voting histories.

Here's a well-laid-out site detailing some of the more obscene examples:

Jellycrats

This country's current political situation is the cruelest of jokes - we have people in office who are the exact opposite of the group they're supposed to be representing.

I remember when I was a young kid in school, hearing about the founding fathers' rallying cry: "No taxation without representation!" I can't believe I have to pay taxes for any of these hosers, considering that this little slogan was branded into my head in grade school. It's all a big lie.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Would it really make a difference ?
Posted by: rafey on Mar 21, 2008 6:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cheney has already obtained what he wanted: A bigger bak account and Western control of the Middle East Oil (with his name on it). There is little one can do to him that would mean very much short of war crimes trial (which I and hundreds of millions of others world wide have stated that they would gradly support if there was courage enough to petition for it) !!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hope against Hope
Posted by: sawdust on Mar 21, 2008 6:38 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As much as I am in favor of the idea of impeachment of these war-mongering idiots, it simply isn't going to happen. I agree that we should concentrate on electing new leaders and getting them in place, ASAP, and I also agree that the invertebrate congress and the apathetic US voters will never muster the stuff (courage) to make it happen or even begin to get the ball rolling. We are in so much trouble on so many fronts, it is frightening. Just get the bums out and move on. If sometime later, there is a group with enough gumption (and memory) to come back and pursue the crimes and atrocities, I'm there to participate. But for now, can't we just move on?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hope against Hope Posted by: nochicagoboys
talk is cheap, m*th*rf*ck*r
Posted by: hurricane hugo on Mar 21, 2008 7:06 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
!

jdfu!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» i'd like to buy a vowel, pat Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» RE: i'd like to buy a vowel, pat Posted by: nochicagoboys
» i'm here all week Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» RE: i'm here all week Posted by: nochicagoboys
We Need An International War Crimes Tribunal Investigation
Posted by: robbrian on Mar 21, 2008 7:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we can't impeach the Criminal Conspiracy called the Bush Administration we can retroactively press for an International War Crimes Tribunal Investigation. (See Link Text on ICT at bottom of comment)

Since its inception, the Tribunal has become a fully operational legal institution rendering judgements and setting important precedents of international criminal and humanitarian law. Many legal issues now adjudicated by the Tribunal have never actually been adjudicated or have lain dormant since the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials.

Although judicially independent, the ICTY must rely on international cooperation in order to successfully carry out its mandate. Cooperation by States or international organizations is vital to the collection of evidence, as well as to the detention and transfer of accused persons. States also offer indispensable cooperation in the relocation of sensitive witnesses or the enforcement of sentences handed down by the Tribunal. Additionally, States can contribute personnel or financial resources through the Tribunal's Trust Fund.


The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was established by Security Council resolution 827. This resolution was passed on 25 May 1993 in the face of the serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991, and as a response to the threat to international peace and security posed by those serious violations.

In harmony with the purpose of its founding resolution, the ICTY's mission is fourfold:

to bring to justice persons allegedly responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law
to render justice to the victims
to deter further crimes
to contribute to the restoration of peace by holding accountable persons responsible for serious violations
of international humanitarian law

The Tribunal’s authority is to prosecute and try four clusters of offences:

Grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions.
Violations of the laws or customs of war.
Genocide.
Crimes against humanity.

Investigations are initiated by the Prosecutor at her own discretion or on the basis of information received from individuals, governments, international organisations or non-governmental organisations.


Indictments must be confirmed by a judge prior to becoming effective.
The trial commences only once the accused is physically present before the Tribunal. At the initial appearance of the accused, the Trial Chamber asks the accused to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty.


The conduct of the trial draws from both the civil law and common law systems: elements of the adversarial and inquisitorial procedures are combined.


The Rules of Procedure and Evidence guarantee that ICTY proceedings adhere to internationally recognised principles of fair trial. As an important guarantee of a fair trial, the legal aid programme provides counsel for indigent defendants at the expense of the Tribunal.

Other important elements include the presumption of innocence, the right to be tried without undue delay, the right to examine adverse witnesses and the right of appeal.

Procedural provisions for the protection of witnesses' identities and the actual assistance provided before, during and after the proceedings by the Victims and Witnesses Section within the Registry ensure that witnesses can testify freely and safely.

linked text

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Clean House (and Senate and Executive)
Posted by: Reader11722 on Mar 21, 2008 7:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Impeach them all for constantly violating our rights:
They violate the 1st Amendment by opening mail, caging demonstrators and banning books like America Deceived (book) from Amazon.
They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns during Katrina.
They violate the 4th Amendment by conducting warrant-less wiretaps.
They violate the 5th and 6th Amendment by suspending habeas corpus.
They violate the 8th Amendment by torturing.
They violate the entire Constitution by starting 2 illegal wars based on lies and on behalf of a foriegn gov't.
Impeach, Impeach, impeach and save this great country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Entire Political Establishment Across The World Is a Complete Disgrace
Posted by: opmoc on Mar 21, 2008 8:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For Failing To Bring The Criminals to Justice.

They are acting in the same wasy as if there was a homicidal psychopath at the head of an extended family doing serial murders for which they have conclusive evidence - but doing nothing for reasons of "family loyalty" and the shame that it would bring on the family name.

In the UK, Amnesty International regularly reminds the UK government of its obligations under international law to prosecute such criminals regardless of their nationality and the country in which the crimes were committed.

The UK is obliged under international law -- including the Convention against Torture, which it ratified in 1988; the Genocide Convention, which it ratified in 1970; the Geneva Conventions, which it ratified in 1957; and Protocol II of those conventions, which it ratified in 1998 -- to ensure that the perpetrators of serious human rights violations are brought to justice.

Other countries who signed the same conventions are equally obliged to perform their responsibilities and bring the criminals to justice.

By not having the courage to do so, simply because these people are so powerful, risks the entire human race descending to the same level as these evil people.

Hoping that the problem will just go away, is simply not good enough as it is basically a blank cheque for future leaders to commit any atrocity they want with impunity.

We are sliding down the slippery road to hell. Millions of totally innocent people are already in that hell. It is a hell that our leaders created for them. It's just the first step.

If we do nothing to stop them the rest of us are next.

Today is Good Friday and millions of people across the World are mourning the sufferring of Jesus Christ via the Stations of the Cross leading to his Crucifixion...

Yet it is "Christians" who are dropping bombs on innocent people and torturing the ones who survive.

Something has gone seriously wrong with Our culture - yet we do nothing.

Check out Nazi Germany and compare them to ourselves. Hitler dragged the German nation down because no-one stopped him.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

pwg2008
Posted by: poppaphil2007 on Mar 21, 2008 8:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why is it that president Bush himself escapes talk about impeachment? To portray Bush as an ignorant fool who was duped by the insidious Cheney is simply naive. As someone who has closely followed the events leading to the March 19, 2003 "shock and awe" spectacle will recall that not only Cheney, but Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, and (unwillingly) Colin Powell beat the drums of war incessantly.

Back when legitimate questions were met with derision by the administration,this writer knew the truth--that Saddam did not pose any imminent threat to U.S. interests. Every government claim to the contrary was based on some piece of discredited "intelligence." The yellowcake from Niger, the ramblings of "Curveball," the satellite photos of "launching sites," and other fantastical evidence was created from whole cloth by Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney. The Powells and Shinsekis were marginalized or eliminated altogether.

While I am aware of the implications of impeachment, let me pose a rhetorical question: If President Clinton was impeached (and acquitted) for his indiscretions, exactly what threshold of misdeeds would require our present administration to be impeached? If that threshold has not yet been crossed, then perhaps the supreme court needs to re-evaluate executive administration accountability. Certainly, this disastrous administration has not yet been held accountable for fomenting the greatest foreign policy blunder in American history.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: pwg2008 Posted by: opmoc
mainstream knowledge of 9/11 attacks is only way
Posted by: kellysgarden on Mar 21, 2008 10:31 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Powers That Be are simply too powerful to allow Cheney to be impeached. The only way to get Cheney for his war crimes is for the knowledge of his complicity in the 9/11 attacks to be made known to all Americans.

The proles can overcome if they have this knowledge.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Not true. Posted by: fanny666
CAN ANYONE TELL ME WHY THE DEMS ARE SUCH WIMPS?
Posted by: kc10ken on Mar 21, 2008 11:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Didn't we elect them in November of 2006 to get us out of Iraq?

Why would Pelosi say that impeachment is off the table?

Here's a little advice Dems....

GROW A FUCKING PAIR OF BALLS ALREADY AND IMPEACH THESE BASTARDS!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't waste time or money on
Posted by: Opinionator on Mar 21, 2008 11:35 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
impeaching any of the fools in this administration. Let's clean house and get ourselves a NEW PRESIDENT. Are all Republicans dishonest and dirty? They need to be out to pasture for the forseeable future.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» we need to do both Posted by: fanny666
The Nancy Pelosi Abridge Version of The Constitution..!
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on Mar 21, 2008 11:57 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we as a People adhere to the Constitution as written by our Founding Fathers then there are a multitude of grounds to Impeach both Bush and Cheney..

The Problem is our Congress and Senate now adhere to "The Nancy Pelosi Abridged Version" of The Constitution..!

So maybe we need to Impeach Pelosi first..!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pentagon buries Iraq report
Posted by: fanny666 on Mar 21, 2008 11:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From Military.com:

Pentagon buries Iraq report relevant to pre-war lies about a Saddam Hussein - al-Qaeda link

Call your House rep: 202-224-3121

sign the impeachment petition

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Pentagon buries Iraq report Posted by: democracynowiniraq
If the Dems come looking for money.........
Posted by: tap17x on Mar 21, 2008 12:03 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
........just say "No impeachment, no contribution from me." I'd favor any remedy against the swine in the Administration. If impeachment is impossible, wait until they're out of office and charge them with various crimes and attempt to make them go broke. Ruin their lives, as they have ruined thousands of others. I'd like to see them hanged.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Conviction by the Senate is not required...
Posted by: gaspi on Mar 21, 2008 1:22 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
under the Constitution. Impeachment (indictment!) requires but a majority in the House of Reps. The Dems got that now. And that compels a TRIAL by the Senate that cannot be filibustered, avoided, or evaded. Conviction is beside the point. The stain (and future threat) of impeachment would provide the needed check on all this absolute (rule by tyrannical oligarchic royal line) unitary executivist nonsense.

Further, the House could threaten to vote out one Article of Impeachment bi-monthly that requires separate Trial by the Senate. That would compel the Senate to take impeachment and removal seriously lest it be required to do next to nothing but that task.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You are deluding yourself
Posted by: rickiey on Mar 21, 2008 1:29 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He can not be impeached.

There's nothing to charge him with, that the entire congress can not be held to.

From my perspective as a former intelligence officer, we certainly cannot allow to escape censure Cheney's conjuring up false "intelligence" to justify what Nuremberg defined as the "supreme international crime" -- a war of aggression -- in Iraq.

Are you going to impeach Hillary Clinton as well?

Her floor speech said that her vote was based not on Bush/Cheney intelligence, but on her experience in the white house and following this for over a decade.

Are you willing to take out the inevitable democratic nominee with them?

Are you gonna put Hillary up on charges in the Hague?

No?

Then quit calling for impeachment, you are being a hypocrite.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Terrorist Posted by: HeKnew
» Terrorist Posted by: HeKnew
» Amen to that! Posted by: democracynowiniraq
Terrorist
Posted by: HeKnew on Mar 21, 2008 5:06 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pursue the Bush administration beyond January 20 until they are brought to justice.


Direct Democracy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Be realistic and focus on winning elections in November
Posted by: mattlo on Mar 21, 2008 9:25 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree that Cheney has been horrible for America and is guilty of impeachable offenses. But as a practical matter, progressives are wasting time on this issue. Partisan politics simply won't allow impeachment, at least until after the next congressional elections (by which time Cheney will be gone anyway).

Impeachment requires conviction by two thirds of the senate (see Article One, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution: "The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments... And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.")

Anyone who believes that 17 Republican senators would break ranks and vote to impeach Cheney isn't paying attention to what's going on in Washington. This isn't about right or wrong, it's about political reality.

The solution is to elect more senators who actually care about the Constitution, rule of law, and the principles of democracy and freedom this country was built on. All of the time/money/effort we progressives spend chasing the impeachment dragon is going to be wasted because we can't get the votes. Those resources would be far better spent supporting good candidates for the November elections.

I wish we could convince enough Republicans in the Senate to support impeachment - I really do. But it's a fantasy and it distracts us from the real challenge - winning in November so this doesn't happen again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If the U.S. doesn't impeach, it can never lead again
Posted by: ordaj on Mar 22, 2008 4:15 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The next President will not be able to credibly engage other countries on any issue. Their response would be: "Didn't you renege on the Kyoto Protocols? The Geneva Conventions? Didn't you attack a sovereign nation? And you did NOTHING to reverse this or STOP it? And NOW you want to claim those were bad things? How do we know the administration after you won't change things yet again?"

No, I'm afraid the U.S. needs to impeach just to be able to be CONSIDERED a leader on the world stage again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ever thought
Posted by: Joe on Mar 22, 2008 5:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that it's not courage democrats are lacking but democrats are playing their base for a bunch of suckers. of course they are not going to get rid of bush and cheney...they need someone for you to focus your anger at. if people took bush and cheney out of the equation you would see that democrats are just as much a part of the problem.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mr. Edward C. Warsaw
Posted by: chypoet on Mar 23, 2008 5:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The congressional numbers are not there to justify impeachment but this is a fair topic for discussion and for questioning the 2008 presidential and congressional candidates. Ralph Nader includes impeachment as one of his top twelve topics which he has on the table. And this question should be raised multiple times on editorial pages throughout the planet to assess an index of courage of the nation's journals.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]