The Beat

House Committee Considers the "I" Word

posted by John Nichols on 07/25/2008 @ 2:32pm

As the House Judiciary Committee took up the question of how best to address what its chairman described as "the Imperial Presidency of George W. Bush," it was one of the ranking Republicans in the room, Iowa Congressman Steve King, who observed that, "We are here having impeachment hearings before the Judiciary Committee."

"These are impeachment hearings before the United States Congress," King continued. "I never imagined I would ever be sitting on this side when something like this happened."

King was not happy about the circumstance.

A resolute defender of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, the congressman was objecting to the very mention of the "I" word.

As it happened, impeachment was mentioned dozens of times during the hearing, often in significant detail and frequently as a necessary response to lawless actions of the president and vice president.

King's statement addressed the uncertain character of Friday morning's attempt by the relevant committee of the chamber empowered by the founders to impose accountability on presidents and vice presidents to tackle what Judiciary Committee chair John Conyers, D-Michigan, referred to as "numerous credible allegations of serious misconduct by officials in the Bush Administration."

Conyers explained that "to the regret of many, this is not an impeachment hearing." For that to happen, Conyers argued, the committee would need clearer authorization from the full House.

But members of the committee, the Democrats and the Republicans, as well as a bipartisan panel of House members and another panel of former House members, and academics and activists, repeatedly put the impeachment on the table of a chamber where the speaker had once denied it a place.

Congressman Maurice Hinchey, D-New York, told the committee that President Bush and Vice President Cheney had committed acts that make theirs "the most impeachable administration in the history of our country."

Texas Democrat Sheila Jackson-Lee, held up a copy of the Constitution and announced, "There is a real question of whether this Constitution is being protected."

Republican members of the committee griped. Indiana Congressman Mike Pence complained that the entire session – with its discussion not just of impeachment but of legislative initiatives to address executive secrecy and overreach – caused him to worry about "the criminalization of American politics."

Addressing his remarks to Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinich, the author of articles of impeachment against President Bush and Vice President Cheney that provoked Friday's hearing, Pence said, "I just believe the gentleman from Ohio is wrong."

Kucinich, who is not a member of the Judiciary Committee, stood his ground, arguing when he addressed the committee that a failure to impeach would not merely let Bush off the hook but signal to future presidents that they, too, may reject the rule of law and refuse to cooperate with Congress.

Several members of the committee were, if anything, more passionate in their remarks than Kucinich.

Georgia Democrat Hank Johnson told his colleagues that if they failed to act and President Bush authorized an illegal attack on Iran, they might look back on their dismissal on the neglect of their duty to check and balance an errant executive as a deadly mistake.

It was that sense of urgency that motivated committee member Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisconsin, to say explain that, "What this Congress does, or chooses not to do in furthering the investigation of the serious allegations against this administration – and if just cause is found, to hold them accountable – will impact the conduct of future presidents, perhaps for generations."

"Mr. Chairman," Baldwin continued, "there are those who would say that holding this hearing – examining whether or not the president and vice president broke the law – is frivolous. I not only reject this, I believe there is no task more important for this Congress than to seriously consider whether our nation's leaders have violated their oath of office. The American public expects no less. It is, after all, their Constitution. No president or congress has the authority to override that document, whereby ‘We the People' conferred upon the branches of government limited and defined power, and provided for meaningful checks and balances."

There can be no question at this late date in the Bush presidency that the issue of whether the American system will be characterized by "meaningful checks and balances" is at stake – and that goes to the heart of the matter of why Friday's hearing ought not be the end of a process but a beginning.

Even after George Bush and Dick Cheney have left the White House, the definition of the presidency that they have crafted will remain.

"On January 20, 2009, the next president and vice president of the United States will stand before the American people and take an oath of office, swearing to ‘… preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.' This commitment and obligation is so fundamental to our democracy that our nation's founders prescribed that oath in our Constitution. They also provided for the removal of the president and vice president for, among other things, ‘high crimes and misdemeanors,'" Baldwin explained to the committee. "Presidents and vice presidents do not take that oath in a vacuum. They are informed by the actions or inactions of past presidents and congresses, who establish precedents for the future."

It is in the power of the Congress to begin setting the precedent to which Baldwin addressed herself. That power was defined by the framers of the Constitution, as were the practices and procedures to be used in executing it.

With that in mind, Baldwin correctly outlined the next steps for a committee and a Congress that has begun to place not just the matter of impeachment but the broader question of the imperial presidency on the table but that certainly has not completed the process"

(The) American people have been forced to sit by while credible allegations of abuse of power mount:

• We have seen this Administration fabricate the threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and allege, despite all evidence to the contrary, a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. These lies dragged our country into a preemptive and unjustified war that has taken the lives of more than 4,000 U.S. troops, injured 30,000 more, and will cost our nation more than a trillion dollars.

• We watched as this Administration again undermined national security by manipulating and exaggerating evidence of Iran's nuclear weapons capabilities and openly threatened aggression against Iran, despite no evidence that Iran has the intention or capability of attacking the U.S.

• We have looked on in horror as the Administration suspended habeas corpus by claiming the power to declare any person an "enemy combatant" – ignoring the Geneva Convention protections that the U.S. helped create.

• We have seen torture and rendition of prisoners in violation of international law and stated American policy and values, and destruction of the videotaped evidence of such torture, under the tenure of this Administration.

• We have seen this Administration spy on Americans without a court order or oversight in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

• We watched as U.S. Attorneys pursued politically-motivated prosecutions in violation of the law and perhaps at the direction of this White House.

• We watched as Administration officials outed Valerie Plame Wilson as a covert agent of the CIA and then intentionally obstructed justice by disseminating false information through the White House press office.

As we know, the framers of our Constitution called for impeachment only in the case of high crimes and misdemeanors. The standard is purposely set high because we should not impeach for personal or political gain – only to uphold and safeguard our democracy. Sadly, in my judgment, at least two high ranking administration officials have met that standard. Although the call to impeach is one I take neither easily nor lightly, I now firmly believe that impeachment hearings are the appropriate and necessary next step."

Comments (111)

  1. You can be sure the Democrats aren't doing this for love of country, the Constitution, or the American people. As accomplices it's a tricky proposition for them. The best PR tactics will be required.

    At Nuremberg, the Allies defined Germany's war crimes as any crime not also committed by the Allies. That's a lot easier to do against a vanquished foe than your Republican partners and accomplices in Congress and the White House.

    If only we had an actual opposition party in Congress.

    Posted by geezjan at 07/25/2008 @ 3:23pm

  2. Posted by frankgrits at 07/25/2008 @ 2:47pm

    If Bush or associates were criminally charged...

    I wonder who would be more likely to pardon them in his first year in office (and thus shore up his base)?

    President Obama or President McCain?

    Posted by Maskdelta at 07/25/2008 @ 4:07pm

  3. Don't know if anyone's watching the impeachment hearing but it looks pretty good for republicans. Some republican from Arizona recited the list of democratic politicians and dignitaries who supported the invasion including Hillary and sucked all the drama out of the room. Demonstrators are being kicked out left and right. Posted by frankgrits at 07/25/2008 @ 2:40pm

    Yeah but this argument doesn't play. It could easily be said that since he based it on a lie Congress wasn't given the right information. So their vote for war was based on information that wasn't true therefore they can't be held directly accountable.

    Like if a liquor store clerk sells alcohol to a minor who had a fake ID. It's the minor who gets in trouble, not the clerk.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/25/2008 @ 4:32pm

  4. What ever happened to high crimes and misdemeanors? Posted by marybretbrad at 07/25/2008 @ 4:23pm

    You can't call them that until they have actually been tried.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/25/2008 @ 4:33pm

  5. If this issue is dead, then the country is lost.

    Posted by Anathothian at 07/25/2008 @ 4:35pm

  6. I say just try him. If he isn't guilty of anything well then he won't be found guilty. However there is enough doubt that a trial is not unwarranted. Enough members of Congress and the House think something wrong was done then I would try them. If they are found entirely innocent then it is a huge PR hit to Demo's everywhere. If they are found guilty well then they will be held accountable for their crimes and Republicans will have to admit there was some wrong doing or risk sounding as crazy as the fringe lefty kooks.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/25/2008 @ 4:37pm

  7. If you or I is accused of a crime and there is enough evidence to make people curious we would be brought before a court. Why is the President any different?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/25/2008 @ 4:38pm

  8. If it takes four years (or even one year) of looking at the same evidence to convince one's self a law might have been broken, it's not an impeachable offense. Posted by marybretbrad at 07/25/2008 @ 4:50p

    Well the problem is Mary. Yes what you say is true. However they don't have all the evidence. executive privilege has been used to deny them the evidence. That's why they are curious.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/25/2008 @ 4:57pm

  9. If it takes four years (or even one year) of looking at the same evidence to convince one's self a law might have been broken, it's not an impeachable offense.

    Posted by marybretbrad at 07/25/2008 @ 4:50pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Except that Congress had been run by the Republicans until the beginning of 2007, so it wasn't even possible to start looking until about 1.5 years ago, so your chronology is off.

    Further, the Senate report held that Bush regularly left out the caveats and dissenting opinions that were present in the intelligence. There is a decided difference between representing something as a suspicions and representing it as a certainty.

    Posted by brunowe at 07/25/2008 @ 5:05pm

  10. I'm not even a lawyer, and I can offer reasonable explanations that refute every one of the charges in your bill of particulars. There is no chance of making this stick against real lawyers. Posted by marybretbrad at 07/25/2008 @ 5:19pm

    Perhaps there's no chance YOU could make it stick against real lawyers, but as you said, you're not a real lawyer either. Your comments are as amateur as those you purport to refute.

    There is no legal reason why this administration hasn't been tried. It's pure politics. Your amateur legal arguments are as meaningless as mine would be. I'm just not silly enough to make legal arguments.

    Bush committed these crimes and he had plenty of accomplices on both sides of the aisle. Clinton did his share of carnage in Iraq and elsewhere, too.

    This is just politics. Justice or the truth has nothing to do with it.

    Posted by geezjan at 07/25/2008 @ 5:26pm

  11. Thats sum' logic MBB... Way to make lemonade from lemons... Real bad, bad, corrupt lemons... You Bush apologists seem to believe the more words thrown into a response or the louder you are (aka O'reilly) the more some might actually believe this sad, corrupt administration 'did no wrong'... Stay on message, stay on point... Even if you dont believe your own BS....

    Well I'll dare say your kind, YOUR thinking has done more to harm America than any 'Left wing loony'... Your brand of MINDLESS, BRAINWASHED, Bush can do no wrong thought process has set OUR country back 20 years.. But thats ok right..?? Terrorists my ass... How's the borderline economy doing UNDER your boy...?? Recession..?? Wheres OIL at..?? Oh, only $128 BBl...??? Thats cheap right ??? Safe to assume (bet your ass), if it had been a DEMOCRAT in the white house the past 7 yrs, he/she would have already been in jail.. Possibly brought out back and shot (romanian style)... By the way.. LOVE your crystal ball... The Bottom line you provide is so "SPOT ON"... Once again accept the facts MY republican 'FRIENDS'... Obama is your President. You know it... It will feel better when you move on...(trust me on this, I had to do it in 00' when the SCOTUS gave it to YOUR boy) Say this to yourselves: 1. Grant me the power to accept things I cannot change...(President Obama, Repeat 3 times)

    Posted by Vvf1969 at 07/25/2008 @ 6:27pm

  12. The only way new con repubs will ever consider impeachment of either or both hsuB/cHeney, would be a major paradigm shift in their core believe system that would require a sense of equity beyond financial gain. Since repubs gain financially by not impeaching hsuB/cHeney ala elite corporate base, they are incapable of even perceiving the word "impeachment" much less understanding it's applicability so counter their own interests. If on the other hand hsuB/cHeney were a dem...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/25/2008 @ 6:52pm

  13. Impeachment won't make anything more availble. Posted by marybretbrad at 07/25/2008 @ 5:22pm

    Actually it will. If hearings are brought to order. And they decide that evidence is needed in the court then executive privilege can't be used. So they would be forced to bring forth evidence that before Congress could not force them to bring forth.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/25/2008 @ 6:57pm

  14. There are no statutes of limitations on impeachment and the criminal accountability of hsuB/cHeney.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/25/2008 @ 6:59pm

  15. In fact with the vast numbers of dems coming into the congress next year, odds are hsuB/cHeney can be 'renditioned' by the end of 2009 and no one will know what happened per the level of national security hsuB/cHeney slapped on all their crimes...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/25/2008 @ 7:03pm

  16. Refer to the United States Constitution. Posted by frankgrits at 07/25/2008 @ 6:44pm

    For what? The reason the President can't be brought to court?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/25/2008 @ 7:06pm

  17. I just came back online so I don't know if anyone told you yet how the impeachment process works. The actual trial is done by the Senate. There aren't enough democrats there to convict Bush and the republicans certainly won't vote to do so. I don't know if you're old enough to remember Clinton's silly impeachment but in his case he was aquitted at the Senate stage. Posted by frankgrits at 07/25/2008 @ 6:43pm

    I know. But it would at least put the kibosh on everything. It would be just like Clinton. Where he was disgraced but still held office till the end.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/25/2008 @ 7:08pm

  18. Even someone like Brunowe who seems to have a legal background can't really provide any evidence of wrong-doing. It really comes down to their absolute certainty that what Bush has done to make us safer should be a crime in their own little minds. Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/25/2008 @ 6:21pm |

    Who was the last person on the left that you liked?

    Also he can't provide any evidence that YOU will accept. He has provided plenty of evidence. You just won't accept it out of your hatred for the left.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/25/2008 @ 7:18pm

  19. Oh Frank ... A Stankees fan too... Strike 3...

    Posted by Vvf1969 at 07/25/2008 @ 7:23pm

  20. " it's not about what's good for the US, it's about their hatred of conservatives"

    since most of the democrats are also conservatives, then it follows that we also hate the democrats.

    having said that, bill and hillary clinton both claimed that saddam was an "imminent threat" prior to the illegal invasion of iraq. the CIA made the conclusion that hussein *wasn't* an "imminent threat" in early october of 2003, and yet had they known this (as bush had), both bill and hillary are complicit in the crimes against humanity as evidenced in the unauthorized use of force in iraq.

    Posted by darladoon at 07/25/2008 @ 7:23pm

  21. Why is it that LVL and Mary always ignore the fact that in the NIE it was blatantly stated that Saddam no longer had nuclear weapons. Just like in the one for Iran it was stated that Iran no longer had nuclear weapons and yet Bush kept denying it was true.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/25/2008 @ 7:28pm

  22. "I count 5 indictments in your bill of particulars. 1) The invasion of Iraq. The Bush administration had intelligence that Saddam had WMD and all of his statements regarding WMD were "generally supported" by the intelligence. A reasonable person could conclude that the intelligence was correct. It was, in fact, incorrect, but that was not knowable before the invasion. Bush also secured a resolution from the UN that could reasonably be interpreted to authorize military action if Saddam did not comply. Irrespective of the outcomes, his actions were based on a good faith belief that he was acting in the best interest of the country. 2) Deployed the NSA against the public. Not true. He used the NSA to wire tap international calls where a person on the terrorist watch list was outside the US. Some of these calls had US citizens on the other end of the line in the US, but that is not the same thing as deploying the NSA against the public. I believe SCOTUS ruled that the lawyers who assured Bush that this practice complied with the FISA law were incorrect and the administration took corrective action. 3) Imprisoned people extra-judicially. Judicial has nothing to do with it. Prisoners of War and illegal combatants were captured and held by the military. Relying on existing case law, the admin policy was that these people did not receive Constitutional Rights. SCOTUS clarified that the German case wasn't the correct precedent because Git Mo was completely controlled by the US whereas the German detention camps weren't and the admin took corrective action once this was clarified. 4) The administration authorized water-boarding. Administration lawyers have concluded that water-boarding does not meet the definition of torture. The SCOTUS has not ruled that water-boarding is torture. The degrading and humiliating acts that took place at Abh Graib were torture, but they were not authorized by the administration and the individuals who took part in the torture were disciplined. 5) The Geneva Conventions explicitly do not apply to illegal combatants, such as terrorists. SCOTUS has made no ruling to the contrary."

    *none* of the above is true. literally none.

    Posted by darladoon at 07/25/2008 @ 7:38pm

  23. frank is pretty much on strike 24,252 with most people here. he doesn't seem to recognize that the crowds in the bleachers have tossed down their hot dogs and beer and are instead throwing stones at him trying to drive him from the ball field. Posted by Zero at 07/25/2008 @ 7:32pm

    I prefer phone books. They don't leave bruises.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/25/2008 @ 7:43pm

  24. here's a great one:

    "The administration authorized water-boarding."

    hmmmm. and water boarding is *not* torture because "administration officials" say so? interesting. so, basically, international laws governing the treatment of "detainees" (not "terrorists," mary, if they haven't been convicted of anything) does not apply to the united states because "administration officials" say so?

    "He used the NSA to wire tap international calls where a person on the terrorist watch list was outside the US. Some of these calls had US citizens on the other end of the line in the US, but that is not the same thing as deploying the NSA against the public"

    doing so, without warrants, is a felony, punishable by 5 years in prison. bush has already admitted that he wasn't getting the warrants before the NYT broke the scandal of december of 2005. that was the point of "retroactive immunity."

    "Prisoners of War and illegal combatants were captured and held by the military"

    they are neither 'prisoners of war' nor 'illegal combatants'; they fall into an entirely new classification of prisoner, chosen at the president's (in)discretion, called 'enemy combatants', and they have been held, in locations outside of US jurisdiction (like diego garcia island in the indian ocean) so that US officials can perform torture on them. again, the US has already admitted this.

    so, basically, what does george bush have to do next in order to raise the suspicions of the skeptics here?

    he has already:

    *tortured

    *held prisoners w/out charges

    *spied on american citizens on american soil

    *started a war under false pretenses

    what next? sodomizing his father in public?

    Posted by darladoon at 07/25/2008 @ 7:45pm

  25. Funny how lvliberty1 makes the typical wingnut assertions that advocates of the Constitution are radical leftists (yes, just like Rep. Barr!?!?!), or Bush haters, or some other vacuous label. Ideology isn't argument, but it's all the neocon true believers have left.

    Meanwhile, there' s the typical recycling of rightwing misinformation about Bush's illegal and immoral wars, Bush's ignoring of Americans' 4th Amendment rights, and the specious claim that this utter failure of a president has made the US one iota safer.

    This is what they're heading into the elections with: a dismal president's dismal record, ideological obfuscation, and nothing else.

    Pity after nearly 3 decades of a disastrous conservative revolution that this is the best they can do.

    Posted by tnathant at 07/25/2008 @ 7:50pm

  26. 1) The 70% of Americans who supported the invasion of Iraq knew that intelligence is always uncertain. They knew we couldn't be certain if the war would go quickly or slowly, and the supported it just the same.

    Posted by marybretbrad at 07/25/2008 @ 5:26pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    I don't buy that for a minute, after all, most Americans also believed there was a link between Hussein and 9/11. The point is that representing a suspicion as a certainty is a lie.

    4)Administration lawyers have concluded that water-boarding does not meet the definition of torture. The SCOTUS has not ruled that water-boarding is torture.

    The administration lawyers also believe that the President can do anything he wants in wartime. There is a difference between a good-faith belief and CYA. Waterboarding is certainly torture according to the UN Convention Against Torture. Rendition to countries that torture is also a violation. The United States is a party to that convention, thus making it the equivalent of federal statute.

    2) 2) Deployed the NSA against the public. Not true. He used the NSA to wire tap international calls where a person on the terrorist watch list was outside the US. Some of these calls had US citizens on the other end of the line in the US, but that is not the same thing as deploying the NSA against the public.

    Any communication to which a United States person is a party is covered by FISA and requires a warrant.

    3), 5) The Geneva Conventions explicitly do not apply to illegal combatants, such as terrorists. SCOTUS has made no ruling to the contrary.

    Actually, the gist of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld was that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions did apply to illegal combatants. Further, for the most part we haven't had competent tribunals make the illegal combatant determination.

    Posted by brunowe at 07/25/2008 @ 8:02pm

  27. Posted by Zero at 07/25/2008 @ 7:32pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    i think dr. jekyll went on a mr. hyde potion bender and never came back...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/25/2008 @ 8:37pm

  28. Not a gaffe, a preemptive move to mediate 'flip flop' charge.

    John McCain said that he thinks Obama's 16-month timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq is "a "pretty good timetable."

    Posted by winyahn at 07/25/2008 @ 11:44pm

  29. Iraq AGREES with Obama, now McPain do to! What a joke this media is.

    Posted by winyahn at 07/25/2008 @ 11:48pm

  30. Even someone like Brunowe who seems to have a legal background can't really provide any evidence of wrong-doing.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/25/2008 @ 6:21pm

    http://www.marymacelveen.com/ThreeIraqiChildren.jpg

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/26/2008 @ 01:31am

  31. Funny how lvliberty1 makes the typical wingnut assertions that advocates of the Constitution are radical leftists (yes, just like Rep. Barr!?!?!), or Bush haters, or some other vacuous label. Ideology isn't argument, but it's all the neocon true believers have left. Meanwhile, there' s the typical recycling of rightwing misinformation about Bush's illegal and immoral wars, Bush's ignoring of Americans' 4th Amendment rights, and the specious claim that this utter failure of a president has made the US one iota safer. This is what they're heading into the elections with: a dismal president's dismal record, ideological obfuscation, and nothing else. Pity after nearly 3 decades of a disastrous conservative revolution that this is the best they can do. Posted by tnathant at 07/25/2008 @ 7:50pm | warn this person

    The Rev. Larry pretty much despises the Constitution, as do most of the righties on this board. The US Constitution disestablished religions (that pesky no-state-religion thing), and affirmed the basic human right of personal self-determination. That's always a problem for the authoritarian/theocrat/oligarch segment of society. They demand that they be obeyed and, frankly, worshipped. Their sadistic bloodlust, epitomized by their incessant cheerleading for endless war, torture, mass murder, is matched only by their cowardice - they refuse to put their lives on the line for wars they claim to support. Their "religion" has absolutely nothing to do with spirituality - I'd dare say that the average atheist or agnostic is a far more spiritual and decent human being than these modern-day pharisees. As for their perpetual bleating about patriotism and treason, they long ago betrayed everything that constitutes the idea of "America". Their loyalty is to their Dear Leader, who has shown the same contempt for the Constitution as do they, and as such, that loyalty constitutes treason against this country.

    Posted by jmusolino at 07/26/2008 @ 01:40am

  32. For the sake of saving face (the dems)the SHRUB and his cronies should be Impeached so the shrub can`t use his Preemptive Power of Pardon for his POSSE......

    Is it just me or does this despicible administration parallel the 14 points of Fascism!!!!!!!!!!!

    Posted by ams@50 at 07/26/2008 @ 01:42am

  33. Oh Frank ... A Stankees fan too... Strike 3... Posted by Vvf1969 at 07/25/2008 @ 7:23pm Final: Yankees 1, Bosox 0 one down, two to go. Posted by frankgrits at 07/25/2008 @ 10:16pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Frank, I have to completely agree with you on this one. And I promise I won't mention what an utter whiner Youkilis is!

    Posted by jmusolino at 07/26/2008 @ 01:43am

  34. Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/26/2008 @ 04:15am

    "We have consistently applied Article 3 of Geneva even though technically, the terrorists do not meet the criteria for identifying them as true prisoners of war."

    Overall, LL, I'm surprised at the low level of reasoning by the lefties on this board, LL. Even BRUNOWE, generally one of the more rational-sounding of the mob, seems to have lost a few brain cells lately. Thanks for trying to bring a little light to their darkness. Like a missionary to ideological cannibals, you can only do good.

    But I must take exception to your characterization of the terrorists we have captured as only 'technically' not meeting the standards of prisoners of war. The distinction is a lot more than technical; they purposely DO NOT wear uniforms, and they PURPOSELY DO NOT fight as soldiers, the better to kill innocent people, which is the primary aim and motivation and strategy of their form of warfare. Under the conventional understanding of the Geneva Convention, which was designed to establish protections for SOLDIERS by providing definitions of their status and standards for their treatment in time of war, terrorists are EXACTLY the type of combatant (e.g., saboteurs, spies) for whom the Geneva Convention would sanction summary execution as soon as their status is determined. For example, should Osama Bin Laden be caught alive, we would be fully within our rights under the Geneva Conventions to execute him on the spot, his guilt having been firmly established by his own videos.

    Posted by pontificus at 07/26/2008 @ 05:51am

  35. LL, it is this phrase that is involved

    (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

    These minimal protections, pontificus, apply even when the persons taken aren't partisans of a Convention signatory. The interrogation methods used in many cases would constitute humiliating and degrading treatment. Likewise, SCOTUS held that elements of the commissions as they were at the time of this opinion didn't afford the minimal judicial guarantees.

    Posted by brunowe at 07/26/2008 @ 06:08am

  36. Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/26/2008 @ 04:15am

    Simply put, LL, no rational person could conclude that the framers of the Geneva Conventions ever intended for these provisions to give legal rights to terrorists. On the contrary, there is every indication to me it was exactly the intent of the Conventions to give soldiers protections by providing a mechanism for discerning between average citizens doing their duty for their country (e.g., a Wehrmacht soldier) and those terrorist-like prisoners. Of course, the Geneva Conventions are an imperfect construct with regard to terrorists, since terrorist strategies were not yet developed at the time these provisions were formulated. But given the aim and intent of the Conventions, it can hardly be rationally concluded that the framers of those provisions would regard terrorists as soldiers, but rather more in the category of a prisoner that might be legitimately executed in the field pursuant to a summary courts martial.

    And given that many if not most of the terrorists held in Gitmo regularly make statements (before, during, and after incarceration) that they will make all efforts to kill as many Americans as possible at the earliest possible opportunity, their guilt and status as terrorists is firmly established. Of course, the Left hates Bush far more than any terrorist, so this fact is generally ignored in the Bush-hating frenzy here at the Nation.

    Of course in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld, the Courts of the US have erred on the side of mercy and prudence in dealing with terrorists by providing them with a perhaps unexpected degree of legal protection. One suspects that this might change in the absence of President like Bush with an effective anti-terror strategy (e.g., if one of our cities is wiped out by nuclear terrorism), but this is the level of morality our Courts have decided that we can afford, apparently.

    The insistence of the Left that terrorists be given full legal protections afforded by US citizens is more an artifact of their pathological hatred of George Bush (which hatred defines them, sadly but predictably) than any rational understanding of the aim or intent of the Geneva Convention. It's a convenient club to bash him with, and provide another pseudo-basis for wild assertions of wrong doing. Hardly even worth debating, really.

    Posted by pontificus at 07/26/2008 @ 06:22am

  37. Posted by brunowe at 07/26/2008 @ 06:08am

    BRUNOWE, most terrorists don't meet the criteria for protection under the Geneva Convention. In earlier wars, they would meet the criteria for being shot on sight as spies or saboteurs, since they wear no uniform.

    Posted by pontificus at 07/26/2008 @ 06:24am

  38. Posted by brunowe at 07/26/2008 @ 06:08am

    "These minimal protections, pontificus, apply even when the persons taken aren't partisans of a Convention signatory. The interrogation methods used in many cases would constitute humiliating and degrading treatment."

    You miss the point. Regardless of whether their country of origin has signed the Geneva Convention, the combatants themselves do not meet the standards for protection as soldiers. Reportedly, most of them fully that they are terrorists, with no uniform, and no intent to fight as soldiers. They are illegal combatants in the same category as spies and saboteurs, and under any traditional reading of the Geneva Conventions, we would be fully within our rights to shoot them pursuant to summary courts martial.

    "Likewise, SCOTUS held that elements of the commissions as they were at the time of this opinion didn't afford the minimal judicial guarantees."

    That's an ex post facto determination, BRUNOWE. Ex Post Facto was done away with in our Constitution. Unless, that is, for example, you feel it necessary to prosecute and jail all those politicians who instituted the gun control laws which the Supreme Court recently ruled illegal.

    Posted by pontificus at 07/26/2008 @ 06:32am

  39. This article is pure horse manure! Kucinich, Conyers and the other wacked out liberals involved are just trying to get payback for their boy "Slick Willie" ... it has been their plan since day one of the Bush administration! It's nothing more than a circus side-show! Laughable!

    Posted by Kirt at 07/26/2008 @ 08:35am

  40. These hearings are small and seem insignificant now, but they will remembered like the Paul's Church Assembly in Frankfurt in 1848.

    What's that? You've never heard of the Paul's Church Assembly in Frankfurt in 1848? You would have if you were German! That was the first democratically elected assembly that created the first and most legitimate Constitution for the German people before 1919.

    Nothing came of the Constitution of the Paul's Church Assembly, because the armed revolutionaries who were trying to overthrow the Prussian and Austrian monarchies at the same time both LOST. Monarchist armies crushed the revolutionaries and either executed them or sent them into exile (many to the United States). Deputies of the Assembly had no choice but to appeal to the victorious Prussian King, who dismissed them all with contempt and imposed a monarchist constitution of his own.

    But Germans remember the Paul's Church Assembly, just as US-Americans will remember - and will honor - those few members of Congress who tried to impeach Cheney and Bush. And like the Germans, we will all feel a certain shame that at this moment in our history, the good guys were so weak and the bad guys were so strong.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 07/26/2008 @ 09:33am

  41. IMPEACHMENT IS OUR ONLY CONSTITUTIONAL TOOL, TO MUZZLE THE RABID DOGS IN THE WHITE HOUSE. AFTER THE ELECTIONS, OBAMA NEEDS TO SET UP A WAR TIMES TRIBUNAL AND GO AFTER ALL THE COLABORATORS. MORE THAN A MILLION HUMANS HAVE DIED SO FAR. WE MUST TRY AND PREVENT A REPEAT OF THIS TRAGEDY IN IRAN BY ALL MEANS AVAILABLE.

    Posted by caojuliao at 07/26/2008 @ 10:06am

  42. Forget the constitution: even if I had pictures of hsuB/cHeney giving each other head, giving head to a fake reporter and 5 of their interns-- the new con repubs would still not condone hsuB/cHeney impeachment proceedings. Even if new con repubs found out that hsuB/cHeney personally pulled the life support plug on Raygun, new con repubs would not condone hsuB/cHeney impeachment proceedings. Even if hsuB/cHeney personally gave the ok to ignore expedited help for New Orleans Katrina aftermath victims, new con repubs would not condone hsuB/cHeney impeachment proceedings. Even if hsuB/cHeney allowed 9/11 to happen, new con repubs would not condone hsuB/cHeney impeachment proceedings. Even if new con repubs found out that hsuB/cHeney swore allegiance to a satanic cult, new con repubs would not condone hsuB/cHeney impeachment proceedings.

    And why is it that anyone could even believe new con repubs care about violating our constitution, the Geneva Convention or creating an unnecessary war?

    All new con repubs are about is 'covering-up' the fact that their greed has left them without a soul and thus new con repubs can and will say anything that will benefit themselves not to reveal that fact. It's one big knotted circular logic slithering snake they've become; without a head or tail, it just constantly spins in a knot-- meant to obscure and confuse.

    One wastes ones time arguing with new con repubs. All one can hope to do with the thing is make it smaller.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/26/2008 @ 10:16am

  43. See.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/26/2008 @ 10:29am

  44. see

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/26/2008 @ 10:33am

  45. That's an ex post facto determination, BRUNOWE.

    The ex post facto prohibition refers to legislation; it has nothing to do with SCOTUS rulings.

    "Regardless of whether their country of origin has signed the Geneva Convention, the combatants themselves do not meet the standards for protection as soldiers. Reportedly, most of them fully that they are terrorists, with no uniform, and no intent to fight as soldiers. They are illegal combatants in the same category as spies and saboteurs,"

    Wrong, Common Article 3 applies to all persons. There has to be a competent tribunal to determine whether they are, in fact, spies and saboteurs.

    Posted by brunowe at 07/26/2008 @ 10:33am

  46. THE ELECTION IS SIMPLE THE UNBUSH VS THE MCBUSH

    Posted by caojuliao at 07/26/2008 @ 10:38am

  47. "admitted that Iraq approached Niger about obtaining yellowcake uranium, but that Iraq was not successful ."

    He admitted nothing of the kind.

    "On whether waterboarding is torture, the international laws against torture don't list waterboarding. They outlaw procedures causing physical injury or harm."

    Incorrect. The US has signed and ratified the UN Convention Against Torture. That convention defines torture as

    "Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions"

    Waterboarding definitely counts.

    "Of course Bush knew that tapping phones in countries outside the US was a violation of US law and of course he knew the dozens of lawyers convincing him otherwise were wrong and that he'd lose before the SCOTUS."

    Except that these were conversations involving US persons as well. FISA is clear-cut on this.

    Posted by brunowe at 07/26/2008 @ 10:40am

  48. Did it ever occur to you... Mary... that the politicization of everything under the sun might be problematic from a constitutional perspective?

    At the very least, it exposes political hacks...

    At the very most... it exposes the initiators and benefactors of the most insidious 'coup de tat' in United States history...

    The truly amazing thing is... you actually believe your basic impetus is patriotism.... when in fact... you pervert the obvious 'civics class' meanings inherent in the US constitution... to suit the 'takeover' you so ardently support.

    Your posts are more revealing than you think... but it's really the 'timing of your persistence' that is the dead giveaway...

    Posted by ttr at 07/26/2008 @ 12:06pm

  49. I can't believe I watched a whole ballgame and you folks are still here arguing about an impeachment that will never take place. Not because Dubya doesn't deserve it but because the dems aren't smart enough to pull it off and they don't want to anyway. Talk about a waste of time.

    Posted by frankgrits at 07/25/2008 @ 10:22pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    I cant believe your life is so worthless that you watched a ballgame, and then returned here to spew your worthless vile afterward on a Friday night. Then you return on Saturday morning to do the same.

    I rarely post here anymore because of all the trolls, and the threads seem dominated by righties trying to defend Bush or the prospect of a McCain presidency. Frank, if I remember correctly was a Hillary supporter, and prior to that....I think had a child that was serving in Iraq. Sorry, but anyone who was anti-Bush......then flipped to Hillary.....and now talks like a Bush-apologist and a McCain supporter.....either has multiple personalities, or is extremely confused about the world we live in.

    Posted by jpolston at 07/26/2008 @ 1:00pm

  50. ALL SHOULD BE AWARE that the House Democrats did not allow this preliminary Impeachment Hearing Today Out Of The Goodness Of Their Hearts or Because of Any Particular Group's Lobbying.

    There is only one dynamic that has changed recently.

    The Democrats are afraid of massive voter retribution in the November Election. They are afraid of losing their jobs and their power, and the perks that go with it.

    The Voters have recently and loudly told the House Democrats that we are sick and tired of their stonewalling on holding Bush and Cheney accountable. After My Democrats took over, the polls show that Congress's positive rating dropped to the single digits, the lowest in history. The refusal of the House Democrats to stop the Iraq War and Impeach is unforgiveable. We put you in office and if you do not hold Full Impeachment Hearings prior to the Election we will un-elect you.

    In Colorado We Democrats, Independents, Republicans and others are currently doing negative campaigning against all incumbent House/Senate Candidates who have refused to support and even discuss impeachment. If the House Democrats do not immediately announce the date of the first full impeachment hearing scheduled prior to the election, we will greatly increase our negative campaigning. Your job is yours to lose. You have our support only if you hold serious full impeachment hearings before the election.

    John H Kennedy Denver CO 43 yr Democratic voter, Obama delegate to Denver County Conv, organizer of the IMPEACH COLORADO COALITION http://ImpeachCO.com

    Posted by JohnHKennedy at 07/26/2008 @ 1:03pm

  51. This piece is nothing but Marxist rants. It rehashes old news stories that have already exonerated the Bush administration, and were proven to be nothing but partisan politics. It mainly quotes the proclaimed Marxist like Kucinich, Hinchey, and Lee some of the stupidest people in Congress. The uses of misinformation is the only thing way this writer can make his point. Bush was not the first to declare A person an "enemy combatant." It is not something that can just be used against anyone. Habeas corpus has NEVER been given to enemy combatants, and IS not part of the Geneva Convention (GC). Terrorist are not covered by the GC because they do not wear uniforms and cannot be connected to a specific government. Iraq HAD used poison gas (weapon of mass destruction) on its own people, and never proved that it had destroyed this gas. It had enough yellow cake to make a thousand bombs and scientist specializing in making nuclear weapons; several suicide vest factories with hundreds of suicide vest were found; Saddam was killing 200,000 Iraqis a year, yet the left makes is sound like we invade the Vatican. The Administration did not spy on Americans. It spied on suspected terrorist and every 90 days its actives were reviewed by select members of congress. Funny how this yellow journalist left that out. This writer is a Marxist hack spreading misinformation to take the focus of a failing Congress that wants to grow bigger. Remember Bush's approval rating is about 38%, Congress is less that 9%.

    Posted by Exton1 at 07/26/2008 @ 1:26pm

  52. SEE

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/26/2008 @ 2:10pm

  53. Wonder if it has anything to do with even Faux Woos the hsuB/cHeney dic'tator propaganda woos wing being outed and began giving more realistic numbers:

    PRESIDENT BUSH – Overall Job Rating in national polls

    Poll/date_________Approve_Disapprove_Unsure

    FOX/OpDy 7/22-23/08___27______66______7

    FOX/OpDy 6/17-18/08___ 29______64______7

    Quinnipiac 7/8-13/08____ 26______67______6

    Quinnipiac 5/8-12/08____ 28______67______5

    LA T/Blmbrg 6/19-23/08 _ 23______73______4

    LA T/Blmbrg 2/21-25/08 _ 34______62______4

    http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

    And McCave starts siding with Obama, like he was always a follower-- just hadn't picked the right one to follow...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/26/2008 @ 3:19pm

  54. "..if they go for impeachement with months left in the Bush presidency the public will throw out the dems for being complete boobs and panderin"

    i don't know about you, but i don't know a *single* person who doesn't wanna see these guys in orange jump suits, doing hard labor for the rest of their lives.

    the natives are so incredibly restless that they have grown weary......

    impeachment is the least the democrats can do.

    just remember, last week john yoo was asked by john conyers: "can the president order someone buried alive?"

    you did not deny that the president could.

    and there you have it. the most transparently criminal administration in our history.

    Posted by darladoon at 07/26/2008 @ 3:36pm

  55. CONGRESS – Job Rating in national polls

    Poll/date_________Approve_Disapprove_Unsure

    FOX/OpDy 7/22-23/08___21_____68_____11

    ABC/W P 7/10-13/08____ 23_____71 _____ 6

    AP-Ipsos 6/12-16/08_____23_____72_____0

    &&&&&&&&&&&&&

    ABC News/Washington Post Poll. July 10-13, 2008. N=1,119 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by TNS.

    "Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Democrats in Congress are doing their job?"

    Date________Approve__Disapprove__Unsure

    7/10-13/08_____35_______57_______8

    "Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Republicans in Congress are doing their job?"

    Date________Approve__Disapprove__Unsure

    7/10-13/08_____25_______69_______6

    http://www.pollingreport.com/

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/26/2008 @ 3:39pm

  56. Generic Congressional Vote

    Poll______Date_______Dems__Repubs__Dif

    Pew 06/18 - 06/29_______52_____37____-15

    Rasm 07/07 - 07/13______46_____36____-10

    ABC /W P 06/12 - 06/15___53_____38____-15

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/26/2008 @ 3:48pm

  57. Rassmussen Reports (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/339253)

    Tuesday, July 08, 2008

    The percentage of voters who give Congress good or excellent ratings has fallen to single digits for the first time in Rasmussen Reports tracking history. This month, just 9% say Congress is doing a good or excellent job. Most voters (52%) say Congress is doing a poor job, which ties the record high in that dubious category.

    Last month, 11% of voters gave the legislature good or excellent ratings. Congress has not received higher than a 15% approval rating since the beginning of 2008.

    Posted by Exton1 at 07/26/2008 @ 4:00pm

  58. Remember Bush's approval rating is about 38%, Congress is less that 9%.

    Posted by Exton1 at 07/26/2008 @ 1:26pm

    NOT.

    People approve of the way dems vote in congress by 46-50+%, compared to repubs' vote mid-upper 30%.

    Congressional repubs have higher negs and lower approvals than dems by 10-15%.

    If you separate out congressional dems, they have an overall 5-10% better approval rating than does the hsuB dic'.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/26/2008 @ 4:01pm

  59. Posted by Exton1 at 07/26/2008 @ 4:00pm

    One singular poll does not create the averages nor give an accurate picture. That's why I post several polls and you only post one.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/26/2008 @ 4:04pm

  60. Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/26/2008 @ 3:52pm

    "such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

    Yes, Brunowe, and in fact we have tribunals. They are called courts martial, and they can be convened summarily, on the battlefield if necessary. And since many of the terrorists you seem so eager to protect have no problem telling anyone who will listen that the instant they are released they will start slitting throats for Allah, it's a pretty easy call.

    And yes, I know, you don't really want to protect terrorists. The real point of your agenda is to pick up any random cudgel that you think might be useful in damaging the Administration, and if it ends up helping terrorists, that's just the breaks, right?

    Posted by pontificus at 07/26/2008 @ 4:05pm

  61. It makes sense that McCave has stopped following hsuB and is now following Obama too. Obama is a leader; McCave is not.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/26/2008 @ 4:08pm

  62. "on the battlefield if necessary"

    what battlefield? according to the administration, the entire globe is part of the "battlefield", and the timeline for battle is indefinite.

    "The real point of your agenda is to pick up any random cudgel that you think might be useful in damaging the Administration, and if it ends up helping terrorists, that's just the breaks, right?"

    right. sure.

    Posted by darladoon at 07/26/2008 @ 4:09pm

  63. The only reason dems haven't already impeached hsuB/cHeney is that there are still too many dic'tator worshipping new con repubs in congress.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/26/2008 @ 4:11pm

  64. pontificus, liberty, and jomamma are truly extraordinary. they are actually using their free time to defend the most transparently criminal administration in our nation's history.

    " Terrorist are not covered by the GC because they do not wear uniforms and cannot be connected to a specific government"

    uh, according to the last two supreme court decisions on the issue, you are dead wrong.

    Posted by darladoon at 07/26/2008 @ 4:12pm

  65. Zero, you're on target here. The righties think calling folk slimy or radical leftist or Marxist is some kind of stunning rhetorical move. In the absence of an actual argument, a command of facts, or the ability to persuade, lvliberty and his ilk throw nasty names and schoolyard put-downs around as if somehow that will show us all the light.

    Meanwhile, even K Rove's electoral maps show Nov. shaping up as a huge blue wave. You'd think the righties would learn from failure, but they have the audacity to keep right on failing. They're doing a heck of a job as far as I'm concerned.

    Posted by tnathant at 07/26/2008 @ 4:56pm

  66. how is calling out potentially very serious crimes (illegal wiretapping, torture, secret rendition, etc), and begging congress to perform its sworn oversight duties to shed light on these crimes, marxist?

    oh, btw, liberty never got back to us on the question of whether obama or hillary should be held criminally liable had he/she ordered illegal wiretapping, secret rendition, the iraq invastion and occupation, and torture? would liberty support an investigation into obama's or hillary's potentially very serious crimes?

    i suspect we won't get an answer because

    a) liberty is weak

    b) liberty is an intellectual coward

    Posted by darladoon at 07/26/2008 @ 5:30pm

  67. Poll numbers not published in the MSM:

    American Research Group, Inc., July 21, 2008

    Bush Job Approval Ratings 7/19/08

    _Approve___Disapprove__Undecided

    ___21%_______72%______7%

    Economy

    ___17%_______77%______6%

    George W. Bush's overall job approval rating has dropped to 21% as 76% of Americans say they believe the national economy is getting worse. Details from the nationwide survey conducted July 16-19 are available at The National Economy.

    http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/

    &&&&

    hsuB has a 19% job approval rating in Wisconsin and New Hampshire.

    http://tinyurl.com/5rm4hv

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/26/2008 @ 5:47pm

  68. New Zogby Poll Shows Majority of Americans Support Impeaching Bush for Wiretapping

    By a margin of 52% to 43%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he wiretapped American citizens without a judge's approval, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

    The poll was conducted by Zogby International, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,216 U.S. adults from January 9-12. The poll found that 52% agreed with the statement:

    "If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."

    43% disagreed, and 6% said they didn't know or declined to answer. The poll has a +/- 2.9% margin of error.

    "The American people are not buying Bush's outrageous claim that he has the power to wiretap American citizens without a warrant. Americans believe terrorism can be fought without turning our own government into Big Brother," said AfterDowningStreet.org co-founder Bob Fertik.

    http://tinyurl.com/73gh8

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/26/2008 @ 5:56pm

  69. "hsuB has a 19% job approval rating in Wisconsin and New Hampshire"

    just imagine the minds of those 19%.

    Posted by darladoon at 07/26/2008 @ 5:56pm

  70. Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment? * 713799 responses

    Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial.

    89%

    No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching "high crimes and misdemeanors."

    4.2%

    No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching.

    4.6%

    I don't know.

    2.1%

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/

    No wonder Faux Woos hates MSNBC...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/26/2008 @ 5:59pm

  71. New Zogby Poll Shows Majority of Americans Support Impeachment;

    ImpeachPAC is Launched to Support Pro-Impeachment Candidates

    By a margin of 53% to 42%, Americans want Congress to impeach President Bush if he lied about the war in Iraq, according to a new Zogby poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

    The nationwide telephone poll was conducted by Zogby International, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,200 U.S. adults from October 29 through November 2.

    The poll found that 53% agreed with the statement:

    "If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."

    42% disagreed, and 5% said they didn't know or declined to answer. The poll has a +/- 2.9% margin of error.

    http://impeachpac.org/?q=node/6

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/26/2008 @ 6:02pm

  72. Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/26/2008 @ 3:52pm

    torture 'em, jesus.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/26/2008 @ 6:25pm

  73. Posted by pontificus at 07/26/2008 @ 4:05pm

    ooh, terrorists..........

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/26/2008 @ 6:26pm

  74. authoritarians can guarantee the support of 19% of the current population of the united states, several of whom regularly attend this site:

    hey, jomamma, mary, liberty, ponti, frank, et al:

    hoes does it feel fulfilling the literary prophecies of george orwell?

    didn't think it could happen to you, could it? you got a solid education, right? america is great, right? home of the brave, land of the free, right?

    Posted by darladoon at 07/26/2008 @ 6:51pm

  75. "You want agreement on the opinion that Bush knew the intellegence was wrong, even though all the Democrats in Congress thought it was right"

    there is a logical fallacy in this statement. what bush knew, and what congress knew, were vastly different.

    and even *if* the democrats knew what bush knew, it would be irrelevant. if X is illegal, and punishable by imprisonment for up to 5 years, then it doesn't make any difference if a republican or a democrat does X. either goes to prison.

    if we are not a nation of laws, then what are we? a nation of kings + commoners? because that is clearly what is taking place here.

    bush is getting a pass, and will get a pass.

    but some dude in san francisco, who grows some herb to feed some patients, will get 100 years?

    bush takes nation into war on false pretenses. thousands die. bush tortures and illegally wiretaps, and suspends habeas for some US citizens on US soil.

    do these crimes compare? marijuana cultivation vs massive destruction of life and property? violation of several federal and international laws?

    and, according to mary, this is just.....passion?!

    Posted by darladoon at 07/26/2008 @ 8:27pm

  76. how could bush NOT have done something criminal? if i can get a $50 fine for j-walking, and have to appear in court to contest or submit, then why doesn't bush get a ticket and have to appear in court for spying on americans without warrants?

    he already admitted to not getting the warrants. in fact, we already have documentation that when ashcroft was in the hospital, and gonzalez and cheney visited him to tell him about the new nsa program, ashcroft and his entire staff threatened to resign EN MASSE because they knew the program was massively illegal.

    that is documented.

    bush, in buffalo 2005, also lied about getting the warrants.

    clinton also lied, and was impeached.

    so, getting a blow job......and.....starting a war on false pretenses...... hmmmmm...............

    Posted by darladoon at 07/26/2008 @ 8:31pm

  77. mary, just admit, although you are somewhat of a realist, you have fallen completely backwards, into reflexive authoritarianism, and you can't even see it.

    i beg of you to use logic and answer the following question:

    if X is illegal,

    and punishable by up to 5 years in prison,

    and bush does X,

    then should bush be held accountable for X?

    such a shame, a person like you, with otherwise sane analysis.....

    Posted by darladoon at 07/26/2008 @ 8:34pm

  78. Bush should be impeached because he broke the law repeatedly. He lied about breaking the law, repeatedly.

    That's why he needs to be impeached.

    Not because it's some endless game of gotcha!, but because if those charged with upholding the law break it with impunity, the law is meaningless.

    Not the sort of country I want passed on to my nephews.

    Posted by tnathant at 07/26/2008 @ 8:57pm

  79. Again, impeachment is only to try to muzzle the rabbid dogs in the white house. Congress must try to prevent those killers from torching another million midle east humans. The congress must at least try. The serious polls are very clear, the exitement is with obamas followers. The only mcbush exitement is with the pathetic ones that try to cover the sun with their lame and ridiculous crap. Not only does obama lead in the polls. The serious polls are very clear, the exitement is with obamas crowd, i for one will go to vote in the rain, or mud or whatever. This time i wont be fooled. Mcbush cant stirr up the exitement that is natural on obamas side, he is mcdole. Its THE UNBUSH VS THE MCBUSH.

    Posted by caojuliao at 07/26/2008 @ 10:41pm

  80. ehem rabid dogs in the white house

    Posted by caojuliao at 07/26/2008 @ 10:43pm

  81. darin,

    one day you will realize that there is no defence for the indefensible.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/26/2008 @ 10:55pm

  82. Heres the Best Part MBB... Something you have left out ... The Chemical weapons used against his own people were in FACT supplied by... Guess who.... Thats right ... WE THE PEOPLE..

    Posted by Vvf1969 at 07/26/2008 @ 11:26pm

  83. hsuB/cHeney cherry picked intel to conform to their decision to go to war (Downing Street Memos) with Iraq way before 9/11 even happened (O'Neill). They tied 9/11 to Iraq by repeating them together every chance they got. Then they ignored the congressional resolution that tied the UN approval to go to war with Iraq and deciding 'not' to look for WMD', dismissed Hans Blix and a team of UN weapons inspectors after only about three months. (Just three months for hsuB/cHeney to decide to give us over 4000 dead US troops, 10's of thousands permanently and severely maimed and or dying not to mention millions of Iraqis irreparably scarred, missing or dead.

    http://tinyurl.com/bvjnu

    http://tinyurl.com/2s6aq

    http://tinyurl.com/68h5mg

    http://tinyurl.com/5zgs7w

    http://tinyurl.com/zi9k

    Of course hsuB/cHeney should be impeached, but not just for lying us into war. Everything should be listed and not just this one atrocity. Obstruction of justice concerning our DoJ being turned into a partisan GOP gestapo needs to be on there. Approving torture is another. Giving approval to spy on US citizens without a warrant is another. Negligent purposeful intent for New Orleans Katrina's aftermath victims as well as allowing 9/11 to occur are also necessary crimes to be investigated and prosecuted. Not to mention all the secret no bid energy deals and war profiteering...

    Oh yeah, hsuB/cHeney need to be renditioned. Impeach them on the easiest crime to stick, but don't stop there-- they have to account for all their crimes, by all means. Get hsuB/cHeney in jail and never let them out. Karma.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/26/2008 @ 11:29pm

  84. "After the ruling, Bush complied, but before the ruling, he didn't know it was against the law"

    did anyone else catch this hilarity?

    "Bush looked at the same intel"

    apparently, you're not up to speed on the chain of events. it is now known that the white house deleted portions of the pre-war intel from the congressional report.

    Posted by darladoon at 07/27/2008 @ 03:11am

  85. "It is open ended as a matter of fact.

    So the Bush Admin is in full compliance on this issue as I noted previously. "

    So by that logic, the Admin could procrastinate on that until the detainees were wizened old men. To argue that such is the intent or meaning of Article 5 is simply not credible. Further, the same article says that such persons enjoy the protection of Geneva until the tribunal determines their status.

    "They are called courts martial, and they can be convened summarily, on the battlefield if necessary."

    They haven't been convened at all.

    "So, if you tap a phone in France, you haven't violated US law."

    But we are talking about communications where US persons are involved. On this, the applicability of FISA is clear cut.

    Posted by brunowe at 07/27/2008 @ 05:39am

  86. Read every word posted here - then share it with everyone you know:

    http://plungerspeaks.blogspot.com

    Read it.

    Posted by plunger at 07/27/2008 @ 07:07am

  87. Posted by marybretbrad at 07/27/2008 @ 09:55am

    The truth is worse...

    they're just incompetent ideologues.

    or ideological incompetents!

    LOL

    Posted by Maskdelta at 07/27/2008 @ 10:10am

  88. Posted by marybretbrad at 07/27/2008 @ 10:12am

    how do you know what mr. bush had in his mind?

    i think your crystal ball is more like scratched plexiglass.

    from what i've read, mr. bush had this whole fiasco ready before 9/11.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/27/2008 @ 12:55pm

  89. "but us mere mortals had to wait for the SCOTUS to clarify what the law meant"

    mere mortals can familiarize themselves with the '76 FISA bill, which up until fairly recently, was the law of the land. that bill requires search warrants when one of the two parties is located within the united states.

    it's as simple as that.

    bush was not getting the required warrants between the years of 2000-2005.

    it's as simple as that.

    whether bush "knew" of the "clarity" of the law is not an argument, or at least a credible argument.

    "Yes, his naivetι was a mistake but it was not a crime"

    ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha......

    Posted by darladoon at 07/27/2008 @ 12:55pm

  90. Posted by marybretbrad at 07/27/2008 @ 10:12am

    if mr. bush wanted to protect you, he would have ready that handy august report back in 2001.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/27/2008 @ 12:56pm

  91. "read", not "ready".

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/27/2008 @ 12:57pm

  92. "I believe in my heart of hearts, that Bush tried his best to protect America from further attacks"

    (soft violin in background)

    "I know he honestly believed Saddam had WMDs and that if left alone, Saddam would eventually have nukes. Even if it took 20 years, he was determined to have them"

    la-da-da-dum-dee-dum

    la-da-da-da-dum

    la-la-la-da-dee-dum

    la-la-da-da-dee.....

    (soft violin in background)

    Posted by darladoon at 07/27/2008 @ 12:57pm

  93. "bush honestly believed........"

    can any rational human being resond to this?

    "honestly believed"??

    yeah, he also believes there is a Man up in the Sky, looking out after him.....

    Posted by darladoon at 07/27/2008 @ 12:59pm

  94. it's extraordinary to what lengths certain otherwise rational people will go to defend bush from criticism.

    bush authorized torture, wiretapping, secret rendition, indefinite imprisonment, and an invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation.

    and mary's argument is that "in his heart of hearts" he "truly believed" that what we was doing was "right"?

    justification being: bush has a learning disability, and didn't understand that the law applies equally?

    Posted by darladoon at 07/27/2008 @ 1:05pm

  95. Oh, Hell..lets just burn the Constitution..it doesn't count for any thing...no one is punished for crimes against the Constitution...looks like a Democratic landslide this election..so the Democrats can do the same crimes with impunity....even more if they want to..no one will stop them...no one is going to be punished for spying, lying, torturing..for outing a CIA operative for political gain...no one will be punished for turning the DOJ into a right-wing ideologue, Bush ass-covering spectacle...WTF..when the Dem's get in..not one word from you who approve of every thing this administration has done..lets just throw the damn Constitution in the garbage...its "just a piece of Goddamn paper"..as Bush said...then we can become just like communistic China..or Russia...hell even maybe a Plutocracy like Old Mexico...or a Dictatorship like Myanmar...who needs the damn Constitution or the Law interfering and meddling in what our government does to us..no other country has a Constitution like ours...and they all get along quite well with out it...right?...

    Posted by Chabuka at 07/27/2008 @ 4:58pm

  96. WAKE UP VOTERS.......................................... ALL SHOULD BE AWARE that the House Democrats did not allow this preliminary Impeachment Hearing Today Out Of The Goodness Of Their Hearts or Because of Any Particular Group's Lobbying.

    There is only one dynamic that has changed recently.

    The Democrats are afraid of massive voter retribution in the November Election. They are afraid of losing their jobs and their power, and the perks that go with it.

    The Voters have recently and loudly told the House Democrats that we are sick and tired of their stonewalling on holding Bush and Cheney accountable. After My Democrats took over, the polls show that Congress's positive rating dropped to the single digits, the lowest in history. The refusal of the House Democrats to stop the Iraq War and Impeach is unforgiveable. We put you in office and if you do not hold Full Impeachment Hearings prior to the Election we will un-elect you.

    In Colorado We Democrats, Independents, Republicans and others are currently doing negative campaigning against all incumbent House/Senate Candidates who have refused to support and even discuss impeachment. If the House Democrats do not immediately announce the date of the first full impeachment hearing scheduled prior to the election, we will greatly increase our negative campaigning. Your job is yours to lose. You have our support only if you hold serious full impeachment hearings before the election.

    John H Kennedy Denver CO 43 yr Democratic voter, Obama delegate to Denver County Conv, organizer of the IMPEACH COLORADO COALITION http://ImpeachCO.com

    Posted by JohnHKennedy at 07/27/2008 @ 5:20pm

  97. "You honestly believe Bush is pure evil"

    try "criminally negligent" or simply "criminal."

    but not "pure evil." that would be cheney or rove.

    Posted by darladoon at 07/27/2008 @ 6:39pm

  98. WAR

    ___March 20, 2003

    ___http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

    WAR OVER

    ___May 1, 2003

    ___http://tinyurl.com/32do8m

    SURGE 1

    ___August 14, 2003

    ___http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/

    Un-SURGE 1

    ___Spring 2004

    ___http://tinyurl.com/5l4ra7

    Re-SURGE (level 2)

    ___December 2, 2004

    ___http://tinyurl.com/5pk6u

    Re-Un-SURGE (level 2)

    ___Spring 2006

    ___http://tinyurl.com/5fn8up

    ___http://tinyurl.com/5kybne

    Counter-Re-Un-SURGE (level 3)

    ___January 2007

    ___http://tinyurl.com/6r8voa

    Semi-Counter-Re-Un-SURGE (level 4)

    ___November 2007

    ___http://tinyurl.com/6zp4xl

    Current-Counter-Re- Un-SURGE (level 4)

    ___June 2008

    So which type of SURGE worked? Was it working or not working because of all the other un-surges or was it the re-surges? Real numbers show an increase and decrease in death, attacks, wounded, etc. on multiple occasions-- so were we winning before we were losing before we were winning before we were... ad infinitum?

    Average Number Daily Insurgent Attacks In Iraq

    Feb-June 05 - 61.8

    Aug 05-Jan O6 - 81.1

    Feb-May 06 - 89.9

    May-Aug 06 - 113.4

    Aug-Nov 06 - 152.9

    Nov 06-Feb 07 - 148.9

    Feb-May 07 - 159.8

    So as Obama predicted there were increases in attacks and we have already had more casualties in the 1st 6 months of 2008 than in the 1st 6 months of the war in 2003- 1400+ versus about 1100 then. And are we winning when more of our troops are getting injured now than in the beginning of the war over 5 years ago? How short-sighted does one have to become to fall for the new con repub packaging BS just one more time? Obviously for some, it is a unlimited.

    And unless anyone forgot-- more of our troops died in 2007 than in any other year of the war. For Obama, apparently that still isn't a good choice considering we were lied into this war of choice in the first place-- HELLO. When will it ever be ok to let more of our troops die for new con repub corporate war profiteering?

    http://icasualties.org/oif/

    http://tinyurl.com/67op57

    What else does hsuB/McCave have than to continually repeat SURGE - SURGE - SURGE - SURGE - ... Sad.

    &&&&&&&&&&&&

    BTW:

    THE BOUNCE CONTINUES:

    July 27, 2008

    Gallup Daily: Obama 49%, McCain 40%

    http://tinyurl.com/5ol9uh

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/27/2008 @ 7:24pm

  99. "That said, there is no evidence that Bush ever ordered the use of torture"

    if waterboarding is torture,

    and the united states uses waterboarding,

    then it follows that the united states tortures.

    if you are opposed to torture, then you are by

    definition opposed to the use of it by the US

    military.

    if the commander-in-chief is in charge of the US

    military, and torture happens under his watch,

    then the commander-in-chief is liable for torture.

    it's that simple.

    Posted by darladoon at 07/27/2008 @ 9:01pm

  100. liberty, if you wanna play this game of obfuscation vis a vis the creation of doubt ("the president never ordered the use of torture"), then we will never, ever hold any criminals.....er.....elected officials accountable. there has to be oversight into this, if indeed a crime was committed. and by all accounts, the united states committed a very serious crime: torture. the cia and pentagon said they have used waterboarding at least three times.

    so, do you care for the rule of law? or not?

    Posted by darladoon at 07/27/2008 @ 9:04pm

  101. "I think that given the number of actions we were able to prevent because of the information we have gathered from these 3 key Al Qaeda figures, the action back then was worth it"

    yet another cowardly, unprincipled stance. you say you oppose torture, but not against these three individuals. that is sheer hyp0crisy.

    second, you said:

    "I think that given the number of actions we were able to prevent because of the information we have gathered from these 3 key Al Qaeda figures, the action back then was worth it"

    then why seek "retroactive" immunity, given the Truong court's decision?

    Posted by darladoon at 07/27/2008 @ 10:48pm

  102. oops, for the second quote, i mean to state your claim that, per article 2, the president has the authority to break the law....

    Posted by darladoon at 07/27/2008 @ 10:49pm

  103. last, congress never declared war on anyone.

    therefore, these are not military combatants....

    Posted by darladoon at 07/27/2008 @ 10:50pm

  104. Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/27/2008 @ 9:25pm

    How many actions have we prevented?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/28/2008 @ 02:13am

  105. "How many actions have we prevented?"

    so true!

    Posted by darladoon at 07/28/2008 @ 02:51am

  106. Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/27/2008 @ 9:25pm

    I have asked this repeatedly and have yet to get an answer that is a government intervention using the powers of the military. Every prevented action has been prevented by normal citizens.

    Then the second answer that comes it that, "Oh we can never actually know how many have been prevented." So in that case you are stating as a fact that we have prevented actions but you don't know if we have actually prevented actions. There is 0% evidence that ONE terrorists attack has been stopped by FISA, Iraq war Afghanistan war or anything else.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/28/2008 @ 03:05am

  107. Anybody notice how the Right give a pass, not even a "innocent until proven guilty" to Bush...

    but ALL the detainees in Gitmo are automatically guilty of being terrorists?

    Posted by Maskdelta at 07/28/2008 @ 09:05am

  108. "Anybody notice how the Right give a pass, not even a "innocent until proven guilty" to Bush...

    but ALL the detainees in Gitmo are automatically guilty of being terrorists?"

    that's because Bush is our Supreme Leader, and we must always trust Our Leaders.

    Posted by darladoon at 07/28/2008 @ 12:04pm

  109. Posted by darladoon at 07/28/2008 @ 12:04pm

    Well, until Obama is inaugurated...

    then they'll suddenly decide to join those of us who like to hold leaders' feet to the fire!

    Posted by Maskdelta at 07/28/2008 @ 12:23pm

  110. LL's point about warantless searches of cross-border communications has merit to it. Warrants have been held to not be required for persons and their effects crossing the border and it would follow that communications would be similarly treated.

    However, the issue is one of the applicability of FISA. The decisions that LL cites antedate FISA. His reliance on Truong is also misplaced since the incidents that gave rise to the case antedate FISA, consequently it's inapplicable to the FISA question. Consequently, the FISA Review Court's reliance on it is misplaced.

    "I think that given the number of actions we were able to prevent because of the information we have gathered from these 3 key Al Qaeda figures, the action back then was worth it."

    First, we have only the government's word that waterboarding has only been applied to three people and what we've been able to prevent with the information so obtained. Given the inherent unreliability of information obtained under torture, I think such claims must be regarded skeptically. Second, the US has signed and ratified the Convention Against Torture. The definition clearly covers waterboarding. Indeed, we convicted Japanese military personnel of war crimes based on their waterboarding of US prisoners.

    Posted by brunowe at 07/28/2008 @ 12:32pm

  111. Anybody notice how the Right give a pass, not even a "innocent until proven guilty" to Bush...

    but ALL the detainees in Gitmo are automatically guilty of being terrorists?

    Posted by Maskdelta at 07/28/2008 @ 09:05am

    excellent.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/28/2008 @ 12:45pm

John Nichols John Nichols

Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.

Archives

  1. November 2009

  2. October 2009

  3. September 2009

  4. August 2009

  5. July 2009

  6. June 2009

blog roll

Advertisement
Advertisement

Blogs

» The Notion

Palin as the Church Lady | Going Rogue book tour brings passive-aggressive rightwing Christianity to the fore.
Leslie Savan
54 Comments

» Altercation

Slacker Friday | The "Second Amendment" sale; the raving paranoids of the right.
Eric Alterman

» Editor's Cut

An Alternative to Escalation in Afghanistan | President Obama is expected to make a decision regarding his Afghanistan strategy after Thanksgiving.
Katrina vanden Heuvel
56 Comments

» The Beat

House Rebels Force Fed Audit, Real Economy Onto Agenda | Frank's Financial Services Committee becomes focal point for revolts by members who worry about powerful banks and unemployment.
John Nichols
30 Comments

» The Dreyfuss Report

Chongqing: Socialism in One City | China is managing the most important event in the world: the urbanization of half a billion people. Fast.
Robert Dreyfuss
204 Comments

» Act Now!

Toward Copenhagen | A guide to joining the movement against climate change.
Peter Rothberg
61 Comments