Pelosi: “Nope. Not yet…”

Even after all this time and all of these revelations….these people just…it just knocks the wind out of me. Oi….

Turley:”…It’s really amazing, Congress, including the Democrats, have avoided any type of investigation into torture because they do not want to deal with the fact that the president ordered war crimes.

I will never understand. Not as long as I live, will I understand why they won’t investigate and bring charges of war crimes. Torture is really only one aspect of it. Many war crimes have been commited. What is their fear? Looking at it from my point of view, I would think they would come out as heroes in the eyes of at least 70% of Americans and change the views other countries now have of us. What am I missing?

Isn’t attacking another country for their natural resources a war crime?

Would someone kindly explain to me why everyone seems to think Nancy Pelosi has the power to decide if/when impeachment proceedings should begin against Bush/Cheney?

Remember when the whole Watergate fiasco went down? It was a full SENATE vote that decided to name a Special Committee for Hearings…NOT THE HOUSE!!!

http://www.ford.utexas.edu/mus.....amp;page=a

It was the Senate Committee that ordered the House Judiciary Committee to draw up the articles of impeachment after the public hearings had taken place and everyone started singing (Dean etc.)

Just seems to me we are looking at the whole impeachment scenario bass ackwards.

Please advise. I do believe lots of folks on this thread would appreciate having a better understanding of the process.

They believe (that is the Democratic Congress believes) that if they attempt to impeach then Bush will declare martial law and himself ruler under any number of unitary executive assertions Bush has made.

There have been rumors to this effect and this is the only logical reason I can fathom for their behavior.

Has anybody mentioned yet that the theory Yoo proposes, ie that abuse of a prisoner is an extension of the idea of justification by self-defense - and that self defense is also a viable defense in a murder case?

I’ve mentioned before the terrible logic that would overcome a torturer when he found a victim to be totally innocent. The entire presumption that theoretically supports his action has just collapsed. Now he (the torturer) must kill his victim in order to protect himself from prosecution for war crimes, and to protect the government for having sanctioned it. It would be very surprising indeed if this tragic and deadly scenario has not played itself out in Afghanistan, Cuba and Iraq dozens if not hundreds of times. In that sense the US has finally become a member of the network of banana republics of South America where they have been training, equipping and financing torturers and murderers for decades.

I really couldn’t be more disgusted.

You know, if the Dems won’t impeach (and we know the Repugs certainly won’t) I think we all have a case against Taxation without Representation.

i think the dems are afraid of the media. they assume and correctly that if they go for impeachment the media will trash them for going after their hero w. it’s not the repubs they have stand up to, it’s the media.

The Dems have been afraid of backlash and poor media coverage (the media that ignores these crimes in the first place), and that taking action will hurt us this election cycle.

I think that doing the right thing, that is enforcing the Constitution, would rally the nation and world behind the cause. Except for KO, the MSM has little to say about the torture memo. Probably afraid it will take telecom immunity down with it.

I bet Wexler really wants hearings, now!

Screw the politicians. Check your mirrors.

The average american doesn’t really give a shit about whats being done in their names, if they did this admin would be in leg irons by now.

It’s more evidence of even more then just impeachable crimes.

numfar @ 4:

Isn’t attacking another country for their natural resources a war crime?

Here is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights passed in the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. The United States is a member of the U.N. and our Constitution clearly says that all treaties we are signatories to become “the highest law of the land”:

http://www.gpln.com/udhr.html#readudhr

According to this, I’d say our pre-emptive invasion and occupation of Iraq (based on lies, trickery, fraud and deceit) would constitute a war crime. Particularly when hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings have been murdered/maimed and we have used depleted uranium munitions which will render the entire nation of Iraq to be probably the biggest cluster area of cancers and malformed infants on Earth….forever.

Sure sounds like a war crime to me. The reason I feel there are no impeachment hearings is that the entire Congress knows they are just as guilty as the Bush Administration since they have all been “going along to get along” passing the necessary legislation and funding all of it. The American People are just as guilty for not DEMANDING the truth and a total cessation of hostilities and our soldiers are guilty for not following the orders of the UCMJ which demands they follow only LAWFUL orders.

The minute any soldier knew what he/she was doing was illegal, they had not only the right, but the duty to stand down and be courts martialed if necessary. Had enough soldiers stood down and done the right thing we would have been out of there long before “Mission Accomplished”.

And that’s the f*@king truth.

GEE WHILLIKERS, PORGIE!! Maybe he can get impeached 20 years after he leaves office and collects his $1million a year pension…

Impeachment is off the table.

Dirty @ 2:

Even after all this time and all of these revelations….these people just…it just knocks the wind out of me. Oi….

I’m with you there, the elemental shamelessness is breathtaking.

When the pictures first came out of Abu Ghraib who didn’t doubt for an instant that the top executives were behind it? I never went for the “few bad apples” argument, I was always convinced there are only a few good apples spoiling it for all the bad ones.

I heard someplace recently that New Hampshire may initiate impeachment. Jeez, I can’t remember where I heard that. Does anybody know? It has something that Thomas Jefferson (who would have thunk) put into the the constitution about states being able to get the process rolling.

Bush and those in the congress who aided and abetted him all need to go. Pelosi, Reid, and all the other dems who chose to look the other way for political expediency. Bush is bad but they are his enablers. This is shameful.

… they do not want to deal with the fact that the president ordered war crimes. But, evidence keeps on coming out. The only thing we don’t have is a group picture with a detainee attached to electrical wires.

…and that group photo will be leaked in two weeks.

And still nothing will ever be done about it.

Captain Kangaroo @ 18:

I heard someplace recently that New Hampshire may initiate impeachment. Jeez, I can’t remember where I heard that. Does anybody know? It has something that Thomas Jefferson (who would have thunk) put into the the constitution about states being able to get the process rolling.

I think Vermont, Mass., New Mexico, and Calif. have passed resolutions in one form other for impeachment. NH voted on it last month, but I don’t know what the results were.

Here’s the Diary of a Scared Congress

It still amazes me that Bill Clinton was impeached for Monica and this President has broken the law six ways from Sunday and nothing. It’s off the table.

Slightly off topic, but I think maybe Rachael Maddow might step in for Olbermann tomorrow night. They hinted but were not explicit about it tonight.

Yeah, Rachel Maddow is scheduled to host for Olbermann. She mentioned it on her radio show tonight.

Jonathon Turley:

I know John Yoo, and it’s very personally disappointing to see his name on these memos.

Heh, I’ve sat in the office on the video clip where Yoo is shown at his desk. (At least, I think that’s the office.) Just sat there chatting with him about the Constitution and civil liberties. He’s a nice guy in person — always willing to listen to me when I disagreed with him. It was all very creepy sitting there and talking to him knowing what he’s done for this administration.

I think that at the end of this terrible legacy, I think many lawyers will be ashamed of the role that we played, even those of us who opposed it.

When I was in law school, even we students were talking about the actions we should take vis-a-vis Prof. Yoo. After all, we couldn’t quite participate in the protests some groups staged during our classes. (Or, I suppose we could have, but it did not behoove us, since our grades and degrees depended in part on the person we would protest right there in our own class.) It was all quite troubling.

By the way, I recently saw Taxi to the Dark Side. Very good, very sad, very infuriating documentary. I highly recommend it. Especially if you’d like to continue to be upset with John Yoo.

And the Dems will do what? Hand wave and then quickly fold… That should be Harry Reid’s motto.

Jesse Ventura recently did an earth-shaking interview with Alex Jones…

he says that something the government says isn’t true.

The pussies in congress are saying it’s okay to commit impeachable offenses by doing absolutely nothing to Georgie boy. This country is setting a terrible precedent for a real dictator in the future by letting Bush Jr. get away with mass murder and many other high crimes.

Truth B Told @ 27:

Jesse Ventura recently did an earth-shaking interview with Alex Jones…

he says that something the government says isn’t true.

Well….what did he say for God’s sake?

JImbo @ 6:

They believe (that is the Democratic Congress believes) that if they attempt to impeach then Bush will declare martial law and himself ruler under any number of unitary executive assertions Bush has made.

There have been rumors to this effect and this is the only logical reason I can fathom for their behavior.

ok, he declares martial law to get around impeachment that would be another nail in his coffin and who would obey such an order when the reasons why he did it?

Congress has spoken. The administration has not broken the law. All of this is perfectly legal and appropriate.

Abbybwood @ 5:

Would someone kindly explain to me why everyone seems to think Nancy Pelosi has the power to decide if/when impeachment proceedings should begin against Bush/Cheney?

She doesn’t have unilateral power simply to decide. However, as the Speaker of the House, she has a great deal of control over what bills actually make it to the committees and to the House floor. Although many in Congress do want to impeach members of the administration, many of those do not want to go against the Speaker on the issue. Ultimately, a majority of the House has to vote to impeach. And that’s very unlikely.

Remember when the whole Watergate fiasco went down? It was a full SENATE vote that decided to name a Special Committee for Hearings…NOT THE HOUSE!!!

http://www.ford.utexas.edu/mus.....amp;page=a

It was the Senate Committee that ordered the House Judiciary Committee to draw up the articles of impeachment after the public hearings had taken place and everyone started singing (Dean etc.)

Just seems to me we are looking at the whole impeachment scenario bass ackwards.

Please advise. I do believe lots of folks on this thread would appreciate having a better understanding of the process.

We’re not looking at it backwards at all. Either chamber of Congress may hold hearings and conduct investigations. If the Senate uncovers evidence which it then shows to the House, the House can decide whether the evidence demands impeachment proceedings. Though the House Judiciary Committee would likely conduct its own hearings on the evidence once it looked at the evidence.

However, the Senate has no authority to order the House to do anything. They are co-equal chambers of Congress, and neither can tell the other what to do.

As for impeachment, the Constitution grants the sole power to impeach to the House of Representatives. It’s the only body in the government that can impeach any officer. And impeachment is simply an indictment. It’s officially bringing charges against a government officer, who then gets a trial. The trial takes place in the Senate. The Constitution grants the Senate the sole power to try impeachments, and 67 Senators must vote guilty in order to convict.

And I’m happy to answer any other questions on this process, or other Constitutional matters to the best of my ability. :)

According to Turley, “The president ordered war crimes.” My kid almost fell off the couch when he heard that part.

“What are you guys going to do about it?” My son looked @ me & I wanted to shout that we’ll impeach the son-of-a-bitch, but then I remembered that impeachment is off the goddamned table…

By not dealing with this issue, congress is complicit in the use of torture.
The message to the rest of the world is “We are with Bush on this.”

I seem to have heard something recently about “America’s chickens coming home to roost” - not a bad analogy for the likely repercussions of taking the moral low road on this issue.

JImbo @ 6:

They believe (that is the Democratic Congress believes) that if they attempt to impeach then Bush will declare martial law and himself ruler under any number of unitary executive assertions Bush has made.

There have been rumors to this effect and this is the only logical reason I can fathom for their behavior.

Heh, there are all sorts of rumors about Bush’s willingness to declare martial law. I don’t put much stock in the details of them, but I do think he’s capable of it.

As for Pelosi, the composition of the Senate is a large part of her calculation. She knows that conviction is basically impossible, as the Republicans are fundamentally corrupt, and will vote to acquit. Personally, I still think the House should impeach the lot of these bastards anyway, but I do know almost for certain that they will not be convicted in the Senate.

Is anyone surprised by this? At this point, the only ting that would surprise me is that Congress or the American people would demand justice. Unfettered capitalism…., and shock. Naomi Klein…, thank you. You have laid out the blueprint, and at least given me the thought, that this terrorism, what is true terrorism will be taken out of the shadows and the real fight will begin.

Here’s another. The lies are so bad it’s embarrassing:

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/....._0403.html

…

president bush and vp cheney are now exposed for their
war crimes…….just how much longer will we have to wait
for Congress to stop their fucking wankering and do what
they are required to do…….Protect the Constitution and
uphold the Laws of our land.

bush and cheney are war criminals and should be IMPEACHED
here and then turned over to the Hague for prosecution.

if this is not done, then the American people have the right
by the rights in the Constitution to overthrow any tyranny
against this country…….and bush/cheney are those tyrannists.

numfar @ 4:

Isn’t attacking another country for their natural resources a war crime?

Depends whether or not you win….

Karen says:

“As for impeachment, the Constitution grants the sole power to impeach to the House of Representatives. It’s the only body in the government that can impeach any officer. And impeachment is simply an indictment. It’s officially bringing charges against a government officer, who then gets a trial. The trial takes place in the Senate. The Constitution grants the Senate the sole power to try impeachments, and 67 Senators must vote guilty in order to convict.”

Thanks very much for the clarifications. But I would like you to explain to me why the Senate created a Special Committee to look into Nixon and the Watergate break-in. It was either during these televised hearings or just after that the House Judiciary took up impeachment, which I understood would have ended up in a trial on the Senate side.

Here’s the question: Why can’t the Senate create a Special Committee to have public hearings regarding the Justice Department and the issue of torture with Bush/Cheney (just as they did with Watergate)?

JImbo @ 6:

They believe (that is the Democratic Congress believes) that if they attempt to impeach then Bush will declare martial law and himself ruler under any number of unitary executive assertions Bush has made.

There have been rumors to this effect and this is the only logical reason I can fathom for their behavior.

there are no excuses for Congress to fulfill their duty. if this is their excuse, then they
are just a bunch of fucking cohorts in on the crimes and justifiably deserve to
be charged likewise and tried for their part in these crimes. as always stated, there is
no excuse for ignorance of the law, especially when you are the lawmakers.

Abbybwood @ 13:

numfar @ 4:

Isn’t attacking another country for their natural resources a war crime?

Here is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights passed in the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. The United States is a member of the U.N. and our Constitution clearly says that all treaties we are signatories to become “the highest law of the land”:

http://www.gpln.com/udhr.html#readudhr

According to this, I’d say our pre-emptive invasion and occupation of Iraq (based on lies, trickery, fraud and deceit) would constitute a war crime. Particularly when hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings have been murdered/maimed and we have used depleted uranium munitions which will render the entire nation of Iraq to be probably the biggest cluster area of cancers and malformed infants on Earth….forever.

Sure sounds like a war crime to me. The reason I feel there are no impeachment hearings is that the entire Congress knows they are just as guilty as the Bush Administration since they have all been “going along to get along” passing the necessary legislation and funding all of it. The American People are just as guilty for not DEMANDING the truth and a total cessation of hostilities and our soldiers are guilty for not following the orders of the UCMJ which demands they follow only LAWFUL orders.

The minute any soldier knew what he/she was doing was illegal, they had not only the right, but the duty to stand down and be courts martialed if necessary. Had enough soldiers stood down and done the right thing we would have been out of there long before “Mission Accompli