Salon article: Bush''s Impeachable Offense

[movie zombie]

''Turley is no Democratic partisan; he testified to Congress in favor of Bill Clinton''s impeachment. "Many of my Republican friends joined in that hearing and insisted that this was a matter of defending the rule of law, and had nothing to do with political antagonism," he says. "I''m surprised that many of those same voices are silent. The crime in this case was a knowing and premeditated act. This operation violated not just the federal statute but the United States Constitution. For Republicans to suggest that this is not a legitimate question of federal crimes makes a mockery of their position during the Clinton period. For Republicans, this is the ultimate test of principle."

Of course, that may be exactly the problem. While noted experts -- including a few Republicans -- are saying Bush should be impeached, few think he will be. It''s not clear that the political will exists to hold the president to account. "We have finally reached the constitutional Rubicon," Turley says. "If Congress cannot stand firm against the open violation of federal law by the president, then we have truly become an autocracy." ''

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/122705_world_stories.shtml#0


''Similar fears are voiced by Bruce Fein, a former associate deputy attorney general under President Ronald Reagan. Fein is very much a member of the right. He once published a column arguing that "President George W. Bush should pack the United States Supreme Court with philosophical clones of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas and defeated nominee Robert H. Bork."
Suddenly, though, Fein is talking about Bush as a threat to America. "President Bush presents a clear and present danger to the rule of law," he wrote in the right-wing Washington Times on Dec. 20. "He cannot be trusted to conduct the war against global terrorism with a decent respect for civil liberties and checks against executive abuses. Congress should swiftly enact a code that would require Mr. Bush to obtain legislative consent for every counterterrorism measure that would materially impair individual freedoms." ''


peace, movie zombie

 

[tanuki]

Whether or not Bush has to stand trial for impeachment depends on the outcome of the 2006 election.

 

[colormyworld]

This is an interesting idea> I just wonder how much better president Cheney would be. IMO they both must go!!!!!

 

[AGBF]

There isn''t the slightest chance that Mr. Bush will be impeached. It is possible that Congress, simply by debating putting restraints on him, may cause him to behave in a less flagrantly autocratic manner...but I would have to see this to believe it. I do not think there is sufficient resistance in Congress to frighten him.

Deborah

 

[movie zombie]

while i think the grounds are certainly there, the thought of cheney at the helm makes me literally physically ill.

and i agree with deb: this congress and any other for that matter will never stand up to the man.

H. J. Res. 24 was introduced in the House of Representatives February 17, 2005: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.J.RES.24.IH: and was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. this amendment would eliminate the two term limit.

peace, movie zombie

 

[colormyworld]

I just wonder what happened to the RULE OF LAW the republicains touted during the clinton debacle.I think that if we limet our freedoms a la north korea we could more effectivly control terrorism.

 

[fire&ice]

Which is the impeachable offense?

 

[colormyworld]

Lying about sex?

 

[strmrdr]

president Cheney that is even scarier than Bush almost as scary as Hillary but for different reasons.

 

[movie zombie]

f&i, the impeachable offense is that bush ordered the NSA to spy on Americans and bypass the system, i.e., the court that had been set up for this. a judge from that court has resigned in protest. the order to go against law is an impeachable offense and bush has admitted it. he argues that congress gave him the right to do ANYTHING he wants [can you say dictator?] in the ''war'' against terror. congress says otherwise: in fact, this administration tried to get language into the war powers law that congress did pass that would allow him to spy on Americans w/o any judicial oversight....but congress refused to include the language. so he decided to do it anyway, the law be damned.

one would do better to compare bush to nixon rather than to clinton who merely lied about sex. nixon and bush are greater threats as they actively broke the law to pursue their own ideology.

the real question: is the president above the law as bush thinks he is? no other president has been allowed to be above the law. if he persists and is not held accountable, our way of life is ended, perhaps not for us but certainly for future generations. precedent has been set.

mr bush said prior to his first election that it would be easier to implement his plans if the US were a dictatorship, but admitted we weren''t so his job would be a bit harder. as i see it, his political agenda was apparent from the beginning and he has been consistent.

peace, movie zombie

 

[tanuki]

And Valerie Plame could file a civil lawsuit.

I suppose she has to wait until the special prosecutors investigation is over but even if the criminal investigation goes well for Rove he's still got that possibility hanging over his head. And of course it would make perfect sense to depose the President.

Now that's one deposition I would like to see on TV.

 

[fire&ice]

Are you talking about the intercepts of the satilite communications? If so, that is techically legal.

Don''t give that ONE judge too much credit. He is VERY far left wing & just dying to get publicity.

I see Nixon and Clinton as more in tune. Both lied. What the "nixon" people did was nothing new under the polictical sun within all political parties. It was the cover up & lying that brought Nixon down - not the act. Same with Clinton.

 

[AGBF]

David Cole, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center writes (in an excerpt from an article to which a link is posted below):


"When Congress authorized the President to use all 'necessary and appropriate' military force to respond to the 9/11 attackers, little did members know that in George W. Bush's mind they were freeing him to wiretap innocent American citizens without probable cause or a judicial warrant, to hold indefinitely without charge US citizens arrested within US borders and to order torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of suspects.

Had the President forthrightly said this was what he was seeking, Congress would almost certainly have said no. After all, laws on the books forbid all such conduct. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act specifically limits warrantless wiretaps during wartime to the first fifteen days after a declaration of war and makes it a crime to conduct wiretaps except 'as authorized by statute.' The Non-Detention Act bars preventive detention of citizens except pursuant to statute. And the Convention Against Torture absolutely prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment under all circumstances, expressly including wartime.

On December 19 Attorney General Gonzales admitted that the President did not seek to change the law because members of Congress said 'that would be difficult if not impossible.' So rather than risk rejection, the President simply assumed these powers unilaterally. The only authorizations he sought were the opinions of his yes-men attorneys, who argued that His Eminence's powers of course encompassed all this and more, and that therefore if Congressional statutes were interpreted to the contrary they would be unconstitutional. Bush's favorite lawyer, John Yoo, personally advised that the President had the power to order torture, to spy on Americans without a warrant and even to use military force against terrorists without any Congressional approval."

article

 

[fire&ice]

O.K. exactly WHO was wiretaped? Whether right or wrong - Satilite intercepts - be it from your own cell phone - is techically legal.