The argument: Bush is ignoring an SC ruling that Gitmo detainees are covered by the Geneva Convention, and that they have a right to hear and present evidence when tried, and the administration's warrantless wiretaps within US borders violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 -- a criminal act.
Is this right? Wrong? Can we prove it?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
It'd be helpful to if you'd link to a news article of some kind, so I could get background on what it is, specifically, you're talking about.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Qaz: At first I thought South Carolina not Supreme Court when you wrote SC ;P Two very difference things.
Should we have impeached Andrew Jackson when he told John Marshall to enforce his own ruling?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
It might have been a good idea.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
I don't have good links, sorry. The argument I got was in the real world. Here are some links I could find:
[ March 12, 2007, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: Qaz ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Bush sought additional legislation in response to Hamdan. If his argument that the legislation supports his actions is at all colorable, then he hasn't committed a crime even if his interpretation is eventually overturned by the courts. If one believes impeachment should only be sought in response to facts (including the necessary mental elements) which would support conviction of a crime, the Hamden/Rasul issue does not support impeachment.
I strongly doubt the wiretap supports impeachment by that standard, either. Unless one has a more relaxed standard for impeachment, these issues don't seem to suffice.
Perhaps you could present your view on the matter before asking people to expend their time on this?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
There would not be enough support in Congress for an impeachment anyways, it would just be a waste of time and tax money. Much like the Clinton impeachment.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Qaz, welcome to Hatrack.
It's a pretty eclectic crew. There are casual social threads as well as some pretty dense intellectual ones.
You will find that for the intellectual threads, people will pretty much respond in the depth to which you present yourself. So, throwing a complex idea out there without your own assessment is unlikely to have a satisfactory result.
PS: Additionally, some of us are more irritable than others at being asked to unknowingly participate in addressing someone else's homework question or paper assignment. This wouldn't happen to be for a class of any sort, would it?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: It might have been a good idea.
It might have, instead congress tried to impeach Andrew Johnson and not for "high crimes and misdemeanors." but for "political differences."
Our impeachment track record is not good. All the wrong presidents are impeached (thought admittedly never successfully, which is not a good thing), and all the ones who ought to be impeached are ignored.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
This isn't for any sort of assignment, no.
My view on this is: I'm torn. I heard a lot in the speech that I was sure was wrong (Geneva Convention applying to suspected terrorists -- they aren't uniformed soldiers; a worry that Bush was planning a self-coup -- yes, it said that). But that doesn't mean he's wrong about his central points.
I don't want a President removed for making policy decisions judges or Congressman disagree with, but...if it really is a crime to do warrantless wiretaps, and he does them, how can we disagree that it's a *high* crime?
If the facts here are true, I think the speaker had a good case. But I am not sure about his facts. He did say as an aside that the recent DC ruling on gun control establishes that government may not regulate guns in any way, and I found the decision, and it doesn't say that at all. (It says that the 2nd Amendment does apply to individuals.) So he may have played fast and loose with these facts as well. What I found online so far doesn't dispute his facts though.
The parallel-courts thing...we already have a parallel courts thing, the military courts. But a military court shouldn't be allowed to prevent the defendant from seeing or presenting evidence.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Qaz: This isn't for a class assignment, no.
Thanks.
Again, welcome.
Posted by hugh57 (Member # 5527) on :
I'm not willing to seriously consider impeaching Bush while Cheney is still VP. Unless Cheney is first impeached (or resigns or whatever), and is replaced with someone reasonable, I'll just wait for 2008 to replace Bush.
Back in the 70s, nobody seriously considered impeachment proceedings against Nixon until after Spiro Agnew had resigned and was replaced by Gerald R. Ford.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
And my plan to con a hatracker into creating a thread that aids in a paper I need to write remains unknown and profitable! BWAHAHAHA! Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
At least it'd be different.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
Here's the thing I don't get about Bush. He's the most powerful man in the entire world. Why the hell does want more power?!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by hugh57: I'm not willing to seriously consider impeaching Bush while Cheney is still VP. Unless Cheney is first impeached (or resigns or whatever), and is replaced with someone reasonable, I'll just wait for 2008 to replace Bush.
Back in the 70s, nobody seriously considered impeachment proceedings against Nixon until after Spiro Agnew had resigned and was replaced by Gerald R. Ford.
So the plan should be to build a case against Cheney, impeach Bush, then impeach Cheney while the Democrats in Congress stonewall against choosing a new VP...then Pelosi becomes president.
I think I'd almost call that a coup.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Impeachment of the president is more connected to party power in congress than it is to severity of any actual crime committed by them.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
What I read on Yahoo and can't find now was that certain towns in Vermont are trying to impeach W. I was a little fuzzy on that. I'd hope they were pressuring their Congressmen to do it, cause I don't know how a state much less a town could go about it. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion: Here's the thing I don't get about Bush. He's the most powerful man in the entire world. Why the hell does want more power?!
It does not follow that being, "The Most Powerful Man In The World" means "You have the right amount of power to be president of the US."
What if every other world leader is terribly devoid of power? Call it, "underpowered."
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)