House Narrowly Avoids Having to Debate Impeachment of Cheney

An anonymous reader writes "Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) yesterday successfully moved articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney to the House Judiciary committee. 'Today's resolution from Kucinich (D-Ohio) was essentially the same as the legislation he introduced earlier this year, which included three articles of impeachment against Cheney based largely on allegations that he manipulated intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war. The last article accuses Cheney of threatening "aggression" against Iran "absent any real threat."'"

Umm, going to committee is NOT Success

[ironwill96 (736883)]

The summary here is misleading (On /. Imagine That!). Sending something to committee is like calling your trashcan the inbox. He introduced something that didn't have enough support so it got referred to committee where it can be squashed into oblivion. Only if he could have gotten an open house vote on it would it have been a "success", now it will die quietly as have his other attempts to impeach Cheney.

Ya

[moogied (1175879)]

So basically, house and senate have done the following this year:

Said they would not give the war anymore money without a pull out date. Decided to "investigate" steriods in baseball(May of been last year, don't remeber). Burned a couple of hours trying to get approval to TALK about *maybe* impeaching the Vice President.

And what were the results?

The war is still going on, there is no pull out date.

A few key players got free publicity for there books. Helped me waste 3 minutes writing a response on slashdot that will be modded to -35, for retard.

God bless America.

Re:Ya

[c6gunner (950153)]

I know you were being sarcastic (the giant SARCASM tags were a dead giveaway), but that's actually a valid argument. If the democrats believe even half of the accusations they're constantly bandying about, they absolutely SHOULD refuse to compromise. Certainly if I believed that the Prime Minister of my country had gotten us into a war with the sole purpose of enriching himself and his "oil buddies", and that we had no way in hell of ever seeing a positive result from that war, I would INSIST that my representatives do everything in their power to immediately end that war and bring those responsible to justice, up to and including refusing to discuss all other issues until that one is resolved.

The problem seems to be that even the Democrats don't really believe all of the things which they've accused the Bush administration of. Either that or they really ARE "spineless".

Spindot

[TopSpin (753)]

Here is another example of how one might choose to phrase a report [go.com] of the exact same event:

House Democrats on Tuesday narrowly managed to avert a bruising debate on a proposal to impeach Dick Cheney after Republicans, in a surprise maneuver, voted in favor of taking up the measure.

You see, the Republicans supported Kucinich's latest hail mary because they know it would be an embaressment to the Democrats. With that support the vote passed and the house 'leadership' was force to bury it in a committee.

narrow?

[Gogo0 (877020)]

251-162 to even debate impeachment, and then rather than holding the debate that was voted for, it was decided to move it forward, failing 218-194.

sounds weird and not all that narrow. its split down the middle (more or less), just like the parties (more or less). is anyone suprised??
and how many abstained from voting or just didnt show up?

3-4 is narrow, 24 (four less than the difference in parties) is not.

Summary of the accusations

[Martin Blank (154261)]

Article I: Cheney lied about intelligence regarding banned weapon programs

Whether the result of lies, a lack of willingness to believe contrary viewpoints, or maybe even idiocy (I think he's too smart for that, evil or not), the accusations carry no mention of where he made statements under oath. Statements included are from two press interactions, five interviews, and a speech. While in some cases very public, there are no cases there where he was speaking under oath.

Article II: Cheney lied about connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda

Again, there was no oath taken for the occasions mentioned. Four speeches and five interviews are mentioned, but again, at no time during these was he under oath.

Article III: Cheney has threatened use of force against Iran

Three cases where he said that no options are off the table and one where he explained the placement of an extra carrier in the Persian Gulf are used as evidence here. Every president for the last few decades has used carriers to send messages to other countries, and saying that no options are off the table is application of diplomatic pressure. He never said that if Iran doesn't stop, the US will flatten it.

Impeachment is for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." He has not committed treason as defined in the Constitution ("levying War against [the Untied States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort"); he is not accused of taking bribes; and it's unlikely that misdirection of the sort listed would come under a "high Crime" or "Misdemeanor," or else every person subject to impeachment could probably be pulled from office for making a political statement that someone on the opposing party doesn't like.

I wasn't especially fond of the idea of Clinton's impeachment, and I don't think Cheney warrants it here. This is a waste of time given that a) it's unlikely to garner enough House votes to continue even if it does get past committee, and b) it's essentially impossible for it to get a conviction in the Senate.

Re:Summary of the accusations

[Donniedarkness (895066)]

Hold up, here: He made false statements that helped send us to war, but he's not liable in any way because he didn't make them while under oath? Would he get away with shooting somebody, as long as he wasn't under oath?

Actually, I guess he already did...

In other words

[copponex (13876)]

The deaths of possibly hundreds of thousands of civilians and thousands of our own troops maimed and killed is not technically Cheney's fault, in purely legal terms. Nor the fault of the administration who supported and executed the war. I just have one question for these technical excuses for the immoral conduct of our entire government: where exactly does the buck stop? Who has the integrity to accept responsibility for their actions?

They LIED about EVERY threat that Iraq and Saddam Hussein posed, and not only once and in government reports, but MULTIPLE times while addressing the public. The fact that they weren't under oath is actually more evidence that they knew they weren't just being vague or coy, but completely dishonest. Anyone who claims otherwise is as full of shit as they were/are.

Hey, Pelosi and Hoyer!

[Chazman (6089)]

Please explain to me exactly *WHY* impeachment is not on the table. There have never been a President and Vice President of the United States *MORE* deserving of impeachment. The Vice President falsified an official intelligence report that was to become the basis of deciding whether or not to send this country to war, for crying out loud. The Vice President outed a CIA operative to settle a political score. The President has institutionalized the breaking of the Fourth Amendment on a massive scale and won't even let Congress, let alone the American people, have all the facts about what he's been doing. *NOT* impeaching them both has got to rank as one of the most gross miscarriages of justice in this nation's history.

Pelosi, Hoyer: GROW A PAIR! Stand up for what's right! Do your job and uphold the Constitution!

Frontline special about Dick Cheney on PBS

[Rick17JJ (744063)]

PBS recently had a one hour episode of Frontline about Dick Cheney on October 16, 2007. It well researched and went into great detail about Dick Cheney and David Addington's quest to expand presidential power in ways that were both legally and constitutionally questionable. Expanding presidential power was a major part of their efforts to perform domestic spying and to be allowed to use torture on suspected terrorists.

If I remember correctly, that episode of Frontline did not say very much, about the alleged manipulating of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war. Most of its criticisms of Dick Cheney were for different reasons than what were mentioned in the Washington Post article.

• Cheny's Law Transcript [pbs.org] of Oct. 16, 2007 episode of Frontline
• Cheny's Law DVD [pbs.org] of Oct. 16, 2007 episode of Frontline

Liberal Whining?

[localman (111171)]

This article got tagged as "slashdotliberalwhining"? Are you fucking serious? Conservatives or liberal, you've got to be kidding if you don't think that George Bush and his administration has done more to damage this country than any president in your lifetime. No, seriously: forget about your pet cause, let go of the the party affiliation. Look at where we were five, ten, twenty years ago -- tell me where the improvements have been. By any measure, even conservative social goals, Bush and his administration have accomplished little if any good, and in every other area enormous bad. His approval rating is below what Nixon's was at the point of impeachment. And this article is "slashdotliberalwhining"? Get real.

I'm a moderate. I respect candidates from across the spectrum. George Bush and his administration have been a goddamn nightmare.

I don't care what your religious, political, or social affiliation is. If you don't recognize this administration as crap, you are in deep ignorance or denial.

I love this country. And I could cry over what these people have done to us.

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus

[Propaganda13 (312548)]

Before people start asking "why not impeach bush", think about what that would mean for the next election.

I do not think that word means what you think it means. You have to impeach and convict to get kicked out. Clinton was impeached. Unless Bush really screws up, I'm sure it won't happen because there's 1 year left before elections and I don't think they push for it.

Debate the Republicans want

[xzvf (924443)]

All the people on this thread are missing the point that the Republicans voted to debate the issue on the floor and the Democrats moved the debate into the Judiciary Committee. The Democrats didn't want the debate in public and wanted it buried. Regardless of a person's political views, this is not a victory for people that want to impeach Bush/Cheney. Far from it... The Republicans want a public debate because the people that want to impeach are significantly in the minority, but the statements the fringe make will be used against every Democrat in a general election. It's easy for people that are antiwar to assume that dissatisfaction with the conduct of the war is support for never fighting the war.

Re:Debate the Republicans want

[roystgnr (4015)]

the people that want to impeach are significantly in the minority

Where by "significantly in the minority" [americanre...hgroup.com], you mean 54 percent.

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus

[Penguinisto (415985)]

k. Done. And?

...and they'll quickly figure that his replacement (of the current crop, no matter which political party) is just as lousy as he is.

/P

Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[ukemike (956477)]

Worrying about who would replace an impeached Bush is beside the point. The point is that Bush, Cheney, et. al. BROKE THE LAW. Repeatedly. The congress has a responsibility to impeach such behavior because failing to do so condones the illegal behavior. A terrible precedent has been made. A cabal can steal two presidential elections, trash the constitution, and start illegal agressive wars of conquest, and that's a-okay.

-- Democracy in America July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001 R I P

Tar and feathers

[xjlm (1073928)]

Congress was elected with as clear a mandate as I have ever seen in 2006: end the Iraq war. All it would have taken would have been a simple majority against the funding bill in the House, or 40 senators to support a filibuster in the Senate. Instead we get a bunch of hand-wringing and poor excuses (lies) about supporting the troops. "Support the troops; keep them in the middle of a civil war with no chance of victory and don't give them even the basics they need." We need a new government here in the US, one that puts the people of this nation first, second, and third.

Re:Tar and feathers

[nyekulturniy (413420)]

That's because the mandate isn't as clear as you think it is. Yes, there was displeasure with the Bush Administration's policy; however, the American public doesn't want to see a pullout that would make the situation worse than it is. Furthermore, the Democrats who are most fervently anti-war have strong negatives themselves.

If you recall the last major protests in Washington in September, only about 10,000 turned out for the ANSWER rally, and they were met by 1,000 Freepers. That's a piss-poor performance for a supposedly angry public.

They may hate the war, but they hate the Democrats too.

Re:It's a small world

[notamisfit (995619)]

I've got no sympathy for Hussein, or any other dictator; the sooner they're given the Mussolini treatment, the better. But it's not our part to sacrifice for the sake of others, giving money and lives for alleviating suffering. Prosperity in this world isn't an automatic; it's the product of a rational mind fully engaged in one's reality to serve one's goals. The prosperity enjoyed by the European states, and later America, is a direct product of the ideals of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, the ideals of *objective reality*, of *reason*, in the concrete form of the Industrial Revolution. We can rebuild Iraq, but will it do any good? The ultimate drive behind jihad (and it's counterpart/antagonist, the Arab nationalism that led to Hussein and is still strong in Egypt and Syria (to the extent that the latter isn't an Iranian proxy)) is ultimately that the fundamentalist Muslims want to have their cake and eat it too. They want the prosperity and the cultural dominance we have (Islamic culture peaked around the time of the Abbasids and has been going downhill ever since) while continuing to blank out reality and live according to the whims of their sky-god. They're not alone, either; show me an impoverished country, and I'll show you people who have thrown their reason to the curb and are praying for grain to fall into their hands. To the extent that we provide aid, we help them to continue this evasion (yeah, we do it here too, hopefully *that* reckoning isn't too far off).

Re:Are you enlisted?

[notamisfit (995619)]

Since you brought up WWII, how well did we make out? Really? We freed Western Europe from one dictator (who political and philisophical factors across the entire continent had practically forced into the driver's seat) only to lose Eastern Europe to another without so much as a shot being fired. We curbed Japan's empire-building, and drove them out of China, only to see China fall to the Maoists. We fell into the Wilsonian trap of "self-determination of nations", joining a world organization that put jack-booted thugs on an equal footing with the elected leaders of free nations. We became the deal-makers of the world (the American Left, while freely admitting the excesses of the CIA during this time, blanks out the fact that Wilsonian realpolitik is at the heart of their own foreign policy). We fight half-war after half-war, trying to win by not losing. We give land we didn't own to the Jews, then do everything in our power to prevent them from defending it. The moral code we had on Dec 8, 1945 is the only foreign policy we have ever needed: Fuck up our shit, and we will kill you.

Re:It's a small world

[JerkBoB (7130)]

Right, because ignoring "other people's problems" worked so well for us in World War 2.

We didn't enter WWII for humanitarian reasons. We entered the war because Japan drew us in with a massive attack on our naval base at Pearl Harbor.

Up until that day in December 1941, there was a strong sense that the US should stay out of the war, because we remembered what happened in WWI. We were sending supplies to Britain, and providing other resources to our allies, but there was no support for declaring war on anyone.

When Japan made it clear that they intended to work with the other Axis powers to rule all of the world, there was no question that we needed to fight back, and so we did. The difference between WWII and all other conflicts since is huge. The Axis powers were clearly an existential threat to the continental US (Hawaii first, lower 48 next); unlike the theoretical threats embodied in "domino theory" and "global war on terror".

Sure, Al Qaeda did attack us, and we attacked back -- in Afghanistan. We were making some good progress there, too... Until the majority of our resources and attention were refocused on the Iraq boondoggle. Now look what's happening in Afghanistan: the Taliban is coming back, poppy/cannabis harvests are booming, and Afghanistan's neighbor Pakistan is having major problems due in no small part to the increasing influence of radical islamists who operate from the safety of the afghanistan/pakistan border.

The only entities that are benefitting from this Iraq shitstorm are Al Qaeda (it's a fucking recruiting wet dream) and the guys like Halliburton, Blackwater, and all the other Military-Industrial Complex hangers-on.

Feh.

Responsibility?

[Prien715 (251944)]

What the Iraqis do to each other is no concern of ours. It wasn't in 2003, and it isn't now.

It's OUR mess. We made it our mess when we invaded. While Saddam was no paragon of moral superiority, the number of innocents who died under his charge were less than under ours. It's like Valdiz incident. While it would have surely been profitable for Exxon to retreat and say "Not our problem", you cause a mess, you clean it. There wasn't Islamic Jihad, Muslim Brotherhood, or any other suicide bombing group in Iraq before the invasion.

I'm all in favor of a pull-out, but for God's sake, we've got a moral responsibility to clean up our own mess before we do as best we can.

Re:You had an argument?!

[MightyYar (622222)]

The difference is that a course of action in Iraq can (in my or your opinion) be wiser or "dumber". My unwillingness to join the army has nothing at all to do with what is best for the US or Iraq. People who attack character instead of the issue at hand are usually being deliberately evasive, though I'll allow that they can also just be too stupid to explain why they believe something on its own merits.

As to your contention that Arabs (Shia and Sunni) cannot be civilized, I will point to Europe as a counter-example. Europe was in more or less continuous warfare for thousands of years. When they weren't fighting in Europe, they were fighting through proxies. Western Europe has not had a significant conflict since World War II. Certainly the Middle East can get 50 years of peace, no?

I would also contend that giving up after a few years would be short-sighted, though I agree that the administration severely underestimated the consequences of getting involved (or at least did so publicly).

I certainly agree that we wouldn't even be over there if it weren't for oil, and we can debate the merits of that if you like. But that, too, has little to do with what the best course of action is right now. I am arguing that to leave the country in the midst of a civil war of our creation is irresponsible, and the end results are probably not in the best interest of the US or the bulk of the Iraqi people.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[bckrispi (725257)]

^ Mod parent way the hell up!

Pelosi did our republic a great disservice when she said that "Impeachment is off the table." Impeachment isn't a matter of convenience or political expediency, it is a matter of congressional Duty. Now, I realize that the 2/3 Senate vote to remove either Bush or Cheney from office will never be reached. But by not trying - by not at least bringing articles of impeachment out of the People's House, congress is effectively saying to us and future generations of Americans that the Executive Branch is free to operate above the Law. This is simply unacceptable. We need our Children to open their history books and see Bush and Cheney's name next to Clinton and Nixon. They need to see that the Laws that govern them govern ALL Americans.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[k_187 (61692)]

You realize that the Democrats expect to win the next election and want the same powers that Bush et al. have had.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[toddestan (632714)]

You realize that the Democrats expect to win the next election and want the same powers that Bush et al. have had.

Best I can tell, the Democrats are doing everything they possibly can to lose the next election. Luckily for them, the Republicans seem to be doing exactly the same thing.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[Nate B. (2907)]

Nixon? I'm not here to defend the guy, but he was never impeached. He resigned in the face of a likely impeachment proceeding.

You may have Nixon confused with Andrew Johnson the 17th president who was impeached. In fact impeachment proceedings failed to make it out of committee in 1867 and then impeachment was successful in 1868. Johnson was acquitted by one vote in the Senate by
Edmund G. Ross of Kansas.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[mmarlett (520340)]

I think you're having trouble with definitions.

A witch hunt is when one creates a fictional enemy and then goes looking for real people to foot the bill. See McCarthyism.

Clinton was actually the victim of a prolonged "fishing expedition" Which is "Legal grasping at straws; the use of pre-trial investigation (discovery) or witness questioning in an unfocused attempt to uncover damaging evidence you can use against your adversary." Basically, they asked him enough questions about enough stuff that they eventually were able to paint him into an embarrassing corner that no president in U.S. history had every been painted into -- i.e., publicly explain your mistresses or lie on the stand. We all know now what his error was.

Cheney is not a witch hunt, nor is it a fishing expedition. There is real and substantial evidence that that man is just a little less scrupulous than Satan. He doesn't make Faustian deals; he insists on waterboarding suspected rag heads until they confess to wearing their mother's underpants. And, perhaps, the problem is that Cheney has made a Faustian deal on behalf of the country, trading our liberty for security that doesn't actually make us more secure.

But Nixon was a pussycat compared to Cheney. So he broke into the Democratic headquarters and spied on them; so he made the White House Secret Service detail wear uniforms reminiscent of the Beefeaters; so he was a bit of an asshole who walked all over our civil liberties -- he did not start any wars and he did not funnel any contracts to any companies that he was a major stockholder of. I'm not a fan of the guy, but I'd never go so far as to compare him to Cheney. It's like comparing a drunk driver to a serial killer. Neither are good, but one is wantonly, ridiculously worse than the other.

Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it!

[Doc Ruby (173196)]

Clinton didn't perjure. He asked for a court definition of "sex", was given one that specified mutual genital contact, and truthfully denied he had "sex". He gets a lot of heat for the (equally legit) "depends on what the definition of 'is' is", but really he did not perjure because it did depend on what the definition of "sex" was.

His blowjob wasn't "morally reprehensible". Lying to cover up a blowjob isn't "morally reprehensible". It's a little immoral.

But compared with lying us into war, it's not very immoral at all.

If you think Clinton's lie was so reprehensible it merited impeachment, don't you think that Bush's lie makes impeachment an obvious necessity?

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus

[sssssss27 (1117705)]

Yes but the maximum length that a person can be president for is 10 years. From the 22nd Amendment:

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus

[Q-Cat5 (664698)]

Impeaching Bush without getting rid of Dick Cheney first would lead to total abolition of civil and human rights in the US. Even typing that revolted me.

I attempted to quote you above, but something keeps happening to the bold text. Let me try again:

Impeaching Bush without getting rid of Dick Cheney first would lead to imminentizing the eschaton. Even typing that revolted me.

Okay, one more try:

Impeaching Bush without getting rid of Dick Cheney first would lead to victory for Emperor Palpatine. Even typing that revolted me.

I give up.

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus

[node 3 (115640)]

He's moving to impeach Cheney when he knows it wont happen.

It *definitely* won't happen if no one tries. At least Kucinich is trying.

Even if it did, it would be too late to have much of an effect.

Not much of an effect, except having accomplished "doing the right thing". People respect that, and it builds character. It also sets precedent, which will help make things more difficult for the neo-cons to trash things so horribly in the future.

Don't think for one moment that after Bush leaves office, they're going to stop trying to implement their "Project for the New American Century". They've been trying ever since the Nixon administration (where do you think Cheney and Rumsfeld come from?), if they can wait 30 years, they aren't going to just give up just because it's the end of an inning.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[the phantom (107624)]

Congress' approval rating is a meaningless metric. The approval rating of congress is almost always bad. It is rarely (if ever) higher than the president's. However, if you ask people about their particular senators and representatives, their ratings are generally much better. Remember, it is not my representative that is the problem -- just everyone else's.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[demachina (71715)]

I think the congressional Democrat's numbers are low because they have completely failed to rein in the Bush administration, which is what the Democrats were put in power to do. They were installed to get America out of Iraq, instead there are more troops there now than there were during the election with no end in sight. The Democrats cry they don't have the votes to override a veto which is B.S. All the Democrats have to do is not allocate funds for Iraq which takes a simple majority and then the troops come home. That's why the founding fathers gave them the power of the purse.

Impeaching Cheney would have done nothing but improve the approval rating of Congressional Democrats. He is widely despised throughout the nation for having suckered the nation in to Iraq, and for promoting the use of torture which has turned America in to an outlaw nation.

Impeaching him for Iraq and Iran is off the mark. He should be impeached for:

A. single handedly pushing authorization for torture which was done entirely by his office and his aides
B. single handedly pushing authorization of illegal spying on American citizens without a warrant also lead out of his office

Those are both slam dunk grounds for impeachment because they are both clearly illegal, unpopular, unnecessary and were just plain stupid.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[letxa2000 (215841)]

Ever think that one of the reasons why Congress's ratings are so low is because they haven't impeached yet?

Nope. Probably because they're the most useless Congress we've had in over a decade. They haven't done anything useful, they pulled a bait-and-switch on their arguments for why they should be elected last year. i.e. "Elect us and we'll get out of Iraq... oh, sorry, you voted for us but now you also need to give us the presidency. We couldn't do anything before and we still can't do anything."

No, the reason why Congress's approval ratings are so low is because they've shown the public what they have to offer, and they don't have anything. The Democrats should've tried to lose 2006 so they'd have a chance in 2008. In 2008, the Republicans have Bush dragging them down but Democrats have the Congress dragging them down even more. It's entirely possible the Democrats peaked in 2006 and won't be able to get the job done in 2008. By the time the election comes, they'll have had 2 years in Congress and nothing to show for it. Not a good way to go into a presidential election.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all?

[Captain Splendid (673276)]

[1] Rememeber that the Democratic Party is the home of instituitional racism. Jim Crow? Democrat. Those guys with the firehoses back in the civil rights movement? Lifelong Democrats all. Only KKK member serving in Washington? Lifelong Democrat and former Kleagle of the KKK: The Honorable Senator Robert C. Byrd. Who was anklebiting Lincoln at every turn and attempting to sabotage that war effort? The Democratic Party. Just because they have some tame colored folks (Jesse Jackson & ilk come to mind) who keep the 'urban' vote solidly showing up on election day in exchange for largesse from the Treasury doesn't mean the average Democrat isn't a condescending bigot.

Damn, I love tired old horseshit day on Slashdot...every day.

You do understand that everything in that paragraph you wrote is true, up until 50 years ago, right? Most of the "democrats" you describe were southerners and switched to the GOP in the 60s.

Granted, I don't understand why somebody like Byrd is even drawing breath, but the R and D parties you describe don't exist anymore and have almost zero relevance on today's politics.

Re:a little tweak

[by Anonymous Coward]

"Any crazy person with rockets is a threat to me."

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have lots more missiles at their disposal than Iran's government, so.........

After having watched their performance for the last 7 years, I think their sanity is certainly an open question. George W. was also an alcoholic and drug abuser for most of his adult life which also calls in to question his stability. When you have two people who have done nothing positive for their entire reign, and almost single handedly turned America in to a globally hated and despised country you generally have to wonder....what were they thinking. Just observe the fact the U.S. dollar is plunging relative to most other currencies. Markets are ruthlessly efficient at finding truth and the plunging dollar indicates America has been officially run in to the ground by our fearless leaders.

Kucinich is kind of a space cadet sometimes but he was right on trying to get Cheney impeached first. You have to get him impeached before you can impeach Bush otherwise he would take over and President Cheney would be a nightmare come true.

Re:a little tweak

[Sabaki (531686)]

Unlike, say, North Korea. Who we know has nuclear weapons and rockets capable of reacing the US.

Re:a little tweak

[by Anonymous Coward]

Do we wait until they have nuclear tipped rockets that can reach the US? Do we do nothing until NY glows in the dark?

Maybe wait until there is actual proof these nations wish to launch rockets at the US/NATO.

If you are suggesting that the US strikes before there is an actual threat then what is to stop other countries doing the same?

North Korea will have to launch because the US is a threat, same for everyone else.

There IS an alternative to shoot first & invent evidence later.

Re:a little tweak

[Alotau (714890)]

There IS an alternative to shoot first & invent evidence later.

We already tried "invent evidence & then shoot"... I just don't see any other options.

Who's the only country to have ever used nukes?

[big_paul76 (1123489)]

It never ceases to amaze me that the USA (speaking as your northern neighbor) could possibly see states like Iran or North Korea or, even more laughable, Iraq, as a possible threat to the USA.

You guys stared down the USSR for the entirety of the cold war, facing an enemy with superior numbers and brutal methods who you were very much aware had nukes, and you got by just fine.

OK, they might get nukes, but so what? Lots of countries have nukes. If you wanna take bets on who's going to be the first country to actually _use_ them, my money's on Israel.

Look, the deal with the non-proliferation treaty goes like this. The countries that don't have nukes agree not to produce them, and those that do agree to gradually phase out their stockpiles.

If the US doesn't feel the need to rid themselves of nukes, why should Iran or anybody else feel the need to obey the Anti-Proliferation Treaty?

The country that has the dubious honor of being the only country to ever use nuclear weapons on humans doesn't get to take the moral high ground and lecture Iran about their nuclear ambitions.

Re:Who's the only country to have ever used nukes?

[node 3 (115640)]

I can take the mod hit so I will tell you the difference:

The Russians weren't insane !! (evil maybe but insane no)

There is absolutely no evidence that Iran is suicidal (which is what you should mean, since "insane" doesn't make any sense here). You may be referring to Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran. Two points to remember, here:

1. He's *not* the top guy in Iran.
2. Iran was on *our* side after 9-11. It wasn't until the Iraq war, and the abysmally idiotic "Axis of Evil" statement, that the Iranian people swerved hard to the right and elected him. (what would *we* do if the most powerful nation on the planet called us out like that?) Calling Iran our enemy is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Re:Who's the only country to have ever used nukes?

[ArcherB (796902)]

My god, I'm sick of that argument. Everyone we don't like but have no excuse to bully is called nuts. Kim Jong-il is craaazy cause he's... wait, why again? Cause he's short and wears sunglasses? Man, that guy's nuts! Obviously he can't be trusted to have nukes like we can!

OMFG! You are the epitome of moon bat. You are so blinded by your hatred for America that you completely ignore the fact that N. Korea's population is starving in the dark while their army eats well. They have no food and no power because the bulk of their economy goes towards their military. And you sit there and defend their leadership... wait, why again? Because he's not America. Because he's afraid we are going to attack? The Korean cease fire has been in effect for about 50 years! Korea could be united tomorrow and the population could eat and heat their homes. It's not because Kim Jong Il likes the power... and you defend him... wait, why again?

Please tell me why dictator that starves the population good. America bad. I really want to know the thought process behind that one.

Re:a little tweak

[vux984 (928602)]

But Iran has rockets that can reach US personnel and allies (like say... Europe, Israel, India, Japan and so on... May I suggest you read up on NATO also). Do we wait until they have nuclear tipped rockets that can reach the US? Do we do nothing until NY glows in the dark?

The US has rockets that can reach anywhere in the world. Europe, Israel, India, Japan, and so on. May I suggest you read up on your own country. Does the rest of the world wait until the US has nuclear tipped rockets that can reach elsewhere? Oh wait... they already do! Do they do nothing until the US uses a nuke to destroy a city? Oh wait... they already did. (granted it was world war 2, but since the dawn of nuclear technology the only country that has ever attacked with a nuclear warheads is the US.)

"Yeah but the President of Iran is a crazy religious idiot." you might say. Fair comment, but then the same can be said about George Bush. And what about your next president, the republican front runner is currently "Mayor 9/11". That doesn't exactly bode well.

As much as I despise the guy for his wacko ideas the President of the US is just as out of touch with reality, and unlike the Iranians, Bush is actively prosecuting multiple wars without much regard for the fact that its costing countless innocent civilians their lives. The thousands of innocent civilians killed by American's in these wars far outweighs any moral right they might have appealed to. 2000 deaths 6 years ago is a tragedgy. "Incidently" Killing thousands of innocent civilians per year for the next 6 years while seeking revenge on the perpetrators is utter madness.

Besides, certain terror groups didn't have rockets that could reach the USA from Afghanistan either and look how that turned out.

That's easy. Some terrorists hijacked a few planes and rammed them into buildings. So what are you suggesting? The US should bomb any foreign country with pilots? Good luck with that.

Re:a little tweak

[rk (6314)]

"Do we wait until they have nuclear tipped rockets that can reach the US? Do we do nothing until NY glows in the dark?"

Damn, I thought it was sweeps month, and here I am getting reruns:

"Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." - G.W. Bush, 7 Oct 2002

Sorry, but I've been down this road before, and I didn't really buy it the first time. Iran could hypothetically have anti-matter planet busters, but the only way I'll believe it coming from this administration is if they take me personally on a tour of Iran and show them to me. That's the funny thing about credibility. Once it's shot, it's REALLY hard to get it back.

Ironically, I always believed Iran to be a more credible threat to US interests than Iraq anyway. I was never in favor of the Iraq war, but the right argument with solid evidence might have got me behind hitting Iran. But that ship has sailed, and I won't be getting on the next one.

Re:Some painful truth....

[Antique Geekmeister (740220)]

Some of the torture prisons are in Turkey, and other nations that permit legal "water-boarding" and other tortures. I suggest you check for the articles in the New York Times: it's an ongoing program to transfer prisoners in Iraq and other places and transfer them to nations where torture is legal. And there's been fascinating testimony, in front of Congress, that the US still engages in "waterboarding" in our own prisons in Iraq. This is a banned torture involving drowing the victim to just shy of death. It does occasionally kill, adn these are prisoners who have never been tried, much less convicted, of anything.

This secret extradition and torture treatment is also in direct violation of the US code of military justice, a set of US laws, which describes court procedures for military procedures and has no magic clause for this newly invented "military non-combatants". I'm afraid you've not glanced at the set of laws being violated: please spend a bit of time checking out the news articles on these tortures and on

We signed the Geneva Convention. We also wrote the US constitution, and numerous court decisions since then provide a minimum of human rights for even enemies in combat, much more for prisoners. The Geneva Convetion is an agreement *by* nation stat4es, and includes their handling of non-signatories. And like parents without children paying taxes for schools, many nations sign it to help prevent trouble worldwide. Better yet, it also includes standards for how nations treat their own citizens, forbidding genocide and yes, torture. So it's not just aimed at protecting one's citizens oversees, it sets a legal minimum standard of behavior worldwide. So let's not pretend that there's only one reason for signing it. That kind of rationalized thinking leads to people only obeying traffic laws when it feels important to them, and it's not safe.

Please examine the history of the US code of military justice, if not of the Geneva Convention, to see how many ways we're violating it. I'm not saying that it justifies beheading of innocent victims, but one does not justify the other: both are illegal and violations of international treaty, and need to stop for either practicioners to be treated as just.

Re:Some painful truth....

[jmorris42 (1458)]

Ok, you are rational enough to be worth a followup post. Apology in advance, I just looked at a preview and this one is long. I got on a roll. :)

> If you're not a prisoner in a criminal case with rights afforded by the criminal
> justice system, and you're not a prisoner of war, then what are you, exactly?

Well we can look to the Geneva Conventions themselves for some of the answer. Combatants out of uniform, hiding behind civilian populations, etc. are mentioned. And what it has to say about an 'unlawful combatant' ain't pretty. Basically we could just line em up and shoot em on sight and be 100% in compliance. Read some history of the French Resistance for an example as they are a fairly close case except that they were careful to target military/political targets. The Germans shot em and nobody uttered a peep about the Geneva Conventions because it was kosher. For all their other sins the German Army considered itself to be professional and 'civilized', certain notorious units obviously excepted, thus they generally adhered to the Geneva Conventions[1]. We should be doing likewise in Iraq and Afganistan. In this case I doubt prompt public executions would discourage them very much but it certainly couldn't hurt.

In a nutshell the original Geneva Conventions were designed to define the conduct of war between Great Powers using ranked formations of conscript soldiers. Later additions (some of which the US didn't sign onto) are mostly Cold War relics where the Soviets were making it easier for their proxy states and revolutionaries to win by conning Western Civilization into fighting with one hand tied behind it's back.

None of which is applicable to the current GWOT being fought with no massed armies and one side without even a proxy nation state to sign the GC even if they believed all that 'touchy feelly crap that just illustrates how weak and spinless the West is' was something they wanted to be a part of. But notice that Taliban soldiers in uniform did get GC protection. We didn't get bogged down with rule book lawyer questions as to whether the Taliban were the lawful descendent of the previous soviet puppet state that had signed, they were recognizable soldiers so we extended them the protection of the GC.

Terrorists hiding in civilian populations and as often as not attacking those same civilians deserve no protection. Catch em, give some minimal justice where needed to try to make sure the Mohammad you caught really is the same Mohammad that blew up a marketplace last week and then shoot the bastard.

For all that most of the action is taking place away from the TV cameras this IS a total war because they won't stop until we kill em or they cut our heads off. Longer term we have to change the conditions that breed this brand of nutter but GWB's drain the swamp and plant democracy theory certainly hasn't been working out all that well.

So we try, try again until we find a way that works since failure isn't an option. I'm an agnostic so I'll get my head cut off right behind the queers and athiests.... assuming I don't go out shooting earlier.

> Yes, it can be debated that there's a legal distinction between me as a US
> citizen sitting at my desk and a farmer in Afghanistan with respect to the
> provision of rights under US law.

No it can't be debated because it is obvious to any sane persion that there is a night and day difference. The expectations a Free People have regarding their relationship with their own government can and indeed must be vastly different from that governments's obligation to enemies taken on the field of combat. Even if taken inside the camp of an enemy a known US citizen (John Walker Lindh for example) has the expectation of certain rights. Inalienable Rights.

Just like there is a world of difference between law enforcement and intelligence. Rules that apply in the context of criminal investigations of citizens have almost to resemblence to how the law of the

Re:Some painful truth....

[Copid (137416)]

Terrorists hiding in civilian populations and as often as not attacking those same civilians deserve no protection. Catch em, give some minimal justice where needed to try to make sure the Mohammad you caught really is the same Mohammad that blew up a marketplace last week and then shoot the bastard.

Rather than fly further off topic and quibble on points where I have minor disagreements, I'm going to key in on this. I honestly have no qualms about summary execution or even brutal interrogation of terrorists--provided that they're actually terrorists and there's reason to believe that those tactics are effective. In fact, I have a hard time dealing with the fact that war has "rules" at all. War is what you do when the rules no longer work.

My major problem is the question you didn't answer: What's the appropriate burden of proof for executing an unarmed person in the field or disappearing him to a prison site for the rest of his natural life? I'll accept for the sake of argument that these things are effective ways of dealing with the problem, but I'd like to see some serious rules applied before I give the nod to classifying somebody as a person with no rights, locking him up, and throwing away the key. So far, I haven't seen a lot of evidence that we're doing a good job of figuring out who we should be disappearing, and I've seen enough evidence that we aren't [shu.edu] to be hesitant to give the government an "arbitrarily disappear, torture, and execute whoever you want as long as it's not me" card. When you combine death / permanent imprisonment with accusations and evidence that look like a scene out of The Crucible, I get nervous.

Why? Our government derives it's powers FROM US. By definition we hold a claim for our government to respect (and defend) our rights. Think of government as a mutual defense pact.

Hmmm... I think that we look at the world in a fundamentally different way, then. I tend to think that in all but the most extreme circumstances, it is universally wrong to deprive somebody of life or liberty without a way of meaningfully defending himself. To me, that principle isn't just a convenient legal fiction that happens to work out well for me. It's a fundamental concern about the unfairness of being kidnapped in the middle of the night and shipped off to be held incognito in the middle of nowhere until you die. Add to that the fact that it's bad PR at a time when we're losing a PR war to the types of people who blow up hospitals, and I think that you have the makings for a policy we'll be embarrassed about in the hindsight of history.

Re:Why is this on /.?

[Optic7 (688717)]

Every time something political or otherwise not directly related to technology is posted on Slashdot someone comes out with "why is this on Slashdot?".

How did anyone get this idea that Slashdot is not supposed to post political or non-technology stories? For one, the slogan of the site is "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters." Second, there is a Politics main section on Slashdot, and the slogan for it (look at the very top of this page) is "Politics for Nerds. Your vote matters." Third, this story came from the Firehose, so it was likely voted up by Slashdot readers themselves.

To me, all this indicates that Slashdot posts and promotes stories that intelligent people might be interested in reading and discussing.

Besides all that, Slashdot gives you the ability to filter out from the front page stories from any section that you don't like, right here: Customize Slashdot's Display [slashdot.org]

Hey, at least it isn't like Digg.

Re:WHAT!

[Max Littlemore (1001285)]

If you go to a bar in Aussie, and tell someone that you don't like Iran because Iran held Americans hostage, they'll beat you up because the US "interferes" in Aussie's political process somehow?

No exactly. You go into a bar talking about Iran as if they did all the bad shit and the US was just an inocent player who now has a greivence. Do that with the usual blind adherance to US propaganda and unwillingness to accept that the US might be anything other than squeeky clean, you're likely to shit some people.

Keep up that attitude and people who you annoyed will injure you. Verbally or physically, body or pride doesn't matter.

The world is not jealous of US freedom, the world is pissed off with US self righteousness.