House Narrowly Avoids Having to Debate Impeachment of Cheney 1033
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."'"
WHAT! (Score:2, Interesting)
Too much time on their hands? (Score:2, Interesting)
As a republican, I actually had hope when we lost control of the house and senate that perhaps we'd see some movement in government with an aggressive party taking control at a pivotal time in our history. It's not that I wanted much of what the Democrats wanted, it's that I wanted someone to stand up and do something.
I was wrong.
Land of the brave? (Score:3, Interesting)
And then the REPUBLICANS, see a chance to embarrass the DEMOCRATS, and decide to vote for it.
Because the DEMS would be shamed to express their views that the VP is a liar and a cheat.
And then the DEMS, not wanting to admit their shame, bury this in committee.
So the REPUB VP, a liar and a cheat, gets to keep lying and cheating.
And even though there's a valid proposal to look into it, no-one is willing to.
Wow. Land of the free, home of the brave, right?
Re:a little tweak (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares [archive.org]
"This film explores the origins in the 1940s and 50s of Islamic Fundamentalism in the Middle East, and Neoconservatism in America, parallels between these movements, and their effect on the world today. From the introduction to Part 1:
"Both [the Islamists and Neoconservatives] were idealists who were born out of the failure of the liberal dream to build a better world. And both had a very similar explanation for what caused that failure. These two groups have changed the world, but not in the way that either intended. Together, they created todays nightmare vision of a secret, organized evil that threatens the world. A fantasy that politicians then found restored their power and authority in a disillusioned age. And those with the darkest fears became the most powerful. " The Power of Nightmares, Baby It's Cold Outside.
Part 1 - Baby it's Cold Outside | 64kbps | 256 kbps | mpeg2
Part 2 - The Phantom Victory | 64kbps | 256 kbps | mpeg2
Part 3 - The Shadows in the Cave | 64kbps | 256 kbps | mpeg2
An NTSC DVD ISO is available to make burning this to DVD easier.
This item is part of the collection: Feature Films"
slashdotliberalwhining (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Land of the brave? (Score:4, Interesting)
1. In 1913, the dictator Victoriano Huerta was president of Mexico. He gave the congress an ultimatum: dissolve themselves, or he would dissolve them. The communication was read to a quorum of the body; they referred the matter to a committee and passed a motion to adjourn. Shortly thereafter most of the congressmen were arrested, but the congress was technically not dissolved because they had not acted on the motion.
2. Just a couple weeks ago, my city council [cityoflansingmi.com] voted unanimously to deny an application to erect a cell-phone tower in a certain residential neighborhood. After the vote, the chair of the committee stated that the committee had thought it might be a good idea to develop a master plan identifying areas that actually would be good locations for cell-phone towers within the city boundaries. The council president moved to "receive the report", which means exactly nothing.
Most governmental bodies (both legsilative and judicial) have a lot of different ways to not do something. Sometimes that's a good thing; both sides in a dispute can be angry at the government until they both grow up, or move to another city, or something.
Re:WHAT! (Score:4, Interesting)
i repeat.
Ahmedinajad did not say that he wanted to wipe israel off the map.
He didn't say it. yes, he said something *similar*, i.e. that the zionist regime would vanish from the pages of history. but he did not ever ever say he wanted to wipe israel off the map.
Now... what IS interesting is that YOU think he said he wanted to wipe israel off the map. why do you think that? because you have been MADE to think that by people who want to wipe HIM off the map. This, just like the iraqi "ripping babies out of incubators" story is being fed to you by people who really really want you to support what they're about to do to iran.
think about it.
you are being lied to.
why are you being lied to?
Re:Ya (Score:5, Interesting)
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".
Re:Why not impeach 'em all? (Score:2, Interesting)
It's like 1982 all over again, back when the only position you needed to take politically to be 'hip' was to Hate Reagan.
Re:Why not impeach 'em all? (Score:1, Interesting)
Imagine the Government as the Matrix from the film.
And now imagine Conservatism while it's looking for the white rabbit. That was Goldwater.
Then Conservatism gets disconnected from the Matrix, instantly learns jiu-jitsu and a ton of other skills off some CD and generally learns how to bend and even break things that it once knew to be true.
Now Neo-Conservatism jacks back into our matrix and flies all over the place, doesn't die when it gets shot and generally does whatever the hell it feels like without any fear of the repercussions.
And what we're left with is Neo-Conservatism, where well-meaning agents of the Government are powerless to stop it. All the while Neo-Conservatism is so caught up in how cool it is to fly around and generally be invincible that it doesn't notice the massive number of car crashes, exploding buildings and other collateral damage that it's causing.
Re:a little tweak (Score:2, Interesting)
What is this war you (ArcherB) keep prattling on about as if you are suffering from early-onset Alzheimers??? The term "insurgents" indicates the locals who are rebelling against foreign invaders. (No doubt a subliterate such as yourself believes that term to mean "al Qaeda.")
There is an OCCUPATION of Iraq by foreign invaders, namely, the US of A, clown, get that? Our intel??? Would that be the intel from the very same sixteen intel entities which are unable to locate Osama (that would be Counsin Osama to the Bush family) nor that anthrax assassin who killed and attempted to kill US Congress persons (specifically democratic congresspersons, don't forget)? You never make any sense -- that Iranian president - who has continuously been purposively misquoted (although I am no fan of his nor any other religious wacko) by the US and Israeli corporate meda said the following: "If a Holocaust really took place during WWII, then why don't they give the Jews land in either Germany or Europe, instead of stealing the Palestinian's land?" (I'm paraphrasing here, but I received that translation from a former CIA agent who is skillfully fluent in Farsi, Arabic and several other languages and once served in Iran.)
Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus (Score:3, Interesting)
While the 12th Amendment says "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States", the 22nd prohibits only the ELECTION to office, not serving therein. Nothing I see in the Constitution talks about eligibility to serve as President (other than natural born citizen and the age limit.) It is reasonable to assume that when the word "elected" is used, it is limited to that action, and that the 12th Amendment serves only to ensure that the citizen and age limits apply to the office of VP so that the VP can assume the role of Pres. if necessary. (There was nothing in the Constitution preventing someone for running for Pres. who was too young or not a natural born citizen, only that he could not serve. Apparently, he could serve as VP.)
If you thought the furor over SCOTUS stopping Gore's shenanigans trying to keep Florida's electors from being certified according to Florida's laws was something, just wait until SCOTUS has to rule on whether the 22nd A means one cannot SERVE despite clear terminology that the limit is "elected", and Bill gets passed over for a Republican speaker of the house when Hill steps down. I'd almost pay to watch that.
Re:Why not impeach 'em all? (Score:3, Interesting)
The war in Iraq had gone bad the day it started, it only took people a while to figure that out.
Also, if you look at the approval numbers, until shortly before the election, Bush was in the dumps. He recovered only within weeks of the election and then fell off quickly again. This wasn't Bush support, it was some last minute PR wizardry.
Which is sad, since a majority favor impeachment (Score:2, Interesting)
As of July, a majority favored impeaching Cheney, and it was close on Bush:
So the Congressional Democrats are distancing themselves from the majority and certainly from their party members. Probably partly because they get saturated with "info" from all the boot-licking media and consultants based in Washington and NY.
Of course many people try to characterize impeachment as a fringe movement... because that's the only rhetorical angle left: per the Constitution or the will of the people, impeachment of Cheney is quite reasonable. Particularly considering the damage done to the country.
Hopefully we'll see criminal proceedings at some point. There's a lot of personal responsibility that still needs to be apportioned.
Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it! (Score:5, Interesting)
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! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Some painful truth.... (Score:5, Interesting)
> 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:It's a small world (Score:1, Interesting)
I personally believe (though I could be wrong too) that at least part of the problem is political correctness. People wrongfully assume that western culture exists outside our homes. It does not. You do not negotiate the same way in the US as you do in the middle-east. When bootstrapping democracy, "the bad guys" need to understand from day one that you mean business and you carry a big stick while "the good guys" need to feel your constant support. This implies stepping on a lot of people's toes but I don't think there is much choice. In this specific case of Iraq, the politicians need to understand that unless they stop playing games and agree one the *basics* very soon then you will make a decision on their behalf which will surely be worse than anything they can possibly agree to themselves. It's funny how people can argue about the most mundane things unless their back is to a wall (which is part of the reason our own politicians accomplish nothing unless their own neck is on the line).
This brings me to a funny story I once read: http://www.fsmitha.com/h3/h11mon.htm [fsmitha.com]
"People in Bukhara opened the city's gates to the Mongols and surrendered. Genghis Khan told them that they, the common people, were not at fault, that high-ranking people among them had committed great sins that inspired God to send him and his army as punishment."
What I take from Genghis Khan's story is that one needs to be witty and take the target audience's belief system into consideration. We in the West need to remember that most of the people in the world do not live under a Western mentality so it makes little sense to negotiate or deal with them as we would with fellow Westerns and expect good results. Specifically, if you tried negotiating in a middle-eastern market using Western values you would get stepped on many times over. You need to adapt to the culture of the people you are dealing with and use wit in trying to accomplish your goals.
My understanding is that our goals are quite simple: spread Democracy far and wide because not only does it empower oppressed men and women but it also opens new opportunities for our own people. Let's be honest, we would have far more opportunities (both cultural and financial) when dealing with a Democratic China than we do with it today. The same goes for Iraq and any other country in the world. Look at the fall of the USSR for example. It defused a serious military confrontation, opened new markets for our businesses, and empowered their people with rights and money to boot. It's a win-win situation for everyone.
Re:Awh, you cry. (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not 100% sure where you're going with your argument. Bush has run his administration in a manner that has been completely contrary to both of his campaigns. Is it really the voter's fault that we didn't get what was advertised? Don't forget our original point that Bush and Cheney have been spewing lies from the start, and that those lies didn't become quite so apparent until his second term.
Couldn't you also blame the democrats for pitching two candidates in a row that didn't have clearly defined campaigns? Although I think most will agree that Al Gore was a good candidate, he had an absolutely horrible campaign. John Kerry also had the disadvantage of not having clearly defined campaign goals, and was also the subject of a smear campaign. Such a bland candidate had absolutely no chance running against an "idealist" like Bush -- someone like Howard Dean would have fared much better in this situation.
In the business world, good products fail all of the time because of bad marketing. Any marketer who blames consumers for failing to properly appreciate the product will quickly find himself out of a job.
Re:Are you enlisted? (Score:3, Interesting)
You don't 'stay-the-course' if you are headed towards a cliff. And you certainly do 'change your horse mid race' if it is running the wrong way.
Re:Hey, Pelosi and Hoyer! (Score:1, Interesting)
1. 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.
Really, where is the proof of this? Do you have a link to the document?
2. The Vice President outed a CIA operative to settle a political score.
Nope, that was Armatage (a democrat by the way). So if this really mattered, why was he not prosecuted?
3. 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
What has he been doing that you and I don't know about?
Re:Are you enlisted? (Score:3, Interesting)
No war = Raytheon doesn't sell very many Tomahawks or FLIRs or anything of that sort. Cheney's buddies at Halliburton don't get to do their no-bid contract thing. Blackwater doesn't get to go postal with fucking impunity (at four to five times the rate that real soldiers get paid). Even our legitimate servicemen and women are twiddling their thumbs. CNN doesn't have something really gut-wrenching to cover (although it seems the media have become bored with the war because it's the same thing on and on now). And our fearless leader (and the puppeteers, ie, PNAC) has no glorious cause with which to catapult America back to its "former" greatness. I guess the first neoconservatives read 1984 when it was published back in the 50's and said: "Hey! This is a great model of government, except let's throw in more capitalism. And have Hate Week all year long!"
Re:Why not impeach 'em all? (Score:1, Interesting)
Sadly, it's not all that simple:
1. Diversionary Tactics: The CIA knew that Plame wasn't "covert." The relevant statute even makes it clear that the agent must be covert in order for the leak to be considered a crime. Yet, for reasons that we can only surmise were influenced by their colossal failures over Iraq intelligence, they referred the leak to Justice.
2. Everything Is Suddenly A Scandal: Wilson's paranoid persecution theory combined with a media craving a new scandal at every opportunity, whipped up the script. Mrs. Plame played the victim. Cheney, Rove, and Libby played the villains.
3. A Shocking revelation: The Justice Department knew that it was deputy secretary, Richard Armitage, who leaked Plame's name to Novak, long *before* they appointed Fitzgerald as special prosecutor.
4. Hanging The Wrong Man: Years later, Scooter Libby is hung out to dry while Armitage lives to fight another day of bureaucratic infighting.
5. The Darlings Of The Media: The Wilson's are supposedly raking in millions of dollars selling books and doing interviews. At least you'd think so from all the love and adoration they get from their friends in the media.
Personally, I'm content to chalk it all up to bureaucratic infighting, but if you'd like greater insight into the CIA, I hear that "Legacy of Ashes" is a good read.