Journal pudge's Journal: More Stupidity on Impeachment 6
I was just looking over some of Dennis Kucinich's stuff on impeachment.
I've never seen a rational article on impeachment against Bush or Cheney. And that has not changed.
Here's some of what Kucinich accuses Cheney of:
purposely manipulating intelligence to fabricate a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in order to justify an attack on Iraq
No evidence.
deceiving Congress about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida
No evidence.
threatening aggression against the Republic of Iran, absent any real threat to the United States
That never happened. No aggression was ever threatened against Iran.
This article in the Seattle P-I adds more ideas:
illegal war, in violation of both international treaty and the Constitution;
It was in violation of neither. And further, Congress gave Bush the authority to do it. Congress impeaching the President for exercising authority granted by the Congress is inexcusably stupid.
widespread domestic wiretapping in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a felony. Bush already has admitted to this;
This is a dispute over whether FISA constitutionally limited the authority of the President, and can only properly be adjudicated by the Supreme Court. To impeach on these grounds would be a serious violation of separation of powers.
condoning torture in violation of federal laws and international treaties;
No evidence.
rescinding habeas corpus, the cornerstone of Western law since the Magna Carta;
That never happened, in fact. Only statutory habeas corpus was rescinded, and only for alien unlawful enemy combatants. It's absolute idiocy to say that a plain old law that granted rights cannot be rescinded.
And besides, Congress did this, not the President!
obstruction of justice regarding U.S. attorney firings;
No evidence.
subversion of the Constitution
No evidence.
abuse of signing statements
As they have no legal force, and are not mentioned by the Constitution, this would be a stupid thing to impeach over. That's like saying you should impeach the President for watching baseball.
and rescinding habeas corpus.
You already said that.
She goes on:
It's astounding that our representatives to Congress carry on with business as usual knowing that Americans lack habeas corpus and a working code of law.
It's astounding to me that the P-I would publish a column by someone claiming that any American lacks any habeas corpus (including stautory habeas corpus).
What do you expect? (Score:2)
What do you expect, swift boating? (Score:1)
".
Not only is this purely inaccurate its exactly what "seasal
Re: (Score:2)
Claiming that any American lacks any habeas corpus. It is absolutely false. There is no truth to that claim whatsoever. ...Every single American citizen has full habeas corpus rights, as much so as they did before Bush became President. Period, end of story... ...The habeas rights taken from the AUECs are not the rights mentioned in the Constitution, but additional rights passed by the Congress much later.
Not only is this purely inaccurate
It is not inaccurate at all. It is exactly accurate. Every American citizen has full habeas corpus rights. Period.
the BUSH ADMINISTRATION ARGUED MANY MANY TIMES OVER AND OVER AND OVER TO DENY USA CITIZENS, like HAMDI, the RIGHT to a Writ of Habeas Corpus.
That is at best beside the point, and worst for you, proves the point. Bush tried to do this, and the Hamdi case said he could not. So the right of habeas corpus was upheld, and the MCA of 2006 passed that reaffirmed it: every American has full habeas corpus rights. At best, you could argue that for a short time, they didn't have such full rights, but even then, I'd note that there is a
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd note that there is a difference between saying you HAVE rights, and saying those rights are not being respected
Yes, it's a mindless language difference that only a complete imbecile would belabor in an attempt to win an argument.
Um. No. She said that "Americans lack habeas corpus." That is clear. If she meant to say something other than what she said, then she said it incorrectly. You can pretend that "the sky is blue" means "the sky is green," but that doesn't make it so.
But no matter what she meant, it's not true. There is no way to parse that sentence and make it true.
Not that any of what you said matters in this case, for the facts remain that not only does the LAW not take away any Americans' habeas corpus rights, but t