We need to challenge the widespread, and WRONG assumption that impeachment is needs to meet some legal standard.
Members of Congress must make a personal judgment grounded in moral principle and the intent of the law. There are no legalisms or complex 'technicalities' that can trump reality. They must be guided by their oath and their conscience.
As we lobby for impeachment, we should be to be crystal clear about its purposeKeep in mind that:
- They are Congress, not the Courts.
- Impeachment is a political process, not a judicial process.
- Impeachment is defensive; not punitive.
We charge Congress with the duty to defend against threats to the Constitution. Impeachment is the weapon we gave them to remove a threat by removing an official's power to harm. This is the first, and most urgent, priority.
Retribution for violations of U.S. Code and International Law is for the Courts (both here and at the Hague), not Congress.
- Impeachment is bound only by the intentionally vague guidance provided by our Constitution; judicial processes are bound by our substantial body of written law and precedent.
Members of Congress must make a personal judgment grounded in moral principle and the intent of the law. There are no legalisms or complex 'technicalities' that can trump reality. They must be guided by their oath and their conscience.
Members of the House must decide for themselves what constitutes an impeachable offense. The House as a body defines the what steps are necessary or unnecessary to impeach. Senators decide for themselves whether articles of impeachment transmitted from the House merit impeachment, and what standard of proof to apply.
- The interests that an impeachment seeks to balance are very different from the interests that a criminal prosecution seeks to balance.
- In a criminal trial, the standard of proof seeks to strike a balance between mistakenly:
- depriving a citizen of their rights
- releasing a guilty individual
When balanced against the sanctity of our civil rights, the risk of releasing a guilty person loses.
To tip the scales in favor of protecting civil rights, a very high standard of proof is applied (beyond reasonable doubt).
- In an impeachment, the standard of proof seeks to strike a balance between mistakenly
- depriving an official of the privilege of power
- leaving power in the hands of an official who is subverting the Constitution or otherwise abusing that power
Each Senator must decide for themselves what standard to apply, but when balanced against the sanctity of our Constitution, the risk of mistakenly depriving an official of the privilege of power should lose, particularly when you consider that power is granted to elected officials; it is not a basic civil right.
To tip the scales in favor of protecting the Constitution, a lower standard of proof is required (e.g., probable cause, preponderance of the evidence). When Members of Congress, opinion leaders, or fellow citizens assert that a higher standard applies, we should challenge them whenever possible.
In the case of Bush and Cheney, we have proofs that meet a standard much higher than impeachment calls for.
When we recognize the purpose of impeachment, it becomes crystal clear that. . .
Impeachment has been a moral imperative for years.
Bush and Cheney demonstrate their willful intent to nullify the Constitution when they assert the fascist fantasy of a "unitary authoritarian executive" that can break the law at its whim.
In their attack on the Constitution, Bush and Cheney are blatantly committing grave violations of law that go far beyond impeachable. They have committed crimes that are subject to the penalty of death. Namely, war crimes under U.S. Code (Title 18 section 2441) and international law and the Anti-Terrorism Act (Title 18, Section 844 paragraph e. Bomb Threat -- "mushroom clouds in 45 min").
In addition, they violate the sanctity of our civil rights with their criminal spying operation (Title 50, Section 1805).
From http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Senator/10"> Rationalizing for Inaction on Impeachment:
. . .charges have already been investigated and even adjudicated. They have admitted violating FISA -- and have tried to "defend" it (mutually exclusively) by claiming inherent authority and congressional approval. GOP Senator Specter himself has already scoffed at the defense.
The (formerly) Supreme Court has already ruled in Hamdan that Geneva applies to Gitmo. Behind the Euphemedia smokescreen of tribunal tinkering lies the reality of the decision: Three Years of War Crimes had already been committed. Similarly, the lies about WMD that terrorized the nation into war are already "old news." There is no fig leaf left.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
