Hey Impeachophobes: Why Does "Our Side" Get to Benefit From Ongoing Torture?

[Senator]

No, I'm really trying to understand this.

I get that DC-Denizens like Doddering Dodd have been terrorized into yelping that all the "oxygen in the room" must be rationed out for discussions of Hillary's cleavage or what Obama's six-year-old has to say. Otherwise their bemoaning the Euphemedia's "obsession with the horserace" wouldn't qualify as "business as usual" hypocrisy.

But seriously, whatever "badness" you imagine lurks beyond a House vote to impeach bushcheney -- to simply voice objection to known acts of this horrid regime -- where does "our side" get off avoiding it while tortured hostages languish in place we pick up the tab for?

What exactly are we "winning" here?

Lord knows we may never muster a "leadership" that will take on the other side simply for the crimes committed against us -- stealing our elections, looting our treasury, shredding our Constitution -- but we used to at least notice things that were "bigger than ourselves."

We're supposed to be "the good guys." The ones that take the bullet. That faces up to poverty and racism, even if it "costs us the South." That faces up to blood-monied interests, to try to get universal health coverage. That risks our soldiers' lives to stop genocide, not initiate it.

Sure we may lose (often?) when we do these things. But don't we lose far more by not doing? By not acting?

And what exactly do we lose if there's no conviction/removal due to 30-plus GOP Senators? It's not like defending war crimes is something the RNC is going to want to campaign on. We hear a lot of babble in DC about having to "get them on the record" on more trivial matters. Well, up or down on war crimes in an impeachment trial is a "record" that the entire public/electorate will be able remember.

But why fear making that record? I would think we would rush to it. It's their side that is terrified of the possibility. They're the ones doing most anything -- including sending more and more of our kids to useless deaths -- just to avoid something too "reality-based."

It's the war criminals that really fear that vote. And for good reason. Because at that point it's every man for themselves. Do they stand beside bushcheney -- even on their way to The Hague -- or not? Do you really think we should fear that vote more than they do?

Do you really think that over 30 GOP Senators are going to stand up to history and declare "Yes, the U.S. of A. is a War Criminal Nation and proud of it. We must stand up for the unelected ruler who led us out of the darkness of respect for human rights and international cooperation."

You really think that's how it would play out? Even after the Senate has already voted 90-9 in support of McCain's Anti-Torture Law (that was negated -- impeachably -- via "Rule By Signing Statement")? There's no reasonable chance that they'd (re)do the right thing? Or arrange for resignations to avoid being put under the spotlight themselves?

And even if you really think so many of your fellow Americans are that depraved -- why is it better that this not be brought out into the open?

Why must we allow them their fig leaf?

Why would we want to exonerate them while the world watches?

Why must our children shamefully read about our tacit approval?

Just askin'. It's no biggie. Is it?

---

[LittleClarkie]

1. Oh yeah, I'm all for torture

if I'm against impeachment. That follows. Uh huh.

You'd likely get a long drawn out battle with the end not assured while the torture continues anyway.

[Senator]

2. With "the end not assured" ??

We only fight battles we know we can win now?

Again, I'm just asking.

--

[LittleClarkie]

5. What would be the point of fighting a battle we can't win

If we don't win, we're still in the same boat, and in a weaker position now to do ANYTHING else.

[Senator]

7. The point is to object

To accuse. To start the process of any possible accountability.

And we would not be "in the same boat." We'd be in a boat that had some self respect. That would be buoyed by having done the right thing.

And in what way would we be "in a weaker position" for having done so?

--

[rjones2818]

3. It's sad that any Democrat would look at

Dick and W and think that these criminals should remain in office for one second longer. Those Dems in Congress who don't support impeachment are, at best, questionable as far as our support goes.

:nuke:

[LittleClarkie]

4. "Our"? You and the missus? You and the mouse in your pocket?

I support my Senator. He's a good guy.

[rjones2818]

19. Clearly you're not part of 'our' then.

:woohoo:

[bbgrunt]

6. refusing to impeach is treason against the constitution and

makes the dems look like wimps with no principles.

[EstimatedProphet]

14. Is it OK if we set up a case first?

Investigations FIRST! That's the way it works! If we don't finish the investigations, then we won't be able to prove that it was actually Bush/Cheney that did the things we don't agree with! And then we'll have another Iran-Contra situation, where they'll throw some underling under the bus and claim they didn't know what was going on, and 20 years from now we'll have statues of Bush on the Washington Mall!

[Senator]

16. The "case making" phase is long over

The Geneva violations have already been adjudicated by the high court in Hamdan -- the first one.

Besides, the regime admits and defends its actions as "unitary" power, exercised lawfully and unimpeachably. All that is left is to dispprove or approve -- which is what failure to impeach is doing tacitly; exonerating the regime.

What exactly is your "investigation" going to looking for that we don't already know?

We already have another Iran/contra here. And we have buildings named after reagan and poppy bush because of failure then.

And without impeachment there will be another round of criminal pardons and history will re-repeat again.

--

[EstimatedProphet]

18. And you're sure that the case we have will lead directly to Bush/Cheney?

Absolutely positive?

Not one of the undersecretaries, or the Chief of Staff, or the Press Secretary, or somebody they yank off the street? Positive? You have the proof that it was Bush/Cheney, and not an assistant?

If you are, great. I'm all for it. If you're not, that will guarantee another Iran/Contra escape clause, and we'll have St. Georgie in a couple years. Investigations done properly would have revealed Reagan and Bush were the real center of Iran/Contra, regardless of what was found. We all know damn well he was in on it, but he weaseled his way out. Bush and Cheney will too, unless everything is watertight.

THAT'S why I want investigations.

[Senator]

20. There is no "leading"

They are claiming flat-out, monarchical power. No limits. Congress and the courts can suck an egg. They can put babies on spikes on the WH lawn if they claim it's got something to do with "War On Terrorania."

That is what "Unitary Executive Theory" dictates -- yes, literally dictates. We have King Georgie right now.

And it was not the "weaseling" that got reagan and poppy off the hook for iran/contra. Reagan confessed on live TV (albeit by claiming that it was only the "facts" that proved his guilt and not his "heart") and bush "pre-pardoned" the unconvicted just to obstruct the investigation of his crimes.

But just like now there was a failure to impeach -- to even object/accuse -- and we heard the same rationalizations for inaction that we're hearing now; word for word.

There is simply nothing to investigate. Only action to take to protect and defend the Constitution.

----

[EstimatedProphet]

22. I know what you're saying, but here's the problem I see

They can claim unitary executive power all day if they want, so long as they don't act on it. They can stand on the White House lawn and scream they they are Jesus Christ, and it won't matter one bit. That isn't impeachable. The real trick is proving that they acted on it, and did violate the Constitution. That takes directly proving that Bush/Cheney specifically were involved. And being able to get to that point takes a long string of investigations.

Investigations are how the case is proven. Investigations are also how we get the votes to convict in the Senate, because they are what show the public that there is direct provable evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors, which Bushies can only ignore for so long before they risk the wrath of the voters. We have right now Bush claiming that he has tapped phones, but that's all we have. He claims that it was legal. It is going to take investigations to prove that it was illegal, because they have as many people on their side saying that it was legal as we have saying that it wasn't. Without the concrete proof of malice aforethought and intent to break Constitutional law, we are right back to Reagan saying he did what he thought was right. And the situation goes right back to where it was.

I agree that only some kind of legal punishment, whether it be impeachment, or arrest for fraud, or maybe war crimes trials in the Hague will keep the scum freepers from turning him into a saint. However, a failed impeachment won't do it, and will only make things worse. And them claiming Unitary Executive power won't get us there.

[frustrated_lefty]

23. No! Wiretapping is NOT all we have.

I applaud your interest in establishing a case, methodically establishing the necessary links.

Wiretapping is NOT the end-all be-all, though. Intelligence was manipulated to create a flawed basis for war. Torture has been performed in the name of America and its citizens. The right of Americans to freely speak has been abrogated by this bizarre notion of free speech zones. The city of New Orleans was left to die. Soldiers have been forced to serve up to five consecutive tours of duty, something virtually unheard of in times past. Containment camps have been established within our own boundaries for the express purpose of containing our own citizens. Voting scandals have flourished. The list goes on and on and on. This is NOT simply about wiretapping, and the evidence supporting the aforementioned crimes is abundant.

The question is not what do we have sufficient evidence to prove. The question is where to stop in this litany of crimes associated with this administration.

[EstimatedProphet]

24. Yes, I agree with all that

I got sidetracked earlier. The crimes of the Bush administration are much much bigger than just wiretapping. They exist. However, my point with it still stands - how much can we prove, publicly, visibly, legally, came from Bush/Cheney themselves? Can we state with certainty that they were behind any of it, or will they be able to successfully dump it off on underlings? Because if they can pin it on an undersecretary somewhere, they will without batting an eye. And then they escape. Reagan already set that precedent.

The only hope I see of establishing that they specifically are behind the crimes, and not some underling who kept them ignorant of what was going on, is through investigations. And this is made doubly hard by Bush doing things like commuting sentences. I'm willing to bet Scooter would have rolled over on them after a week in jail. Also, I think this is exactly why they went to such lengths to find loyal bootlickers for all their staff.

[Senator]

25. You are not "seeing" problems, but rather creating them

I'm not saying that you're doing this purposely, but your concerns do suffer from some common misconceptions.

The most pervasive misconception is that something must be "illegal" and/or "proved" to be so. Such concepts have no place in impeachment. It is an entirely political process. Votes are cast for both impeachment and conviction/removal based entirely on the opinions of the elected officials. Even though it is called a Senate "trial," the process has but mere trappings of a legal proceeding -- and even those only by tradition.

Second, they have certainly "acted" on Unitary Theory. It is the claimed basis for their "redefining" torture in violation of US CODE: Title 18, 2441 and our obligations under the Geneva treaty. It is also the basis for the illegal spying. But -- those actions are not required for impeachment. Simply expressing such a theory that is in direct contradiction of the US Constitution constitutes sufficient grounds for impeachment, to protect and defend the Constitution.

The bottom line is that a "failed impeachment" may be all that ever happens in the way of accountability. Without it, these notions of futher investigation, prosecution, and war crime trials are simply a pipe dream. The accusation/objection must be made. Even if that's all the American People get -- is someone to stand up a say they are not liable for these atrocities.

The far worse outcome is failure to impeach. Which makes the DC Dems (and by extension the nation) complicit with war crimes and exonerates the regime.

Oh, and Reagan was either lying or delusional, either being good cause for the impeachment he joked about but that never happened. And to pick up on your later "underlings" concern, it doesn't matter if Reagan or these current clones are just dangerously incompetent or willfully treasonous, they need to be moved away from the sharp objects (and the nuclear button) via impeachment. As I implied in the first "misconception," there is no "presumption of innocence."

So you see, the situation is already "back to where it was." Without action, there is further damage.

Impeachment is our ONLY moral, patriotic option.

---

[EstimatedProphet]

26. Again, I see what you're saying

And I would like to see an impeachment - always did. The hang-up for me is right here in what you said:

The bottom line is that a "failed impeachment" may be all that ever happens in the way of accountability.

Why start the process now and have it fail, when we can build a better case and win it? We all know Bush/Cheney are behind what has been going on in this administration - why not prove it, and get them? A failed impeachment does absolutely nothing but potentially make us look bad, depending on how it is conducted. In no way in my mind is a failed impeachment preferable to a working one.

I don't believe that the Repub senators, scum that they are, will stand in the way of impeachment if crimes are proven publicly. That is what I meant about how claiming unitary executive policy isn't impeachable. They can claim unlimited power all day, and we'll never be able to turn the votes around. However, I do believe that if we make a case publicly demonstrating that Bush/Cheney was directly behind lying us into the war (which shouldn't be too hard), the wiretapping (a little harder), torture (a lot harder), etc. etc. then the obstructionist votes will fall away, because to do otherwise would be to publicly claim that law doesn't matter. This administration comes very close to claiming so anyway, but they stop just short, and as long as they keep doing that the Bushies will be able to keep up their support without fear of reprisal from their constituents. Claiming unitary exec power is the act of an asshole, but acting on it is what will turn the votes around and make impeachment successful.

There may be a case which will be successful based on the illegal spying and redefinition of torture, as you said. But, with the situation as it is now, all they have to do is claim that the torture issue was all on Rumsfeld, and if we can't claim otherwise then it will go away. That is the problem that faces us, and that is why I talk about "proving" things - if we try to start impeachment hearings without being able to specifically link Bush/Cheney to the issues, they will produce an endless supply of underlings who become responsible for what has happened, and then claim they had no idea what was going on. this might piss off the public, but it won't get us the votes. However, if we document that Bush/Cheney gave approval to the issues, then the votes, I believe, will appear - or they at least have a much better chance of appearing.

So, the main difference I have with your argument really is that I just don't think it is as easy as you think it will be. I think it is worth far more to do the heavy lifting and be certain to get them, because I don't think it will be certain that impeachment will be successful right now. The case for impeachment can probably be made with a lot of work, but it will certainly take that work. It is going to involve investigation upon investigation, without rapid progress. I'm all for it though, and in the mentime we can clear out the shitheels from the government - we've gotten some high-level administrative criminals already, like Doan. It suits me fine to work up the chain and get rid of the scum ratbastards from the bottom up, like you said about the Reagan administration. I just don't want it to stop with them instead of going all the way to the top, where it belongs.

[Senator]

27. It doesn't seem so

Because I'm saying (again) that there is no case necessary in the face of the "confession/admission" we already have.

You keep talking about a theoretical case in the abstract without being specific about what it is you intend to "find out."

And I said nothing like that about the Reagan/Poppy crimes. But if it kicks the thread, I'm happy to talk in circles.

---

[EstimatedProphet]

28. That's the point where we disagree

Because I do believe we have to make a 'case' of some sort. It may not have to be legal, but there does have to be an argument. You don't think it's necessary. I do.

If we impeach now, we won't have the votes. It doesn't matter whether there was a confession or not. But if we make the case for impeachment through investigations, and document the fact that Bush/Cheney has been doing impeachable offenses (redefinition of torture, wiretapping, etc. all done by Bush/Cheney and not Rumsfeld or Rice or Gonzales,or someone else), then we will at least have a chance of winning the votes. That's all I'm saying - I'd rather do the work and be more certain.

BTW what I was referring to was your statement about Reagan:

Oh, and Reagan was either lying or delusional, either being good cause for the impeachment he joked about but that never happened. And to pick up on your later "underlings" concern, it doesn't matter if Reagan or these current clones are just dangerously incompetent or willfully treasonous, they need to be moved away from the sharp objects (and the nuclear button) via impeachment. As I implied in the first "misconception," there is no "presumption of innocence."

Did I misunderstand what you were saying? I took it to mean that we need to get those that are fucking up our government out of power. Investigations are having that effect.

[Senator]

29. No, it really isn't disagreement

Because you now say there just needs to be "an argument." Which is roughly correct. But that part takes place in the Senate trial. So you agree that impeachment itself, the accusation, is overdue.

I'm not sure what you mean about investigations that "are having that effect" when you claim they've not been started. But it sounds a bit more tangible than your earlier position. So maybe that's changing as well.

----

[autorank]

8. "Mr. President, I have a question for Senator... Who's worse...

...the arsonists who set the fires or the firemen who knowingly let them burn."

[radfringe]

9. recent Gallup polls shows 76% DISAPPROVAL of congress

with numbers like this, IMPEACHMENT will help more than hurt

As senators and representatives make the "town hall" tours this month, they are being met with "unprecedented anger" from their consitutients - dems/republics/independents alike.

The anger is not directed just at the bush/cheney misadministration, nor is it just about Iraq. It's anger, frustration and disgust that has been building for the past 6 1/2 years and is still building.

We're in a pressure cooker with no relief valve and the heat is on high.

Starting the primary races the day after mid-term elections hasn't helped either - with a slight exception - none of the candidates from either party have acknowledged or validated the anger/frustration/disgust. Instead we get more of the same or variations of more of the same.

In congress, we get the weenie excuses, we see them backing down, caving in or otherwise capitulating to the bushies. This is not what we voted for back in nov '06.

This week - the bushies missed the deadline for producing documents. Leahy says the committee needs to meet regarding the next step - many of us are hoping the committee will vote on contempt charges. Assuming the committee does vote to bring up contempt charges - it will still need to go before the full senate.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - if the dems do not put their balls on the table, if they do not show some spine - there will be hell to pay in a little over 14 months. The mood of the country towards incumbents and the major parties is far worse than it was in 1992.

[Perry Logan]

11. If the Dems in Congress are such cowards, wouldn't they be responding to these polls?

Or are they even more terrified of those big tough Republicans?

[radfringe]

12. they respond by backing down.....

keeping all the powder in the world dry is useless - you have to be willing and able to use it too

[Swamp Rat]

10. I hear ya!

[Freddie Stubbs]

13. It does not appear that a majority of the House thinks that Bush stole an election or shredded

the Constitution.

How many members of the House opposed the certification of the 2000 and 2004 elections? Not evern close to a majority of even the Democrats.

Shredding the Constitution? How many Democrats in the House voted for Bush's FISA bill?

[Me.]

15. K & R

Keep on yelling

[pat_k]

17. Kick & Rec!

[Senator]

21. I thought there'd be more of a defense

Maybe we're winning.

---