Pelosi: "Nope. Not yet..."

Turley:”…It’s really amazing, Congress, including the Democrats, have avoided any type of investigation into torture because they do not want to deal with the fact that the president ordered war crimes.

I will never understand. Not as long as I live, will I understand why they won't investigate and bring charges of war crimes. Torture is really only one aspect of it. Many war crimes have been commited. What is their fear? Looking at it from my point of view, I would think they would come out as heroes in the eyes of at least 70% of Americans and change the views other countries now have of us. What am I missing?

Would someone kindly explain to me why everyone seems to think Nancy Pelosi has the power to decide if/when impeachment proceedings should begin against Bush/Cheney?

Remember when the whole Watergate fiasco went down? It was a full SENATE vote that decided to name a Special Committee for Hearings...NOT THE HOUSE!!!

http://www.ford.utexas.edu/museum/exhibits/watergate_files/content.php?s...

It was the Senate Committee that ordered the House Judiciary Committee to draw up the articles of impeachment after the public hearings had taken place and everyone started singing (Dean etc.)

Just seems to me we are looking at the whole impeachment scenario bass ackwards.

Please advise. I do believe lots of folks on this thread would appreciate having a better understanding of the process.

Has anybody mentioned yet that the theory Yoo proposes, ie that abuse of a prisoner is an extension of the idea of justification by self-defense - and that self defense is also a viable defense in a murder case?

I've mentioned before the terrible logic that would overcome a torturer when he found a victim to be totally innocent. The entire presumption that theoretically supports his action has just collapsed. Now he (the torturer) must kill his victim in order to protect himself from prosecution for war crimes, and to protect the government for having sanctioned it. It would be very surprising indeed if this tragic and deadly scenario has not played itself out in Afghanistan, Cuba and Iraq dozens if not hundreds of times. In that sense the US has finally become a member of the network of banana republics of South America where they have been training, equipping and financing torturers and murderers for decades.

I really couldn't be more disgusted.

i think the dems are afraid of the media. they assume and correctly that if they go for impeachment the media will trash them for going after their hero w. it's not the repubs they have stand up to, it's the media.

Screw the politicians. Check your mirrors.

The average american doesn't really give a shit about whats being done in their names, if they did this admin would be in leg irons by now.

numfar @ 4:

Isn't attacking another country for their natural resources a war crime?

Here is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights passed in the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. The United States is a member of the U.N. and our Constitution clearly says that all treaties we are signatories to become "the highest law of the land":

http://www.gpln.com/udhr.html#readudhr

According to this, I'd say our pre-emptive invasion and occupation of Iraq (based on lies, trickery, fraud and deceit) would constitute a war crime. Particularly when hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings have been murdered/maimed and we have used depleted uranium munitions which will render the entire nation of Iraq to be probably the biggest cluster area of cancers and malformed infants on Earth....forever.

Sure sounds like a war crime to me. The reason I feel there are no impeachment hearings is that the entire Congress knows they are just as guilty as the Bush Administration since they have all been "going along to get along" passing the necessary legislation and funding all of it. The American People are just as guilty for not DEMANDING the truth and a total cessation of hostilities and our soldiers are guilty for not following the orders of the UCMJ which demands they follow only LAWFUL orders.

The minute any soldier knew what he/she was doing was illegal, they had not only the right, but the duty to stand down and be courts martialed if necessary. Had enough soldiers stood down and done the right thing we would have been out of there long before "Mission Accomplished".

And that's the f*@king truth.

Impeachment is off the table.

When the pictures first came out of Abu Ghraib who didn't doubt for an instant that the top executives were behind it? I never went for the "few bad apples" argument, I was always convinced there are only a few good apples spoiling it for all the bad ones.

Bush and those in the congress who aided and abetted him all need to go. Pelosi, Reid, and all the other dems who chose to look the other way for political expediency. Bush is bad but they are his enablers. This is shameful.

Captain Kangaroo @ 18:

I heard someplace recently that New Hampshire may initiate impeachment. Jeez, I can't remember where I heard that. Does anybody know? It has something that Thomas Jefferson (who would have thunk) put into the the constitution about states being able to get the process rolling.

I think Vermont, Mass., New Mexico, and Calif. have passed resolutions in one form other for impeachment. NH voted on it last month, but I don't know what the results were.

It still amazes me that Bill Clinton was impeached for Monica and this President has broken the law six ways from Sunday and nothing. It's off the table.

Slightly off topic, but I think maybe Rachael Maddow might step in for Olbermann tomorrow night. They hinted but were not explicit about it tonight.

Jonathon Turley:

I know John Yoo, and it's very personally disappointing to see his name on these memos.

Heh, I've sat in the office on the video clip where Yoo is shown at his desk. (At least, I think that's the office.) Just sat there chatting with him about the Constitution and civil liberties. He's a nice guy in person -- always willing to listen to me when I disagreed with him. It was all very creepy sitting there and talking to him knowing what he's done for this administration.

I think that at the end of this terrible legacy, I think many lawyers will be ashamed of the role that we played, even those of us who opposed it.

When I was in law school, even we students were talking about the actions we should take vis-a-vis Prof. Yoo. After all, we couldn't quite participate in the protests some groups staged during our classes. (Or, I suppose we could have, but it did not behoove us, since our grades and degrees depended in part on the person we would protest right there in our own class.) It was all quite troubling.

By the way, I recently saw Taxi to the Dark Side. Very good, very sad, very infuriating documentary. I highly recommend it. Especially if you'd like to continue to be upset with John Yoo.

Jesse Ventura recently did an earth-shaking interview with Alex Jones...

he says that something the government says isn't true.

Truth B Told @ 27:

Jesse Ventura recently did an earth-shaking interview with Alex Jones...

he says that something the government says isn't true.

Well....what did he say for God's sake?

Congress has spoken. The administration has not broken the law. All of this is perfectly legal and appropriate.

According to Turley, "The president ordered war crimes." My kid almost fell off the couch when he heard that part.

"What are you guys going to do about it?" My son looked @ me & I wanted to shout that we'll impeach the son-of-a-bitch, but then I remembered that impeachment is off the goddamned table...

JImbo @ 6:

They believe (that is the Democratic Congress believes) that if they attempt to impeach then Bush will declare martial law and himself ruler under any number of unitary executive assertions Bush has made.

There have been rumors to this effect and this is the only logical reason I can fathom for their behavior.

Heh, there are all sorts of rumors about Bush's willingness to declare martial law. I don't put much stock in the details of them, but I do think he's capable of it.

As for Pelosi, the composition of the Senate is a large part of her calculation. She knows that conviction is basically impossible, as the Republicans are fundamentally corrupt, and will vote to acquit. Personally, I still think the House should impeach the lot of these bastards anyway, but I do know almost for certain that they will not be convicted in the Senate.

Here's another. The lies are so bad it's embarrassing:

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Top_Democrat_asks_Attorney_General_to_0403...

...

numfar @ 4:

Isn't attacking another country for their natural resources a war crime?

Depends whether or not you win....

JImbo @ 6:

They believe (that is the Democratic Congress believes) that if they attempt to impeach then Bush will declare martial law and himself ruler under any number of unitary executive assertions Bush has made.

There have been rumors to this effect and this is the only logical reason I can fathom for their behavior.

there are no excuses for Congress to fulfill their duty. if this is their excuse, then they
are just a bunch of fucking cohorts in on the crimes and justifiably deserve to
be charged likewise and tried for their part in these crimes. as always stated, there is
no excuse for ignorance of the law, especially when you are the lawmakers.

So tired... I have been witness to the destruction of a republic.
I feel so powerless.
Empathicly devoid children of privilege rule the roost.

Abbybwood @ 39:

Karen says:

"As for impeachment, the Constitution grants the sole power to impeach to the House of Representatives. It’s the only body in the government that can impeach any officer. And impeachment is simply an indictment. It’s officially bringing charges against a government officer, who then gets a trial. The trial takes place in the Senate. The Constitution grants the Senate the sole power to try impeachments, and 67 Senators must vote guilty in order to convict."

Thanks very much for the clarifications. But I would like you to explain to me why the Senate created a Special Committee to look into Nixon and the Watergate break-in. It was either during these televised hearings or just after that the House Judiciary took up impeachment, which I understood would have ended up in a trial on the Senate side.

Here's the question: Why can't the Senate create a Special Committee to have public hearings regarding the Justice Department and the issue of torture with Bush/Cheney (just as they did with Watergate)?

Back then, the Senate did what it did because it felt that it should. The Senate hearings in the 70s led the House to begin impeachment proceedings against President Nixon, but Nixon resigned before the House floor voted. He knew impeachment was inevitable after the Senate hearings, and he knew that the Republicans in the Senate were likely to convict him right along with the Democrats. Back then, the Republicans were not hopelessly corrupt as a party.

There's no legal reason today's Senate can't do the same to Bush -- to demonstrate to the House the necessity of impeachment or to pressure administration officials into resigning. There's no Constitutional impediment to the Senate conducting its own investigation if it feels like it. But that's the problem. It doesn't feel like it.

Today's Republican Party is hopelessly corrupt, and it controls virtually half the Senate. We're much more likely to get the House members to vote to impeach, but even if we do, the Senate will never convict. The House would be going to trial with a rigged jury.

"The only thing we don’t have is a group picture with a detainee attached to electrical wires."

Really? I thought we already had pictures of hooded detainees standing on boxes with outstretched arms, wires attached to hands and genitals.

Bob Roberts @ 45:

Karen @ 35:

JImbo @ 6:

They believe (that is the Democratic Congress believes) that if they attempt to impeach then Bush will declare martial law and himself ruler under any number of unitary executive assertions Bush has made.

There have been rumors to this effect and this is the only logical reason I can fathom for their behavior.

Heh, there are all sorts of rumors about Bush's willingness to declare martial law. I don't put much stock in the details of them, but I do think he's capable of it.

As for Pelosi, the composition of the Senate is a large part of her calculation. She knows that conviction is basically impossible, as the Republicans are fundamentally corrupt, and will vote to acquit. Personally, I still think the House should impeach the lot of these bastards anyway, but I do know almost for certain that they will not be convicted in the Senate.

Attempting to impeach and failing would very likely boost GOP fortunes in the upcoming election.

At this stage in the game, you're probably correct. In early 2007, I don't think that would have been the case. I think pressure could have been placed on the many Republicans who would have clearly voted to acquit for political reasons and out of corruption. Several would have lost the jobs once the House presented its evidence, and they still voted to acquit. At least, I see that as a once-possible scenario. But we can't really know.

Rather than post comments about the Democrats being spineless or "pussies" as some have, instead, work to raise public awareness of the GOP crimes. If enough Democrats had been elected, Bush would have been impeached. Of course, if enough Democrats had been elected, Bush would not have been....

I feel compelled again to play my broken record. We really need comprehensive electoral reform in this country. The Senate is a flawed body of democracy that dramatically over-represents rural, conservative areas. And our single-member districts and winner-takes-all voting system is killing us. Our electoral system fosters and perpetuates the kind of government we have.

So, absolutely, we need to be out there educating people about the Bush Administration's crimes. We also need to be fighting to reform the way in which we elect people to office in this country.

SadButTrue @ 47:

They could I suppose change the oath of office for congresscritters, so it says, "I swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America when it's convenient, politically expedient, and it doesn't interfere with my manicure appointment or affect my golf swing."

At least that would be more transparent to the American public.

YourMom @ 34:

By not dealing with this issue, congress is complicit in the use of torture.
The message to the rest of the world is "We are with Bush on this."

As a Canadian who watches a LOT of the American political drama I can assure you that it is very rare indeed to see a US political candidate question the idea that America has a right to act unilaterally in any part of the world they choose. To express such feelings they would invite attack as being unpatriotic. Christ, Limbaugh would feast on any Dem who even hinted at such a thing.

Sad. But true.

Ron Paul was one who said the US had no business being policeman of the world. He was 100% right about that and no one called him unpatriotic. I of course hated his racist newsletters but that's another issue.

burpster @ 11:

Screw the politicians. Check your mirrors.

The average american doesn't really give a shit about whats being done in their names, if they did this admin would be in leg irons by now.

There are many Republicans and their enablers in the corporate media that are deserving of a blindfold and a cigarette. They are traitors and deserving of a traitors fate.

Bob Roberts @ 41:

Abbybwood @ 13:

numfar @ 4:

Isn't attacking another country for their natural resources a war crime?

Here is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights passed in the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. The United States is a member of the U.N. and our Constitution clearly says that all treaties we are signatories to become "the highest law of the land":

http://www.gpln.com/udhr.html#readudhr

According to this, I'd say our pre-emptive invasion and occupation of Iraq (based on lies, trickery, fraud and deceit) would constitute a war crime. Particularly when hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings have been murdered/maimed and we have used depleted uranium munitions which will render the entire nation of Iraq to be probably the biggest cluster area of cancers and malformed infants on Earth....forever.

Sure sounds like a war crime to me. The reason I feel there are no impeachment hearings is that the entire Congress knows they are just as guilty as the Bush Administration since they have all been "going along to get along" passing the necessary legislation and funding all of it. The American People are just as guilty for not DEMANDING the truth and a total cessation of hostilities and our soldiers are guilty for not following the orders of the UCMJ which demands they follow only LAWFUL orders.

The minute any soldier knew what he/she was doing was illegal, they had not only the right, but the duty to stand down and be courts martialed if necessary. Had enough soldiers stood down and done the right thing we would have been out of there long before "Mission Accomplished".

And that's the f*@king truth.

I follow the first part of what you're saying, but have some trouble with the rest. You make the point that soldiers should have stood down and been courtmartialed. With respect, you are not in their position. If you truly feel this way, join the armed forces and then take your own advice. Otherwise, this looks like the left wing version of conservative chickenhawkery.

I am too old to join the armed forces. When I was of an age to join the Vietnam War was raging and I was opposed to it and never would have joined.

Hi Nancy! Say, is that whole impeachment thing still "off the table?"

How about your House career? Oh, that's off the table, too?

Well, you could hardly expect people to forget, what with all that newfangled internet stuff...

The Bastards in Congress don't want to deal with it because they are making too much money off of the war!

Lawmakers heavily invested in defense

WASHINGTON - Members of Congress have as much as $196 million collectively invested in companies doing business with the Defense Department, earning millions since the onset of the Iraq war, according to a study by a nonpartisan research group.

Not all the companies in which lawmakers invested are typical defense contractors. Corporations such as PepsiCo, IBM, Microsoft and Johnson & Johnson have at one point received defense-related contracts, notes the report by the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics.

The center's review of lawmakers' 2006 financial disclosure statements suggests that members' holdings could pose a conflict of interest as they decide the fate of Iraq war spending. Several members earning money from these contractors have plum committee or leadership assignments, including Democratic Sen. John Kerry, independent Sen. Joseph Lieberman and House Republican Whip Roy Blunt.

The study found that more Republicans than Democrats hold stock in defense companies, but that the Democrats who are invested had significantly more money at stake. In 2006, for example, Democrats held at least $3.7 million in military-related investments, compared to Republican investments of $577,500.

Overall, 151 members hold investments worth $78.7 million to $195.5 million in companies that receive defense contracts that are worth at least $5 million. These investments earned them anywhere between $15.8 million and $62 million between 2004 and 2006, the center concludes.

It is unclear how many members still hold these investments and exactly how much money has been made. Disclosure reports for 2007 aren't due until this May. Also, members are required to report only a general range of their holdings.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080403/ap_on_go_co/congress_defense_investm...

General Butler was right... war is a racket!

War Crimes
Trials in international courts

I don't think it will happen.

JImbo @ 6:

They believe (that is the Democratic Congress believes) that if they attempt to impeach then Bush will declare martial law and himself ruler under any number of unitary executive assertions Bush has made.

There have been rumors to this effect and this is the only logical reason I can fathom for their behavior.

I have heard this as well

RickinSF Says: Dirty @ 2:

Even after all this time and all of these revelations….these people just…it just knocks the wind out of me. Oi….

I’m with you there, the elemental shamelessness is breathtaking.

-------------------------
Thanks RickinSF, I have to admit, I thought I'd catch flak for the fact that I feel sick with the new details. After all, I know I shouldn't be surprised, but you hit the nail on the head, "shamlessness"... Lets keep up the fight. What else is there.

Sacred duty to stand with the law MY ASS.
Turley is a good guy as a human being but not as a lawyer.

Bob Roberts @ 46:

Karen @ 35:

JImbo @ 6:

They believe (that is the Democratic Congress believes) that if they attempt to impeach then Bush will declare martial law and himself ruler under any number of unitary executive assertions Bush has made.

There have been rumors to this effect and this is the only logical reason I can fathom for their behavior.

Heh, there are all sorts of rumors about Bush's willingness to declare martial law. I don't put much stock in the details of them, but I do think he's capable of it.

As for Pelosi, the composition of the Senate is a large part of her calculation. She knows that conviction is basically impossible, as the Republicans are fundamentally corrupt, and will vote to acquit. Personally, I still think the House should impeach the lot of these bastards anyway, but I do know almost for certain that they will not be convicted in the Senate.

Attempting to impeach and failing would very likely boost GOP fortunes in the upcoming election. Rather than post comments about the Democrats being spineless or "pussies" as some have, instead, work to raise public awareness of the GOP crimes. If enough Democrats had been elected, Bush would have been impeached. Of course, if enough Democrats had been elected, Bush would not have been....

You are wrong! Nothing would bring more public awareness to Bush's criminality than an impeachment hearing. This is not about democrats and republicans, this is about a criminally-corrupt executive branch that think's it's above the law. That is something that should never be tolerated in this country.

Karen @ 32:

Abbybwood @ 5:

Would someone kindly explain to me why everyone seems to think Nancy Pelosi has the power to decide if/when impeachment proceedings should begin against Bush/Cheney?

She doesn't have unilateral power simply to decide. However, as the Speaker of the House, she has a great deal of control over what bills actually make it to the committees and to the House floor. Although many in Congress do want to impeach members of the administration, many of those do not want to go against the Speaker on the issue. Ultimately, a majority of the House has to vote to impeach. And that's very unlikely.

Remember when the whole Watergate fiasco went down? It was a full SENATE vote that decided to name a Special Committee for Hearings...NOT THE HOUSE!!!

http://www.ford.utexas.edu/museum/exhibits/watergate_files/content.php?s...

It was the Senate Committee that ordered the House Judiciary Committee to draw up the articles of impeachment after the public hearings had taken place and everyone started singing (Dean etc.)

Just seems to me we are looking at the whole impeachment scenario bass ackwards.

Please advise. I do believe lots of folks on this thread would appreciate having a better understanding of the process.

We're not looking at it backwards at all. Either chamber of Congress may hold hearings and conduct investigations. If the Senate uncovers evidence which it then shows to the House, the House can decide whether the evidence demands impeachment proceedings. Though the House Judiciary Committee would likely conduct its own hearings on the evidence once it looked at the evidence.

However, the Senate has no authority to order the House to do anything. They are co-equal chambers of Congress, and neither can tell the other what to do.

As for impeachment, the Constitution grants the sole power to impeach to the House of Representatives. It's the only body in the government that can impeach any officer. And impeachment is simply an indictment. It's officially bringing charges against a government officer, who then gets a trial. The trial takes place in the Senate. The Constitution grants the Senate the sole power to try impeachments, and 67 Senators must vote guilty in order to convict.

And I'm happy to answer any other questions on this process, or other Constitutional matters to the best of my ability. :)

That's how I remember Watergate!

SadButTrue @ 7:

Has anybody mentioned yet that the theory Yoo proposes, ie that abuse of a prisoner is an extension of the idea of justification by self-defense - and that self defense is also a viable defense in a murder case?

I've mentioned before the terrible logic that would overcome a torturer when he found a victim to be totally innocent. The entire presumption that theoretically supports his action has just collapsed. Now he (the torturer) must kill his victim in order to protect himself from prosecution for war crimes, and to protect the government for having sanctioned it. It would be very surprising indeed if this tragic and deadly scenario has not played itself out in Afghanistan, Cuba and Iraq dozens if not hundreds of times. In that sense the US has finally become a member of the network of banana republics of South America where they have been training, equipping and financing torturers and murderers for decades.

I really couldn't be more disgusted.

In Vietnam, we employed torture that exceeded that documented over the past several years. In fact, it was outright murder. Fortunately, I did not have to personally be involved ...... mostly. After I spent my time on an M60, I moved to 'unarmed' helicopter missions. These were mainly intelligence, rescue and recon missions. We would drop SEAL teams and/or extract them. Sometimes the SEALs were doing 'snatch' missions. They were the world's best kidnappers, and probably still are. On some extractions, the SEALs would have one, or more, VC captives in 'Christmas wrapping'. They were handed over to NI and the CIA. I know that these poor chaps suffered brutally. I also know that many did not survive interrogation. One method used to gain immediate information, was to take a handful of captives up for a helicopter tour of the countryside. They would have two known 'low grade' guys, or women, and they would feign to answer questions, and when they could not, push them to their death. (they selected areas where Charlie could later see the results) The others were quickly more forthcoming with information. I admit, I did not witness any of this myself. I would rate it 90% probable. I got the stories from guys who were involved with it.

Prediction One - Congress will not move to impeach Bush, Cheney or othrs in the current administration. Why? Short term political cowardice.
Predicition Two - If Prediction One comes to pass by convention time (ie August/September), the chances of some form of "event" (like some form of miltary strike aginst another country) could happen resulting in martial law will be high (here's hoping that I am completly wrong on this - given the absolute cowardice by Congress since 2007 on impeachment, the administration could be emboldened to try something).

With regards to the impeachment issue broadly:
* if nothing happens then the question can be quite rightly asked "How can a President be impeached for an adultrous affair whilst another President cannot be impeached for going to war illegally"? If this senario happens - I will be VERY concerned as it opens up the possibility of a fringe group (whether religious or secular) contesting the Congressional elections on a platform of perverted accountability;
* If impeachment happens (up tro the House of Reps alone to decide) and fails the issues that Keith Olbermann, Crooks and Liars and others have raised will be ventilated and people (and MSM) will be forced to listen. If impeachment succeeds (ie 67 votes to convict) then the benchmark will be set - lie on matters of life and death and you will be held accountable.

Leslie @ 70:

Karen @ 32:

Abbybwood @ 5:

Thanks Karen! Rep. John Conyers went around the country discussing impeachment at public hearings. During these, Conyers said that there was no statute of limitations on impeachment.

But the point of impeachment is to remove someone from office. Is there a precedent for impeaching someone after they leave?

Heh, I think Conyers was using a figure of speech, emphasizing that merely because impeachment was "off the table" indefinitely, there is no Constitutional impediment to impeaching this gang of thugs even as late as December '08 or January '09 if Congress changes its mind.

But you're right in that impeachment is designed to remove an official from office. Congress can't impeach Bush after he leaves. (And there'd be no point anyway, since the "punishment" upon conviction is forcible removal from office.)

However, nothing says (well, nothing but political reality, I suppose) that criminal charges cannot still be brought against any former member of the administration for any crimes committed during their tenure. I would certainly have no problem with the Justice Department of the next administration investigating the Bush Administration's malfeasance, and seeing whether any of them could be tossed in a dungeon somewhere, or sent off to international criminal courts.

As for whether there's any "precedent" for impeaching someone after he leaves office, there's barely any precedent for impeachment at all. Though the founders had hoped it would mark the ultimate check on runaway executives, something like only 17 federal officers have ever even been impeached. Many of them were corrupt judges. Few were convicted. And of course, only two presidents have ever been impeached, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. Neither was convicted.

;)

Bush or Cheney will never be impeached. The Democratic leaders in Congress are afraid to even attempt it. They are more concerned with their own reelection to do anything that may "stir the pot".

I myself am sick and tired of our entire government. We need to start over from scratch.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Number of Operations Iraq Freedom and Enduring Freedom casualties
as confirmed by U.S. Central Command: 4481

The sad, sad truth is, a very large number of Americans do not care. There is no public outrage of significant size from "the people". The GOP understand this and so does Rupert Murdoch (watch Fox News ignore the issue, and still remain the most watched network). Americans remain ignorant of even basic knowledge about their relationship to the rest of the world and no concept of global responsibility. They do not understand that the rest of the world is watching and listening, dumbfounded that a country that proclaims such high standards of moral behavior remains silent.

Leslie @ 78:

Robert @ 75:

Prediction One - Congress will not move to impeach Bush, Cheney or othrs in the current administration. Why? Short term political cowardice.
Predicition Two - If Prediction One comes to pass by convention time (ie August/September), the chances of some form of "event" (like some form of miltary strike aginst another country) could happen resulting in martial law will be high (here's hoping that I am completly wrong on this - given the absolute cowardice by Congress since 2007 on impeachment, the administration could be emboldened to try something).

With regards to the impeachment issue broadly:
* if nothing happens then the question can be quite rightly asked "How can a President be impeached for an adultrous affair whilst another President cannot be impeached for going to war illegally"? If this senario happens - I will be VERY concerned as it opens up the possibility of a fringe group (whether religious or secular) contesting the Congressional elections on a platform of perverted accountability;
* If impeachment happens (up tro the House of Reps alone to decide) and fails the issues that Keith Olbermann, Crooks and Liars and others have raised will be ventilated and people (and MSM) will be forced to listen. If impeachment succeeds (ie 67 votes to convict) then the benchmark will be set - lie on matters of life and death and you will be held accountable.

You know, another problem with impeaching Bush, is that we'd be stuck with Cheney.

I've long said they should impeach Cheney first. He's far less likable than his unlikable boss, and even many Republicans might get on board with kicking him out. There might have been the political momentum to actually convict Cheney. Not probable, but possible.

Moreover, removing Cheney would largely castrate Bush, and the Democrats would have a huge say in who the next VP was. And once that VP were chosen, then it would be time to go after Bush.

But I dream big. :)

Not only are lawyers involved with this mess so were military and possibly civilian Doctors who oversaw the torture and monitored detainees to a point just above death and may have revived some whose hearts had failed.

Karen @ 72:

NoGWBpolicyleftinplace @ 69:

Bob Roberts @ 46:

Karen @ 35:

Attempting to impeach and failing would very likely boost GOP fortunes in the upcoming election. Rather than post comments about the Democrats being spineless or "pussies" as some have, instead, work to raise public awareness of the GOP crimes. If enough Democrats had been elected, Bush would have been impeached. Of course, if enough Democrats had been elected, Bush would not have been....

You are wrong! Nothing would bring more public awareness to Bush's criminality than an impeachment hearing.

True, but we also have to remember that the right-wing noise machine will be doing everything in its power to spin the news. And if Bush and gang were acquitted in the Senate (which they most likely would be), the media would drone on endlessly about how the acquittal equals a complete vindication, how clearly the Bushies did nothing wrong, and only an overzealous Democratic Party is to blame for America's bad image.

Not that we necessarily shouldn't impeach them anyway, but we have to consider all that as part of the picture, and prepare for it.

This is not about democrats and republicans, this is about a criminally-corrupt executive branch that think's it's above the law. That is something that should never be tolerated in this country.

Absolutely. But the Republicans are corrupt, and the Senate would acquit.

We can't do things (or not do things) because of a fear of the right wing noise machine. They will always be there, and they will always try to twist logic to their ridiculous ends. We must do things because they are the right things to do, and because we are compelled to do them by our allegiance to the Constitution and the needs of our country and its future citizens. Our representatives have a constitutional obligation to investigate this.

There is a very easy and politically palatable way to do this. Hold hearings. Conyers can do this tomorrow. The memo is in the public domain, and Yoo was an employee of the Office of Special Council at the Pentagon - not Bush's personal attorney. So, subpoena the motherfucker (oh, I'm sorry, the nice law professor who writes sick, revolting opinions) and find out who asked for the opinion and why they asked for it.

I know John Conyers. The dude has sack er, cajones er, guts and a sense of obligation. He needs to do this, and if anyone in the Democratic party or caucus leadership is holding him back (I'm looking at you, Steny) they should take whatever kind of viagra for their conscience that they need.

Old Billy Hussein @ 85:

This is not about democrats and republicans, this is about a criminally-corrupt executive branch that think's it's above the law. That is something that should never be tolerated in this country.

Absolutely. But the Republicans are corrupt, and the Senate would acquit.

We can't do things (or not do things) because of a fear of the right wing noise machine. They will always be there, and they will always try to twist logic to their ridiculous ends. We must do things because they are the right things to do, and because we are compelled to do them by our allegiance to the Constitution and the needs of our country and its future citizens. Our representatives have a constitutional obligation to investigate this.

There is a very easy and politically palatable way to do this. Hold hearings. Conyers can do this tomorrow. The memo is in the public domain, and Yoo was an employee of the Office of Special Council at the Pentagon - not Bush's personal attorney. So, subpoena the motherfucker (oh, I'm sorry, the nice law professor who writes sick, revolting opinions) and find out who asked for the opinion and why they asked for it.

I know John Conyers. The dude has sack er, cajones er, guts and a sense of obligation. He needs to do this, and if anyone in the Democratic party or caucus leadership is holding him back (I'm looking at you, Steny) they should take whatever kind of viagra for their conscience that they need.

They have been holding hearings. But what happens after they hold hearings? The DOJ is controlled by Bush remember.

Whoops, I mean Congress has some recourse beyond the DOJ, but I believe it’s limited.

Old Billy Hussein @ 90:

Oops, I didn't mean to include the #79 comment.

Maybe I'm too tired to continue kvetching about this. I have been placing a weekly call to Blumenauer and Conyers. I guess I'll do that again in the morning.

[FIFY. Took out #79-Sitemonitor]

Final word from the defense.."God told me"

I'm sorry, but I really don't have much faith in the Democrats at all at this point. This is just pathetic.

the munz @ 97:

Beelzebud @ 96:

I'm sorry, but I really don't have much faith in the Democrats at all at this point. This is just pathetic.

No, it's the GOP having the numbers because not enough people care. Start a "people's movement".

If Nader was "fair dinkum" he would be in there "having a go". ("*"...aussie slang)

Good old John Yu.
Talk about having no scruples whatsoever. He should have known better.
disgusting

McCain the Liar @ 99:

The f@%king whore Pelosi says "impeachment is off the table".

Hi Randi... :)

Bob Roberts @ 42:

Abbybwood @ 13:

numfar @ 4:

Isn't attacking another country for their natural resources a war crime?

Here is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights passed in the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. The United States is a member of the U.N. and our Constitution clearly says that all treaties we are signatories to become "the highest law of the land":

http://www.gpln.com/udhr.html#readudhr

According to this, I'd say our pre-emptive invasion and occupation of Iraq (based on lies, trickery, fraud and deceit) would constitute a war crime. Particularly when hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings have been murdered/maimed and we have used depleted uranium munitions which will render the entire nation of Iraq to be probably the biggest cluster area of cancers and malformed infants on Earth....forever.

Sure sounds like a war crime to me. The reason I feel there are no impeachment hearings is that the entire Congress knows they are just as guilty as the Bush Administration since they have all been "going along to get along" passing the necessary legislation and funding all of it. The American People are just as guilty for not DEMANDING the truth and a total cessation of hostilities and our soldiers are guilty for not following the orders of the UCMJ which demands they follow only LAWFUL orders.

The minute any soldier knew what he/she was doing was illegal, they had not only the right, but the duty to stand down and be courts martialed if necessary. Had enough soldiers stood down and done the right thing we would have been out of there long before "Mission Accomplished".

And that's the f*@king truth.

I follow the first part of what you're saying, but have some trouble with the rest. You make the point that soldiers should have stood down and been courtmartialed. With respect, you are not in their position. If you truly feel this way, join the armed forces and then take your own advice. Otherwise, this looks like the left wing version of conservative chickenhawkery.

Following orders does NOT pass the muster.
Following orders did NOT exonerate.
Following orders made them equally guilty.

I SUPPORT THE TROOPS
... TO REFUSE ILLEGAL ORDERS!

Americans are doing exactly what the Russians were doing at the time they were strong enough to tell the world to "fuck off!"

Like enslavering half of Europe, sending Tanks to Chechoslovakia, invading Afganistan, importing Communism (you call it democracy;-) all over the Globe - we used to have a joke about the Russians back in the 70s - that their president allegedly said: "We are ready and determined to defend our national interests at any point of the Earth!" - which actually doesn´t sound like a joke any more after everything America has done to the rest of the world.

Sorry, guys, basicly you are the same ignoratt and arrogant bunch of asswholes with imperialistic view of the world and incurable mania for exceptionalism and greatness...

Yes, you trialed torture as a war crime once - because then there were American soldiers being tortured - now, when it's "enemy combatants" being tortured, the crime oligarchy calles it legal, and the rest of you can peacefully live with that...

Maybe I should remind you of other jokes we used to have about the Russians and their greatness-mania - like "The Russian watches are the fastest in the world!" or "The Russian midget is the biggest in the world"...

And it all starts at home - with your stupid right to bear arms and kill each other in situatioans where the normal people just get a couple of fists changed...

These soldiers were too eager to follow those unlawfull orders - no wonder - I still can not imagine a normal person signing up to be a soldier willingly, escept if he's a trigger happy maniac.

Maybe you really need the draft, so the 60s movement be revived and the rest of you who don´t agree with this leave their PC-chairs and take to the streets.

If any attempt were made to hold these criminals accountable Bush would simply issue a PARDON. I expect him to issue a blanket pardon for his entire administration the day before he leaves office. Don't know if that would hold any water at The Hague, but I don't think they will ever face any kind of American justice.

Can we put this Yoo guy in jail???

The media would spin it into Democratic shenanigans before an election, the idiot public would agree, McCain would get elected. So if they wait until after Bush is out of office, is that too late to get him on something related to war crimes? Surely it doesn't just have to come in the form of a presidential impeachment, right?

i'd say FUCK AMERICA! but it's already being done. shit, it's destruction is almost complete.

it's all over but the shouting.

Janet @ 3:

Turley:”…It’s really amazing, Congress, including the Democrats, have avoided any type of investigation into torture because they do not want to deal with the fact that the president ordered war crimes.

I will never understand. Not as long as I live, will I understand why they won't investigate and bring charges of war crimes. Torture is really only one aspect of it. Many war crimes have been commited. What is their fear? Looking at it from my point of view, I would think they would come out as heroes in the eyes of at least 70% of Americans and change the views other countries now have of us. What am I missing?

Ultimately, this is why democrats aren't trusted on security issues. They have this one on a silver platter and they're afraid to touch it. They have no excuse.

I was really excited after the 2006 elections de-throned the republicans and put Dems in charge. It didn't take long for me to become extremely disheartened. They have every excuse in the book. First it was because they weren't in power and didn't have the numbers to stop the republicans. Then when they did have the numbers it was because one lone republican could fillibuster and be an "obstructionist."

So why didn't dems fillibuster when they were the minority. If they couldn't stop the republicans when they were in power why can the republicans stop them now?

So now we're excited all over again because the 2008 election is the dem's to lose. So let's say we have Prez Obama or Clinton and stronger numbers in the houses. Frankly I still don't see much changing.

I'd like to see the whole government come tumbling down and rebuilt from scratch. It would take a lot of talent to make it worse than what we have now.

Anonymous Source @ 112:

The media would spin it into Democratic shenanigans before an election, the idiot public would agree, McCain would get elected. So if they wait until after Bush is out of office, is that too late to get him on something related to war crimes? Surely it doesn't just have to come in the form of a presidential impeachment, right?

HOPEFULLY, they have something like that planned...IF bushy leaves quietly that is...

Someone needs to do something/anything, because most people are numb and apathetic. Even if the rumor of impeachment was out there [with a list of the reasons] it will be recorded for history's sake. In the future it shouldn't be said "The crimes were right there and nobody did anything!'' Force this administration to have to go on record,at least, so if the Constitution can be restored, History will have the clearest picture possible about what has happened to us.

You know that when your country is modeling detainee treatment on a Faux TV show, you're FUCKED.

Checks and balances in American government, RIP.

JImbo @ 6:

They believe (that is the Democratic Congress believes) that if they attempt to impeach then Bush will declare martial law and himself ruler under any number of unitary executive assertions Bush has made.

There have been rumors to this effect and this is the only logical reason I can fathom for their behavior.

I'm just speculating based on what I have seen...but...clearly...there is a view somewhere that there is something "wrong" with this President. It may even be documented.

That would play into the above. Also, the GOP really screwed up the government with their assbackwards impeachment of President Clinton...which was only retribution for Nixon.

This is why playing politics with THE LAW is dangerous, and it simply reinforces the view that the far right wing in this country and the neocons care only about their agenda and not the country at large.

No one wants to put the country through another impeachment, AND if this lunatic does declare martial law or put out some ridiculous executive order that the Congress cannot impeach him because we're at war or some other ridiculous "John Yoo" justification, then the country is faced with a Constitutional crisis. A crisis that would occur with most of the National Guard out of the country, most of the military out of the country and with "Administration cronies, apologists and enablers" heading up most of the major agencies AND the senior military.

No, I'm not being alarmist...I'm merely stating facts and speculating on what COULD happen given those facts.

At the end of the day, society remains intact so long as the people trust their government. As far as I can tell, only 20-25% of the population trusts this Administration.

DavidKris @ 54:

Next time we hear Bush talk about supporting the troops - can the media remind people that he let the troops hang for conducting torture that he approved, no, insisted on...

They are good at finding scapegoats. I watched "Bad Voodoo" on Frontline this week. It's a documentary comprised almost entirely of videos taken by soldiers with their own words to tell the story.
It brings home what these brave people are sacrificing for this war. It tore my heart out. Bush Co. isn't simply content using the troops as cannon fodder but he is willing to sacrifice their honor.

I know, I know and there's gambling in Casablanca, but geez.

JImbo @ 6:

They believe (that is the Democratic Congress believes) that if they attempt to impeach then Bush will declare martial law and himself ruler under any number of unitary executive assertions Bush has made.

There have been rumors to this effect and this is the only logical reason I can fathom for their behavior.

The question is - would the citizenry allow it or would Bush's private army - Blackwater- mow us down en masse when the protests started. There was a time when I couldn't envision a scenario like this, but how times have changed. Those who elected Bush should be very ashamed at what this man has done to our Country and our wonderful Constitution.

LADIES AND GENLTEMANNNNN, THE AMAZING TURLEY!

THE ONLY CONSTITIONAL LAWYER IN AMERICA!!!!

i'm so tired of looking at this guy. Yes, we know, you think Bush is horrible. is he the only lawyer that does?

missmarple @ 130:

JImbo @ 6:

They believe (that is the Democratic Congress believes) that if they attempt to impeach then Bush will declare martial law and himself ruler under any number of unitary executive assertions Bush has made.

There have been rumors to this effect and this is the only logical reason I can fathom for their behavior.

The question is - would the citizenry allow it or would Bush's private army - Blackwater- mow us down en masse when the protests started. There was a time when I couldn't envision a scenario like this, but how times have changed. Those who elected Bush should be very ashamed at what this man has done to our Country and our wonderful Constitution.

Well...if the people could unite and act as one, then blackwater wouldn't stand a chance, though at first, they'd definitely kill ALOT of civilians...they have a 12ga. fully automatic shotgun that fires grenades, it can be mounted on top of their APC's and fired remotely...very devastating...that's just one weapon among many they have in their arsenal. If it comes to a pitched battle, we'd stand no chance, we'd HAVE to resort to guerilla tactics...and try to get the US Military to fight with us...
I HOPE I'm wrong, and we have elections in nov...and everything can start returning to normal...

That doesn't make any sense. By that definition one could say the Inquisition didn't torture anyone, because they released them to the secular authorities to execute the prisoners, although the secular authorities had little choice due to the threat of interdiction. Prisoners were then burned at the stake, and although some would argue they were strangled before being burnt, although Jacques De Molay and Urban GrandierI were burned alive. I find that strangulation to be dubious, since the screaming death by flames was what would remind the crowds of the horrors of hellfire for opposing the Church.

EVery state has thier own const. Gov Gray Davis was recalled in Ca, can't we start recalling Govs on at at time and then restoring State Malia and equ. It is time for seccession. Remember we can't lose this fight or it is certain death.

The new national mentality seems to be that the constitution was a nice document, and made us quite proud of ourselves, but now that we've had the bejeezus scared out of us by 9/11, we can no longer afford that quaint luxury. In its being relegated to the wastebasket, it has taken with it our standing as the leaders of the free world.

I now believe that the true horror of what is unraveling is the Democrats know, knew all along, about complicity in 9/11 and of every disaster since re an illegal occupation, illegal torture (no matter what someone like Yoo says). Look at Jane Harmon the other day. She of the gang of 8 DID NOT KNOW (???) that we were illegally wiretapping? Every one of them (perhaps not Kucinich) has oil or weapons money in their coffers. I think that they all agreed to do nothing, from day 1. It is hard to stomach. I think that the experiment of our democracy is a proven failure, by our own hands.

p.s. there is no 'self-defense' here. It is only valid at the scene of a crime, to protect oneself. You cannot claim self-defense to protect a nation from 'terror'. What crap Yoo has spewed. Every lawyer knows it. The federal laws violated by the words in his memo is in-your-face the stuff of war crimes.

jack damage @ 144:

I already ranted about John Yoo yesterday.. I won't belabor the obvious... All I got to add is haul his ass away in shackles and handcuffs to the same holding cell as Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Feith, Wolfowitz.... Did I leave anyone out?? I'm damn sure I left someone out... That list is way too small....
Give em all counsel for defence, give em all fair trials, publicly televised fair trials so noone forgets... Then do what Judge Roy Bean would do..............JD

Addington

[Deleted. DO NOT advocate violence on this site-Sitemonitor] These two and many others have been torturing me and America for the last 8+ years. Hey! War crimes without punishment, we've come a long way baby!

The bloggers here are continually kidding themselves.

The Dems are as much behind the pro-Israel, pro-Empire and pro Destruction of America and evolution of the police state as Bush ever has been. They won't impeach Bush because they know if they did, their political careers would be over in a heartbeat. They are all compromised, corrupted and bought. The Dems also hope to have access to these police state powers when they are in office. And the beat will go on and on and on.

Until you recognize what is going on in plain sight right in front of your eyes, you can do nothing to really address the problem. And the real problem is that the Dems and the Repugs are part and parcel of the same war party. And owned by the same interests which unfortunately don't include the average American citizen.

The Dems will bluster and express outrage, but to paraphraze Shakespear, they are a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Bush could be seen to be raping children and they would still claim they "don't have the votes." Effectively Bush has been through Executive Powers, and still he remains president.

Shame on America.