Skip to main content

View Diary: Why we are obligated to impeach (129 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Horrors, all.... (0+ / 0-)

    ....but is it an impeachable offense to fail to see the clues that 9/11 was coming, to fail to be a good Samaritan and come to the aid of the people of City of New Orleans? The prosecution of the war based on lies is probably impeachable, but as any prosecutor will tell you, some cases are better than others, and if you are going after the Duke LaCrosse team, you had better have your duckies in order.

    The bottom line is, there is no popular support for impeachment. Period. Ignore the polls. People say one thing....and then do another. Also, it is easier to say yes to an abstract than to the paralyzing horror of an impeachment. Recall that while Bill Clinton was being impeached, Bin Ladin was plotting 9/11.

    Our hold on Congress is tenuous. If we had a super-majority in the Senate, then I might say go for it. Even then every expert I have have heard has said that we got nothing on this guy. You need evidence first.

    "I am my brother's keeper. I am a Democrat." -- That's your slogan, Democrats.

    by Bensdad on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 10:17:17 PM PST

    •  So if the polls are not accurate.... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nehark, Compound F, luckydog, keikekaze

      ...then how do you know "there is no popular support for impeachment"?

      Please share.

      •  I'll share (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Bensdad

        I haven't seen a poll yet (including Tuesday's exit polling) where impeachment came in as one of the sample's top 5 (or even 10) priorities or reasons for voting. I think voters elected Dems to implement those priorities, and impeachment, although lots of people might favor it, isn't one of them.

        The best revenge (and that's all impeachment would be, since the process wouldn't complete until sometime after the 2008 election) is living well, and coincidentally that category fits most of Americans' top five or ten priorities.

        Now you share how you know impeachment is a significant priority for most Amercians.

        In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. - George Orwell

        by badger on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 10:36:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's not about revenge (13+ / 0-)
          for God's sake, why do people keep saying this.

          This is about doing what's right.

          This isn't even about politics!   This is about punishing criminal behavior.

          At this point I don't even care that Bush has an (R) after his name.  We all know the (R) means nothing to him, it means about as much as his supposed "Christianity".

          The (R) is just part of the sheep's clothing.  It's part of the disguise.   Everybody knows it's easier to con the right-wing with God, Guns, Gays, and 9/11.

          Bush is NOT a Republican.  He is not a patriot.  He is the tool of a cabal of international gangsters who hijacked our country, ran our military into the ground, fattened many a war profiteer, stuck us with the bill, laughed his ass off at what he was getting away with, lied through his teeth the entire way through, and now that he's busted wants to make nice.

          Bush and his cronies are monsters.   They have committed grave crimes against humanity, against the United States, and against the world.  

          Politics has absolutely NOTHING to do with this.

          I welcome true patriotic Republican Americans who actually stand up for Republican values.   Those men and women at least believe in something that they'll fight for.  

          The Bush cabal is not included among them.

          Don't you get it that it was Republicans that just rejected these goons?  

          I'd say Republicans are more in favor of impeachment than Kossacks!   Which is an extremely disturbing revelation!!!

          •  Remember Setting Precedence (7+ / 0-)

            Well said!

            If we don't act, think of the precedence set. What could future presidents do, if we do nothing?

          •  Nope (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            tomhodukavich

            I asked for "significant priority" not "majority support". Majorities support all kinds of things, but when people are asked "what determines your vote" or "what are the most important issues", I've never seen impeachment in the top 5 or 10 responses. I've seen Iraq, security, health care, the economy - all the things the Dems will be working on.

            I haven't seen impeachment on any of those lists.

            How do you know that your majority (and a bare majority at that) wants Congress to do impeachment first? How do you know they want impeachment to the exclusion of all other action, because in reality that's what it will require?

            In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. - George Orwell

            by badger on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 12:12:23 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Of course it is (0+ / 0-)

            It didn't take you long to get to "punish", and that what it's all about.

            If punishment were rehabilitative, recidivism rates would be low - they're not.

            If punishment was effective deterrence, than Nixon's impeachment would have prevented Bush's crimes; Clinton's impeachment should have stopped Foley.

            If it isn't about rehabilitation or deterrence, than it's about retribution, revenge, whatever you want to call it.

            As to Republicans being more in favor (and I certainly wouldn't take that as an argument in favor of anything), that just underscores the revenge/punishment idea. Republicans want nothing more than revenge against Bush for bursting their little bubble of omnipotence and a 1000 year Reich.

            As to it being "what's right", do you truly believe that impeaching Bush is more right than saving the lives of soldiers and civilians in Iraq, than raising the living standards of those making minimum wage, or providing health care to all Americans? It's an odd morality that would by neglect punish the majority to accomplish the punishment (your word) of a single individual.

            The whole election had a large component of retribution and revenge - not just against Bush, but against the GOP Congress and its supporters. More would be nice, but not at the expense of solving the problems that affect hundreds of millions of people.

            In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. - George Orwell

            by badger on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 12:22:32 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  ummm, (0+ / 0-)

              how would Nixon getting away with his crimes - he was pardoned remember? - deter what's happened now?

              Besides, it's NOT about punishment.  Bush Co. still have two more years to fuck our country over and you better believe they will do it.

              We need them out of office.

              And another thing, where's you fucking sense of justice?  Get your priorities straight or get the fuck out of politics!

              •  Well (0+ / 0-)

                I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or disagreeing with me. I agree Nixon (particularly the pardon, which I'd overlooked) demonstrates that impeachment isn't a particularly good deterrent for future criminal behavior by the executive.

                If you want to say it's not about punishment, fine. But the post I was responding to did use the word punishment explicitly, as have many others.

                As far as getting them out of office, I would expect an impeachment proceding and trial would conclude somewhere after November, 2008. Seems futile to me.

                My "fucking sense of justice", as you put it, is in focusing on benefits for hundreds of millions of people by ending the war in Iraq, raising the minimum wage, providing affordable health care, attacking global warming, and doing all of the other things that need to be done, as opposed to focusing on getting revenge on one single person (or as many as two if you include Cheney) that none of us likes. Those are my priorities, and it is exactly because they are different than yours that I'll stay involved in politics and political discussions.

                I'd love to see Bush burn in hell, but not a the expense of the rest of the Democratic agenda, and I think that's what we risk by pursuing impeachment. And I think Pelosi, Reid and Dean (who took impeachment "off the table" in his Daily Show interview) view it that way too.

                In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. - George Orwell

                by badger on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 10:04:11 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Disagree with the use of the word (0+ / 0-)

              Classically, recidivism is when the criminal him/herself repeats the crime, not when others of the same group/class repeat the crime. That being the case, your misuse of the word does rather nullify the rest of your argument. It is the very fact that the original crimes were pardoned that allows others to think that they can get away with it. It should be made part of the punishment that pardon can only be granted if the criminal is proven to be innocent, otherwise the punishment stays. And in this case, part of the punishment should be the loss of all privileges accrued, all profits made, and being stripped of all assets before being shipped off to a high-security prison for treason.

              •  You misunderstand (0+ / 0-)

                Of course I know what recidivism means - I wouldn't have used the word if I didn't. What I wrote was an attempt to disect the consequences of punishment, because if the goal of punishment isn't retribution or revenge as the post I was responding to claims, then it must be something else.

                In the process of doing that, I was just pointing out that punishment doesn't change the behavior of convicted criminals most of the time (sometimes it does, but not on average). I also was pointing out that punishment isn't particularly effective at deterring crime - if it were, we'd have the lowest crime rate, since our incarceration rate exceeds just about any other nation's, and our punishments, like the death penalty and mandoatory drug sentencing, are probably more severe too.

                So if the outcome of punishment isn't likely to be some effect on behavior or deterrence of future criminal behavior (and I think there's a lot of research that demonstrates those are both largely true), then the only outcome is retribution or revenge.

                I suppose I could have included the fact that punishment, in the sense of imprisonment, protects society from criminals, and I think that's its legitimate use. However, a Dem majority in Congress with as much public support as we can muster is what's going to protect us from Bush and his kind in the future, and I don't believe impeachment furthers that goal.

                In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. - George Orwell

                by badger on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 09:42:04 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  Well I didn't say it was.. (6+ / 0-)

          ...but since you asked, I looked it up.

          National Groups to Announce Movement for Impeachment

          On October 21, the Newsweek poll found 51% of Americans supporting impeachment.

          51% is a majority if I'm doing my math right.

          •  now he's seen one (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Pyesetz the Dog, Rex Manning
            and has no excuse.
            •  Nope (0+ / 0-)

              I asked for "significant priority" not "majority support". Majorities support all kinds of things, but when people are asked "what determines your vote" or "what are the most important issues", I've never seen impeachment in the top 5 or 10 responses. I've seen Iraq, security, health care, the economy - all the things the Dems will be working on.

              I haven't seen impeachment on any of those lists.

              How do you know that your majority (and a bare majority at that) wants Congress to do impeachment first? How do you know they want impeachment to the exclusion of all other action, because in reality that's what it will require?

              In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. - George Orwell

              by badger on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 12:10:33 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  why are you putting words in my mouth? (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Pen, churchylafemme, luckydog
                I never said impeach "first".  I never said to do it at the exclusion of everything else.

                Why in the world would you think that anyone would want that?

                We CAN walk and chew gum at the same time.

                Congress is actually designed to do many things at once.

                My argument is for those people who say "it's off the table" or "we're not gonna do that" and sound absolute about it.   People who are already ruling it out.

                •  I'm not (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  tomhodukavich

                  I'm expressing my opinion, based on having lived through two impeachments, that another impeachment will push nearly everything off Congress's agenda and off the front pages of the media and out of the national consciousness.

                  And because we have a narrow (if any) majority in the Senate, and not a liberal majority, and because we have a Republican President, and because of GOP control of the media, I think we need every tool and resource at our disposal to focus on the agenda we need to accomplish to solve our nation's problems and ensure our ability to continue to attack those problems after the 2008 election.

                  In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. - George Orwell

                  by badger on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 12:32:46 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  "we need every tool and resource at our disposal" (0+ / 0-)

                    ...you're right. Impeachment is one of those tools. And coincidentally, impeachment, in this instance, is also about "doing the right thing", which is another of the tools and resources at our disposal.

                  •  And it'll give Americans a much needed (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    luckydog

                    sense that what has been wrong with America is being set right.

                    Impeach.

                    •  Not only America (0+ / 0-)

                      It will prove to the rest of the world that America is doing its best to rectify a terrible mistake. If there is no impeachment and no punishment, the good will that America has received in the last few days, because of the election results, will disappear faster than the morning mists. America will be regarded as just another banana republic, to be ignored like the rest.

    •  Nevertheless, (10+ / 0-)

      the lawbreaking must stop.

      It's not enough for the new Congress to just say, "Enough is enough, now, George."

      Because you can't let these precedents stand. You can't just ignore the fact that Bush illegally diverted $700 million from funds appropriated by Congress for the war in Afghanistan, and used the money to start preparing for a war in Iraq that hadn't even been proposed or approved yet.

      You can't allow them to keep ignoring the rule of law, and turning a blind eye to it! What kind of thinking is that?

      So let the investigations begin quietly, then gain momentum, and public support will build until impeachment becomes an inescapable consequence of the last six years' malfeasance.

      By the way, I think there are polls out there that have said 51% think he should be impeached.

    •  WTF are you talking about? (10+ / 0-)
      "ignore the polls"?  

      People don't want impeachment?

      What do you think people just voted for?

      They voted to CLEAN HOUSE.

      That's why they voted the way they did.

      And what's with the fearmongering?  "While Bill Clinton was being impeached, Bin Laden was plotting 9/11?"

      What kind of Republican style fearmongering is THAT, pal?

      Seriously.

      How can you possibly say, with any humanity, that these people should not be investigated, removed from office, indicted, convicted, and imprisoned?

      Seriously, I mean it when I said that such thinking is DESPICABLE.

      •  "While Bill Clinton was being impeached, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sc kitty, tomhodukavich

        Bin Laden was plotting 9/11.". I point that out for two reasons, neither of which is intended to scare anyone: 1) Impeachment for revenge purposes can be a horrible distraction from serious problems that should take a higher priority, 2) Unlike the Impeachment of Richard Nixon, who basically condoned and then covered up an act of burglary, the Impeachment of Bill Clinton was not very popular. The impeachment of George Bush would probably likewise prove unpopular unless you have a SMOKING GUN like we had in the Nixon case. Being a horrid President doesn't suffice. It has to be an outrage that is sufficiently clear not just to a most of the house and senate, but to the American people as well.

        Before you spend your political capital on it, you better make damn sure it's worth it. Impeachment will take a year. By that time, we are in a new election cycle.

        Believe me, Hilary knows how to impeach someone. But she and other Democrats know that the Senate hangs by a thread. A defection by Lierberman, a little blackmail against someone else, and we are back in the minority.

        This to me is like gay marriage. Shut up about gay marriage until you have the power to do something about gay marriage.

        It all comes down to this common wisdom: Pick your battles.

        "I am my brother's keeper. I am a Democrat." -- That's your slogan, Democrats.

        by Bensdad on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 10:48:30 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  you're going down the wrong path... (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          nehark, theyrereal, Rex Manning, keikekaze

          ...with this Clinton-Bin Laden thing. Really.

          It's a very poor choice of "what was going on while we were doing something else".

        •  Lieberman (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          luckydog
          already defected.
        •  I'm just wondering... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Spoc42, luckydog, curmudgiana

          unless you have a SMOKING GUN

          ...where the fuck have you been? Did you read the Downing Street Minutes? Did you hear our President and his AG admit to torturing people? Did you hear our President admit that he's disobeyed the FISA laws repeatedly? What is a "smoking gun?" Did you witness our President lying about Katrina while video proof that he was briefed is readily available? Did you see him cracking wise about those silly WMD's that were never there? Are signing statements that put the President above the law "smoking guns?"

          The impeachment of George Bush would probably likewise prove unpopular unless you have a SMOKING GUN like we had in the Nixon case.

          What was Nixon's smoking gun? A couple of his goons breaking into the Democratic Headquarters on his order? Compared to the shit Bush has pulled, that was a walk in the park. Was it when he said "You see, when the President does it, that means it's not illegal?" Bush has said that over 700 times.

          Unlike the Impeachment of Richard Nixon, who basically condoned and then covered up an act of burglary, the Impeachment of Bill Clinton was not very popular.

          (Again that Nixon thing pales in the shadow of that "horrid President" Bush. You can't even compare them with a straight face.)

          In case you're wondering why the Ken Star Travelling Circus Show Impeachment of Clinton was not very popular, I'll give you a hint: It was over a fucking BLOW JOB. (God please keep me from adding "YOU MORON!") And looky what it accomplished! Now we can't possibly impeach another President. Two in a row!? That would be just awful. (By design, my friend.)

          Impeachment for revenge purposes can be a horrible distraction from serious problems that should take a higher priority.

          I've got news for you, baby. This ain't about revenge and you've got a lot of nerve assuming that it is. If you want to know what it's about, then take a moment to read this comment from KagroX:

          Our "national healing process" after Watergate...

          ...has been entirely, and purposefully, undone. And undone by the very people we thought we were imparting the lessons to, no less.

          The major public policy changes that emerged from Watergate's aftermath were FISA and campaign finance reform. FISA was enacted in recognition of the fact that, yes, a president might indeed one day have a legitimate and pressing national security need for immediate action and warrantless wiretapping. So it granted him that power for 72 hours, after which he must account for himself, but can do so in secrecy.

          The FEC and its regulatory scheme was also an outgrowth of Watergate, seeking to put an end to the "secret slush fund" operations maintained by the Nixon White House and the Republican Party.

          How's that going?

          So let's catalog things for a moment. The accusations againt Nixon were that he was conducting warrantless surveillance of American citizens, maintained secret political slush funds, lied to and misled investigators, and conducted a secret, illegal war in Cambodia. He was threatened with impeachment, but allowed to slink away in exchange for his resignation, and ultimately pardoned.

          Fifteen years later, for some strange reason, we found ourselves confronted with the fact that Ronald Reagan's administration was maintaining secret political slush funds, was lying to and misleading investigators, and conducting a secret, illegal war in Central America. Although there were occasional hints that some Members of Congress were considering impeachment, there was tremendous political pressure not to bring such charges forward, because of the "damage" impeachment would do to the American political system. Underlings were prosecuted, of course, but ultimately, Reagan was allowed to ride off into the sunset, and those convicted in Iran-Contra were ultimately pardoned.

          Fifteen years after that, for some strange reason, we found ourselves confronted with the fact that George W. Bush's administration was conducting wholesale, nationwide and comprehensive warrantless surveillance of American citizens, is openly using the U.S. Treasury to maintain a vast network of outrageously inflated, no-bid contracts related to "security" and the "war on terror," is lying to and misleading Congress, and conducting an open, illegal war in Iraq, and threatening to expand it to Iran. On top of which, he's managed to engineer for himself the power to order torture, indefinite detention of American citizens without charge, the suspension of habeas corpus, and the unilateral power to simply decline to enforce the expressed will of Congress.

          So I ask you, do any of the people who think we need to let this go have kids.

          What will even be left to fight for when this metastasizes again, fifteen years from now??

          We have a duty to impeach this criminal President and every last one of his enablers. To hell with picking our battles. This is THE battle--for the soul of our country.

          "...the pillaging of the most private human feelings [of grief] for political purpose...is a terrible, violent thing for a state to do to its people." -A. Roy

          by nehark on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 11:57:21 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  dude (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            luckydog
            You should really diary that tomorrow.

            We have to keep on this.

            •  theyrereal... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              theyrereal

              ...I post Kagro's comment every time this comes up. This is the bottom line. It's for the future of our country. It's for our kids, and it's for the rest of the world we've been shitting on for as long as I can remember.

              Your diary and your passion...both fantastic.

              I think impeachment is inevitable once the new Congress is seated. They'll start slow, but they'll have to take a look at war spending, offshore tax evasion...that kind of stuff...if they're going to govern. This stuff will automatically begin the avalanche of evidence.

              Don't forget, Conyers, Waxman, et. al. have already documented a ton of stuff. I have no doubt that they intend to use it. Believe me. They have to, or they won't be doing their jobs.

              We've been governed by one giant fucking coverup after another. There's so much incriminating evidence of criminality, these guys couldn't avoid it if they tried. And they won't try.

              I'm going to sit back and wait. Let's give them a little breathing room...see what happens. When the shit starts coming out, if any one of them tries to push it under the rug, that's when we say NO!

              I've got a wish list a mile long. Holding these goons accountable for their crimes tops that list.

              I'm patient. I do have a lot of faith in the men and women of the 110th. They haven't been idle. And they haven't held hearings and documented every crime for no reason.

              It is going to be a mess, and I dread it. But I dread even more what we'll be if we don't go through this.

              "...the pillaging of the most private human feelings [of grief] for political purpose...is a terrible, violent thing for a state to do to its people." -A. Roy

              by nehark on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 12:57:46 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Don't worry (0+ / 0-)

          We're not impeaching Bush for revenge purposes. We're impeaching Bush for High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

          εἰρήνη ἀντί πολέμου -- peace instead of war

          by dconrad on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 02:15:06 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  "...while Bill Clinton was being impeached..." (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nehark, Rex Manning

      Recall that while Bill Clinton was being impeached, Bin Ladin was plotting 9/11.

      You're not really gonna use that as a part of your argument, are you?

    •  Whining weasel words, Bensdad. For shame. (5+ / 0-)

      We KNOW Bushco gutted the Constitution.  First impeachable offense.

      We KNOW they put American troops in harm's way knowing that there was no justification for the war they were proposing to fight.  Second impeachable offense.

      We KNOW they blew off an American city.  Third impeachable offense.

      We KNOW they rigged, or attempted to rig, elections in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006.  Fourth impeachable offense.

      The list of impeachable offenses goes on and on, but this is enough to be getting on with.

      Much of the evidence for these offenses is already a matter of public record and the rest is easily discoverable.  Of course the proper legal forms of investigation and discovery must be observed first, but in the end what must be done must be done.  For the good of the nation, for the good of the Constitution, for the good of the rule of law.  History will not judge us kindly if we wink it obvious crimes that have had disastrous consequences, least of all out of "tactical" or "strategic" or other political considerations.

      The idea that "there is no popular support for impeachment" is, in four words, a bunch of crap.  I don't believe I know a single person, male or female, young or old, who doesn't want the sonsofbitches jailed, let alone impeached.

    •  I'm sorry but... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Spoc42, theyrereal

      ...are you nuts? Where are you getting your information? Bush didn't know 9/11 was coming? Bush failed to be a good Samaritan?

      Wait a minute?! Are you H.W. or Baker?

      Just let the necessary hearings begin. People ain't gonna believe their ears!

      "...the pillaging of the most private human feelings [of grief] for political purpose...is a terrible, violent thing for a state to do to its people." -A. Roy

      by nehark on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 12:03:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  There you go again. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      luckydog

      Recall that while Bill Clinton was being impeached, Bin Ladin was plotting 9/11.

      "...the pillaging of the most private human feelings [of grief] for political purpose...is a terrible, violent thing for a state to do to its people." -A. Roy

      by nehark on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 12:04:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  EVIDENCE????? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Spoc42, theyrereal, luckydog, keikekaze

      Where the fuck have you been?

      I cant replay the last 6 years but Bush has broken the law on numerous occasions.  He signed a bill into law that never passed congress.  They basically admitted the wiretapping was illegal by retroactively making it legal.  He is getting us into what amounts to treaties and trade agreements without the consent of congress.  He tried to assasinate Hugo Chavez. I mean the list just goes on and on.  

      paralyzing horror of an impeachment

      .

      sorry but why is this a paralyzing horror?  its in the freaking constitution.  I think Thomas Jefferson expected us to use it.

      Basically you want the DNC approach.  Dont make waves there is an election coming up.

    •  Either you are a liar or deluding yourself (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      curmudgiana

      there's MASSIVE support for impeachment.

      And don't kid yourself that the elections this year were that close.  It was a landslide and only by resorting to their dirty tricks, Diebold and other methods, did they prevent us from taking even more seats and make the races we did win look closer than they actually were.

      Don't be a fool who falls for perception.  They manage perception.

      Impeach them.  It's what we MUST do.

    •  A "good Samaritan"? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Spoc42

      is it an impeachable offense to fail to see the clues that 9/11 was coming, to fail to be a good Samaritan and come to the aid of the people of City of New Orleans?

      The US Constitution, article 2, section 4:  

      The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

      Allowing energy companies that funded his campaign to write energy policy is bribery.  Lying to get us into a war is treason.  Violating international treaties forbidding wars of aggression and torture are high crimes.  Exempting himself through signing statements from laws passed by Congress is at the least a misdemeanor.  Detaining people indefinitely without charge is false imprisonment or kidnapping, both fairly serious felonies.

      Impeachment is insufficient.  War crimes trials are called for.

      And no, revenge or punishment is not the reason.  The reason is to convince the rest of the world (and ourselves)that America is a civilized nation after all, that we respect the rule of law, and that we have learned from this nightmarish mistake.  If, after WWII, Nazis had not been tried for crimes against humanity but had remained a viable political force in Germany....If, after apartheid ended in South Africa, there had been no truth and reconciliation process... would the needed lessons have been learned?  

      Putting the perpetrators behind bars sends the message that allowing torture and attacking other countries are NOT issues about which reasonable people may disagree.  They are NOT political issues, they are crimes.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site