Gonzo Is Impeachable and Should Be Removed Immediately

I'm not in the habit of posting the full content of an op-ed piece but this one by Professor Frank Bowman at the University of Missouri deserves the attention of the readers of the Daily Kos. Impeaching Alberto Gonzales is an option that Congress should exercise if only to serve notice to Bush that what Congress giveth to the President, can also be taken away.

Read on the argument for impeaching Gonzales for yourself and you decide.

HE'S IMPEACHABLE, YOU KNOW

By FRANK BOWMAN Columbia, Mo

IF Alberto Gonzales will not resign, Congress should impeach him. Article II of the Constitution grants Congress the power to impeach "the president, the vice president and all civil officers of the United States." The phrase "civil officers" includes the members of the cabinet (one of whom, Secretary of War William Belknap, was impeached in 1876).

Impeachment is in bad odor in these post-Clinton days. It needn’t be. Though provoked by individual misconduct, the power to impeach is at bottom a tool granted Congress to defend the constitutional order. Mr. Gonzales’s behavior in the United States attorney affair is of a piece with his role as facilitator of this administration’s claims of unreviewable executive power.

Frank Bowman is a law professor at the University of Missouri-Columbia.

Just to please the intellectual property nitpickers I have drastically cut Professor Bowman's article and most of his points are missed. I will call Professor Bowman today and secure his consent to reprint the entire editorial on my blog at http://www.sleepchamber.net for those who will miss the content of his editorial. I believe I'm fully within the fair use doctrine because my sole purpose is educating the public and full editorial pieces are routinely reprinted and distributed free of charge without violating the fair use doctrine. You're raising some pretty sinister First Amendment issues if you don't believe editorials can be posted and discussed without violating the fair use doctrine.

Sounds like a plan to me!

•  Don't mean to jump your tip jar but...

  this is a perfectly brief summation of why he needs to go...
  Followed by his enablers and his bosses.
  Hey, a man can dream...and continue to sign any and all online petitions possible.
  Truth to power...
  Investigations, ongoing but revealing enough already.
  Inform, well...duh, you'd have to be in a coma not to be by now.
  Impeach, WTF are we waiting for...Christmas?
  Peace ;)>

  by rogerdaddy on Fri May 04, 2007 at 04:22:24 AM PDT

  •  Tip Jar Is Out

    Since the distinguished gentleman made a motion to do so.

    by Mr Populist on Fri May 04, 2007 at 04:43:25 AM PDT

•  Forget Gonzo. It's Bush and Cheney

  Let's not waste time and energy on the small fry. Go right for the big fish. Pressure is already building in that direction, and it's just going to take a spark to set off this powder keg.

  by tjfxh on Fri May 04, 2007 at 04:25:55 AM PDT

  •  Gonzo needs to go

    Bush and Cheney do as well. But Bush knows that Gonzales is the buffer between the White House and true oversight and investigations. If Gonzo leaves, this White House is in deep doodoo.

    by CocoaLove on Fri May 04, 2007 at 04:28:29 AM PDT

  •  Gonzo will get the impeachment wheel turning.

    First, he's the firewall that is keeping all of the smoking guns from public view.  When he's gone, the full criminal behavior of Bush/Cheney will be there for all to see.

    Second, once the impeachment wheel starts turning, it will just pick up speed.  Let's call it a flywheel.

    by John Carter on Fri May 04, 2007 at 05:31:40 AM PDT

    •  He's the obvious place to start...

      He enabled torturers, he has obviously lied under oath to Senate Judiciary, he either participated in or tolerated a patently illegal scheme, and he has no public support.  It should be easy to get a solid House majority for articles of impeachment.

      While a 2/3 Senate vote is far from a given, when you have the likes of Coburn and Sessions questioning your fitness for your job, you have an obvious problem.  Let the Gooper senators squirm.  Let's see how many of them will put loyalty to the WH ahead of their future political survival.

      We need to put Cong Goopers in as many uncomfortable positions as possible in this Congress.  Impeaching Abu Gonzales helps us do so.  Plus, it's a defense of the Rule of Law, a concept that's taken a severe beating the last 6+ years.

      by RFK Lives on Fri May 04, 2007 at 06:44:32 AM PDT

    •  17 GOP Senators

      just might vote to convict him.  That makes him the best candidate for impeachment: not only does he deserve it, but it is strategically smart and possible.

      by New Deal democrat on Fri May 04, 2007 at 06:50:03 AM PDT

•  I am not sure that this is fair use.

  Do you have the author's permission.

  by blue jersey mom on Fri May 04, 2007 at 04:29:41 AM PDT

  •  On Fair Use

    Section 107 of the copyright law contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered "fair," such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

     

    1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

     
    The distinction between "fair use" and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

    My purpose is educational and non-profit and the writer is fully credited and falls fully within the definition of "fair use."

    by Mr Populist on Fri May 04, 2007 at 04:42:00 AM PDT

    •  Yes but it's not "Kos fair use" U risk banning

      I don't want you banned. I like your writing but see what happened to MSOC last week. She got banned for the very same thing. Kos is against this. Just post a little less then 1/2 and provide a link.  Kos has the final say on this, and this violates site rule. I hate being a "rule lawyer", but I am telling you this as a favor.

      by dopper0189 on Fri May 04, 2007 at 05:03:06 AM PDT

    •  Your interpretation of "fair use"

      • or anyone else's - is irrelevant.  Read the FAQ, fix this or delete it.  If you get caught doing this, you'll be banned.

      by Bob Love on Fri May 04, 2007 at 05:03:41 AM PDT

    •  Please delete and resubmit

      You have raised an important issue, and one I'd like to see on the recommended list, if for no other reason than impeaching somebody is probably the only thing that will put the Fear of God into Bush and Cheney, and force them to consider compromising.

      Unfortunately, instead of paraphrasing the editorial, posting its most important paragraph or two, and explaining its importance in the greater scheme of things, you are probably going to get your diary deleted and yourself banned.  I'm sure that's not what you want.

      Please take kos's dire warnings seriously, because he will ban you.  Delete this diary and resubmit in acceptable form.

      by New Deal democrat on Fri May 04, 2007 at 05:20:30 AM PDT

    •  Being out of compliance

      will keep this diary from being recommended.

      I concur that you should edit to provide part of the article and a link.

      I will recommend anyway, because the issue is so important, and if you don't edit it, it will likely be deleted, and so, moot.

      by John Carter on Fri May 04, 2007 at 05:37:46 AM PDT

      •  Kudos for the editing.

        If you get the permission of the author, then I believe you can post the whole thing here again.

        I would also urge everyone to follow the link and read the whole article.

        And there is a difference between Legal Fair Use and Community Fair Use.

        by John Carter on Fri May 04, 2007 at 05:41:25 AM PDT

•  This is a clear violation

  of the dKos FAQ.  Edit this immediately or delete it.  

  Just last week Mary Scott O'Connor, a highly esteemed and longstanding member of this community, was permanently banned for doing exactly what you've done.

  Follow the rules or leave.

  by Bob Love on Fri May 04, 2007 at 05:01:24 AM PDT

•  yes please edit it.

  We don't even need the whole thing.
  Note the affiliation of Bowman.
  http://www.constitutionproject.org/...
  These are Repubs calling for (warning of?) the impeachment of gonzo. They are not all full scale wingnuts, but they are repubs.

  This convinces me that I am right to point out that having Gonzo running through the backyards of scandal while congressional helicopters pin him like a fleeing gangbanger, is a good thing and we should all try to draw it out as long as possible.

  Gonzo has already done what harm he is capable of. Any replacement Dumbya would be able to get the Senate to confirm would be far better at hiding and covering his ass than the incompetent liar we have now.
  Just think of the damage a competent liar could do.

  by NCrefugee on Fri May 04, 2007 at 05:21:40 AM PDT

•  Impeach Gonzo

  If he won't resign he needs to be impeached and Bowman makes an outstanding and compelling case.

  by kevsterwj on Fri May 04, 2007 at 05:35:04 AM PDT

•  Yes!!!

  I am so glad to see, at last, a call for impeachment of Gonzales on this site (if there have been previous calls I missed them). Yes, I would like to see Bush and Cheyney impeached but there is not the slightest chance in the world of that happening, because the ever loyal Repug minority in the Senate will block it. This is not the Nixon era when there were still enough Republicans who believed in the rule of law to make it possible to impeach Nixon. His knowing that was what made him resign. In our time, no matter how badly Bush and Cheyney have broken the law, there is no chance of impeaching them because the vast majority of Senate Repugs don't give a damn about the rule of law. They believe in power and will hold on to it no matter what. Gonzales, on the other hand, has not only broken the law, but he has also become an embarrasment to their party and for that reason enough Repugs might support his impeachment to make it possible. This is the impeachment we should be talking about and pushing.

  by herodotus on Fri May 04, 2007 at 05:45:24 AM PDT

•  The Article HAS been drastically cut

  Once again I believe that posting the full content of the op-ed piece in NOT depriving Professor Bowman of any potential royalty income. In fact when I was in pre-law many professors reprinted entire journal articles by other legal scholars for distribution to class without securing permission. I know this because I worked in the school's law department as a clerical worker and prepared the handouts for the professors.

  Once again the law has the following variables in assessing fair use:

  § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights:

  Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
  (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
  (2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
  (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
  (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

  If you think copyright law trumps the educational value of reading Professor Bowman's article then I refer you to the First Amendment and the Fair Use laws that govern protection of free knowledge for the purpose of public education.

  by Mr Populist on Fri May 04, 2007 at 05:49:38 AM PDT

  •  I worked on a comment

    summarizing the points you deleted and putting them in context.  But I've saved them instead.  I may follow your diary with one of my own later on today or over the weekend, summarizing this editorial and explaining why Gonzales not only deserves impeachment, but why it makes strategic  good sense in reigning in this administration.

    Thanks for finding the editorial, and thanks for editing.

    by New Deal democrat on Fri May 04, 2007 at 06:18:42 AM PDT

  •  Thank you for editing.

    Your re-stated views on copyright continue to be irrelevant to the very explicit FAQ that regulates this blog.  You may take up the issue with kos if you disagree, but I guarantee you he's heard this many times before.  

    I'm not in the least interested in arguing the legal case in any of the miriad ways it can be construed.  You're either guided by this blog's rules or you're out.

    The point is not what you think will stand up in a court of law.  The point is more likely that kos would prefer not to be taken to court.  It's kos's neck that's on the line, not yours.  And of course it's kos's blog, not yours.

    As I said before, read the FAQ.  

    by Bob Love on Fri May 04, 2007 at 06:22:21 AM PDT

•  Time to Do A Diary on Copyright Law

  The current laws on intellectual property were written by patent attorneys for Walt Disney company to protect the use of a certain mouse named Mickey. Mickey Mouse's image was to become public domain in 2003 but in 1998 a harsh new set of copyright laws were written by Congress at the request of Disney lobbyists which extended the protection of intellectual property for a period of 95 years.The Mouse that Ate the Public Domain

  As a result we are entering a new paradigm of knowledge "for a fee" and much of the vital facts we need to know about history, our culture and technology are privatized knowledge with highly public restricted usage laws.

  Want to know if it's legal to impeach Alberto Gonzales?  Sorry I can't tell you because that information is no longer public domain. Give me a royalty fee and maybe I can give you the facts. Doesn't anyone see the implications of that?

  by Mr Populist on Fri May 04, 2007 at 06:09:07 AM PDT

  •  Irrelevant; read the FAQ. n/t

    by Bob Love on Fri May 04, 2007 at 06:23:04 AM PDT

  •  You're confusing legal and rules here is proof

    Yes, you may be with in your "legal rights" to publish this (it can be debated), but the Daily Kos site rule marked your unedited diary as a violation.

    Like I said here is proof in this diary, Rules matter by Kos himself Read it and you will understand what we are saying. I am glad you edited your diary, but you can add a link to let people read the full text.

    by dopper0189 on Fri May 04, 2007 at 06:23:18 AM PDT