Impeachment hearings: The White House prepares for the worst

[resinate]

Quote from jem:

.....So again for me the question is: Was GWB only using this surveillance to monitor al qaida and/or other potential terrorists or not. any larger scope and you have to question the motives of an investigation.

I think you and dgabriel put your finger on the biggest problem with this so called "war" on terror.

We have no state enemy. All of our war apparatus is set up to deal with formal states. Like dg says below, anyone with evil intentions and a minimum of technology can become a terrorist. Groups around the world spring up out of nowhere and declare themselves to be a local al queda branch.

Given such an amorphous and stateless enemy how can the scope not be dangerously large?

 

[hapaboy]

Quote from dgabriel:

Bush's illegal or legal wiretaps won't prevent a terrorist attack. It's too difficult to stop. 5 guys with bad intentions can produce a terrorist attack. In fact, they may already have, like certain gas tank explosions and other mysterious but unspectacular events.

Well, whatever Bush is doing, there hasn't been another 9/11. But I suppose that isn't because of any security measures, but because Al Qaeda is just, um, lazy.

Look at the bimbos and morons running the executive branch. They can't help but abuse tier authority.

Opinion.

I don't want to live in a society where the government can have unchecked ability to listen to my telephone conversations, read my email, and see what I have been surfing on the internet.

You already do, and have for a long time.

And I won't accept their bullshit scare tactics to justify their illegal behavior.

Opinion that it is illegal, and that they are using "scare tactics."

If the dems are neo communists, then Bush and the Republicans are Stalinist Fascist Hitlerian pigs who should be lined up and....spanked.

There is no evidence to suggest that Bush and the Republicans can be compared in the slightest to Stalin, Hitler, or any other true dictators. As for many Dems being neocommunists.....

"Proper surveillance" is done with warrants. It is fundamental to our way of life and I don't see any threat that necessitates the institution of a police state.

What police state?

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Here is the problem the right wing won't deal with.

No matter what we say, their response is "Hey, this is America, what you guys are saying....it will never happen here."

Didn't they say that something like 911 would never happen here?

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Bush is actually a good guy (I know, this is hypothetical). He means well.

So what?

Will the next guy mean well?

When intelligence agencies and the executive branch sets a precedent...look out.

The mechanisms are in place for abuse.

That's the bottom line. Not that Bush is or is not abusing the system...but that he is setting things in motion for serious, and potential abuse.

All the information gathered these days is being digitized, and stored. Search engines are available to search all that data, and extract whatever suits the search request.

Don't people understand the potential danger of the government having lots of data gathered secretly, in the hands of the wrong person, or wrong executives, i.e. President and administration?

Oh yeah, it will never happen in America.....

Just keep mindlessly repeating....it will never happen in America....

Power, the more absolute and secret it becomes has always corrupted.

Oh yeah, it will never happen in America.....

Quote from resinate:

I think you and dgabriel put your finger on the biggest problem with this so called "war" on terror.

We have no state enemy. All of our war apparatus is set up to deal with formal states. Like dg says below, anyone with evil intentions and a minimum of technology can become a terrorist. Groups around the world spring up out of nowhere and declare themselves to be a local al queda branch.

Given such an amorphous and stateless enemy how can the scope not be dangerously large?

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Very simple system:

1. Congress makes laws.
2. Executive branch carries out many of those laws.
3. Courts determine what is right when there is conflict.

I know lawyers want to make the system more complicated...but essentially it isn't.

Bush is ignoring the checks and balances of the system, by rationalizing his actions as "it is a time of war"....a war that he has said we can never win...what does that mean? A never ending war in which the executive branch can justify darn near anything.....unless the congress and the judicial branch step up to the plate and exercise their powers.

Quote from jem:

I was wondering zzz if you could point to the part of the constitution that says the the U.S. Supreme court has the power to declare laws made by the U.S. Congress unconstitutional.

When the U.S. Supreme court starts treading on the Excecutive branches authority to act as the Executive it is a pandora's box.

I think even a liberal court would be loathe to show how tenous the U.S.S.C.s authority over the other branches really is, especially when the President is acting in a time of war against the enemy whether a nation or terrorists.

Supreme Court authority is a bit of a legal fiction brought to life by the court in Marbury v. Madison. A fiction we all accept because it seems we should.

We do not need a Constitutional Crisis. I hope sane democrats recognize this fact.

So again for me the question is: Was GWB only using this surveillance to monitor al qaida and/or other potential terrorists or not. any larger scope and you have to question the motives of an investigation.

 

[resinate]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Very simple system:

1. Congress makes laws.
2. Executive branch carries out many of those laws.
3. Courts determine what is right when there is conflict.

I know lawyers want to make the system more complicated...but essentially it isn't.

Bush is ignoring the checks and balances of the system, by rationalizing his actions as "it is a time of war"....a war that he has said we can never win...what does that mean? A never ending war in which the executive branch can justify darn near anything.....unless the congress and the judicial branch step up to the plate and exercise their powers.

A never ending war with an stateless, elusive and evolving enemy.

Welcome to 1984.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Posted on Wed, Jan. 25, 2006
CLOSE-UP

More Americans favor impeaching Bush, poll says
Today's topic: Domestic spying
By Jim Puzzanghera
KNIGHT RIDDER WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON - The word "impeachment" is popping up increasingly these days and not just off the lips of liberal activists spouting predictable bumper-sticker slogans.

After the unfounded claims about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and recent news of domestic spying without warrants, mainstream politicians and ordinary voters are talking openly about the possibility that President Bush could be impeached. So is at least one powerful senator, Arlen Specter, R-Pa., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

So far, it's just talk. With Republicans controlling Congress, and memories still fresh of the bitter fight and national distraction inflamed by former President Clinton's 1998 impeachment, even the launching of an official inquiry is a very long shot.

But a poll released last week by Zogby International showed 52 percent of American adults thought Congress should consider impeaching Bush if he wiretapped U.S. citizens without court approval, including 59 percent of independents and 23 percent of Republicans. (The survey had a margin of error of 2.9 percentage points.)

Given those numbers, impeachment could become an issue in this fall's congressional elections, and dramatically raise the stakes. If Democrats win control of the House of Representatives, a leading proponent of starting an official impeachment inquiry, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., would become chairman of the House committee that could pursue it.

Conyers introduced legislation last month to create a special panel to investigate the Bush administration's alleged manipulation of pre-Iraq war intelligence and "make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment."

He's not the only one dropping the "I word." A day later, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., wrote to four presidential scholars asking whether domestic spying by the National Security Agency was an impeachable offense.

Former Vice President Al Gore said last week that the NSA wiretapping could be an impeachable offense.

Bush contends that he holds authority as commander in chief to order the eavesdropping on international calls of terrorism suspects without court approval. He also claims that Congress' resolution authorizing him to use force against terrorists implicitly authorized his NSA spying.

But a 1978 law requires court-issued warrants for wiretapping people in the United States. And many in Congress, along with the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, said Bush is on shaky legal ground in ordering NSA spying without warrants as required by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Tucker Bounds, a Republican National Committee official, said impeachment talk is "nonsense."

But asked Jan. 15 what recourse there would be if Bush broke or ignored the law in authorizing wiretaps, Senate Judiciary Committee chair Specter mentioned impeachment.

"I'm not suggesting remotely that there's any basis, but you're asking, really, theory, what's the remedy?" he said on ABC's This Week. "Impeachment is the remedy."

Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., said of a Bush impeachment, "I'm not saying it would happen, but I think it should be explored." She was one of a handful of House members to co-sponsor Conyers' bill, which is unlikely to get a hearing or vote as long as Republicans rule the House of Representatives.

Stanford University historian Jack Rakove, a constitutional expert, said breaking the law on domestic spying would qualify as an impeachable offense, but that Congress should be hesitant to pursue it. The Clinton impeachment was a major distraction for the nation, he said. Some have suggested it hurt the U.S. effort against al-Qaida before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Despite such concerns, some liberal activists say it's time to impeach Bush. Bob Fertik, president of Democrats.com, has formed ImpeachPAC to fund campaigns of congressional candidates who support impeachment. It has raised more than $52,000 in 10 weeks.

"If the truth comes out," Fertik said, "there will be an open-and-shut case for a high crime of breaking the law."

 

[saxon]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

The word "impeachment" is popping up increasingly these days...

It seems to me that, in our society, any major sanction that arises as a result of a legal contest (and the unseating of a president would certainly qualify as a major sanction), is only justified if the defendant has been shown to have exhibited either malicious intent...or gross negligence.

In the case of GWB and the surreptitious collection of intelligence...it would be very difficult to make either case.

If you really want to impeach GWB...all you have to do is PROVE that he deliberately lead the country into war with Iraq for some ulterior motive...like money, prestige, to make daddy happy...any of those.

Interesting that no one seems to be able to do that, however.

 

[TheConMan]

If a Nixon operative had not opened his mouth, no one would have been able to prove Nixon was spying on his political opponents. The truth will eventually come out. It is a matter of time.





Quote from saxon:

It seems to me that, in our society, any major sanction that arises as a result of a legal contest (and the unseating of a president would certainly qualify as a major sanction), is only justified if the defendant has been shown to have exhibited either malicious intent...or gross negligence.

In the case of GWB and the surreptitious collection of intelligence...it would be very difficult to make either case.

If you really want to impeach GWB...all you have to do is PROVE that he deliberately lead the country into war with Iraq for some ulterior motive...like money, prestige, to make daddy happy...any of those.

Interesting that no one seems to be able to do that, however.

 

[jem]

zzz it must be nice to dismiss the world world so easily.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

I think Speaker Hastert should call up Conyers impeachment bill for an immediate vote. Just as with the idiotic Murtha proposal that we just surrender in Iraq, the Democrats would be forced to choose between their fantasy world and reality. Win-win for Bush.