ACLU Pres: "Impeachment a terrible idea" because "Congress didn't have to roll over. . .

[pat_k]

. . . and play dead with respect to torture and rendition and Guantanamo and all the other human rights disasters."

Bushncheney turn Americans into torturers who spy their fellow citizens, but it would be a "terrible idea" for Congress to impeach?

It would be a "terrible idea" for them to break the bonds of complicity and rescue the Constitution because they have, so far, been complicit?!

It would be a "terrible idea" for Congress to wake up and fight because they "rolled over and played dead?"

It's mind-boggling, and heartbreaking, to watch supposedly rational public figures rush headlong into self-destruction. How deep into the irrationality of impeachophobia do they have to go before the sheer lunacy of their rationalizations wakes them up?

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/ACLU_President_Strossen_on_religion%2C_drugs%2C_guns_and_impeaching_George_Bush#Should_George_Bush_be_impeached.3F">ACLU President Strossen on religion, drugs, guns and impeaching George Bush
From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
October 30, 2007

DS: Do you think George Bush should be impeached?

NS: I think there is a case for him to be impeached, but I don’t think it would be a good idea. The reason I say there is a case because partly under the Constitution it’s high crimes and misdemeanors, which are not defined and the latest precedent we have is having a blow job in the Oval Office and lying about it is considered to be a high crime and misdemeanor. Well, Bush, has clearly lied to Congress, the American People, to the media about much more serious infractions and violations of the Constitution. He’s had a view that as Commander-in-Chief he can do whatever he wants, that he’s above the law, that he doesn’t have to abide by the laws that are duly passed by Congress. In one breath he is signing them, and in another breath he is saying he doesn’t have to followed them. So, I think if what Clinton did can be considered a high crime and misdemeanor than what Bush did could be.

Do I think it would be a good idea to impeach him? I think it would be a terrible idea to impeach him. Among other reasons, I think it would have the effect of placing disproportionate responsibility on to him when a lot of the blame for the violations I’m talking about rests in the hands of Congress. Congress did not have to vote for the Patriot Act, as they did almost unanimously in the Senate. Congress did not have to expand his domestic wire-tapping power this summer, even beyond what he was initially doing in his secret program. Congress did not have to roll over and play dead with respect to torture and rendition and Guantanamo and all the other human rights disasters. They really bear a lot of responsibility and we should not be letting them off the hook. By going after Bush, it deflects responsibility from Congress, it deflects responsibility from the courts, which have been issuing a lot of bad decisions, I think. It also deflects responsibility from the Democrats. It makes it too much of a partisan issue. There is bipartisan responsibility here. For that reason I strongly oppose it. I’m not speaking for the ACLU, I know some people in the ACLU would like to see it.

She may claim she's "not speaking for the ACLU" but as President, her "strong opposition" is feeding institutional denial and inaction. Instead of renewal dollars, the ACLU will be getting back my cut up card. For the first time in 25 years I won't be a "card carrying member," but I refuse to enable such lunacy. To stop enabling is the first step of intervention. Holding up a mirror is the next (e.g., http://january6th.org/talking-impeachment-customize.pdf">Talking Impeachment in a Foreign Land: The DC Beltway -- 173K PDF)

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1. If congress had the votes to impeach they would have the votes to

cancel the patriot act, restore FISA judicial authority, outlaw torture and a lot of other stuff.

I would love to see the chimp impeached, but I'm not going to be too hard on this guy, who is making a nuanced point about congressional power.

I disagree on the specific, but agree with his broader point.

[Larkspur]

2. Dems originally didn't have the votes to impeach Nixon

but as evidence mounted against Tricky Dick, Dems got Repukes to side with impeachment.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

3. All for rigorous exposure of their crimes

More investigations the better.

And if investigations turn up things that can sway blue-dogs and republicans toward impeachment, Hallelujah!

[pat_k]

7. There is nothing to inventigate.Can only "expose" the crimes by declaring them crimes.

Bushncheney commit their crimes in plain sight -- and the beltway establishment knows it.^1,2

The only way to "expose" their crimes as crimes is to declare them crimes. And the ONLY way declare such abuses of power to be intolerable violations is to accuse -- to impeach. The only way to say "We DO NOT Consent" is to impeach. Refusal to impeach is a statement that the crimes aren't intolerable -- that it is AOK by them that bushncheney are holding the nation hostage. Their refusal to mount an immediate "rescue mission" is a statement that the Constitution isn't worth rescuing.

______________________________________

1. As Rep. Jane Harman, not exactly a maverick, confirmed on Countdown w/Keith Olbermann, 9/25 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20993592/">transcript):
   
   

   Harman: . . . What‘s broken is the view of executive power that some hold in the administration. They claim it trumps all laws and our Constitution. And I can‘t believe that anyone around here would be so short-sighted as to buy that. . .,

   
   
   Although some Members may seem to fall short in the "humanity" department, they are nevertheless "anyones" who are, at least from Rep. Harman's perspective, "around here."


2. http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/22">Like squatters, Bush and Cheney are laying claim to unconstitutional power. . .. . .through openly hostile possession. (With the emphasis on "open.")

[nashville_brook]

8. there was a bogus meme in 2006: investigate first then impeach.

well, we've got investigations coming out of our wazoo. it's time for action, before another war begins.

[onenote]

16. But Dems did have repub votes to start the process against Nixon

The vote to create the Select Committee on Watergate (which was totally unrelated to impeachment and pre-dated any talk of impeachment by more than a year) was 77-0. The vote to authorize the House JUdiciary COmmittee to conduct an inquiry and report back on articles of impeachment was 404-10. Much different situation than what we face today, when not a single repub can be counted on to support the authorization of an impeachment inquiry.

[pat_k]

17. Articles can be brought directly to the floor for a vote.

First, the question of whether or not they "have the votes" -- whether "the vote" in question is a vote to start an investigation; a vote to on a bill of impeachment in the House; or a vote on the charges in the Senate -- is irrelevant to choice that is before each and every Member of Congress. Bushncheney have turned Americans into torturers who illegally spy on their fellow citizens. They can:

• Say NO to torture and authoritarian rule by calling on the House to immediately impeach for the crimes that are well-known to all
• Enable torture and authoritarian rule to florish by refusing to stand and accuse/impeach.

There is no middle ground. "Objecting" without the force of formal accusation/impeachment is just whining and complaining.

The untested belief that "we don't have the votes" is not a rational excuse for refusing to call for the immediate impeachment of bushnchcney.

The choice is NOT a question for Congress as a body. It is not a question for the Democratic caucus as a body. The question "to impeach, or not impeach" is one that each individual Member must answer for themselves. Do I stand and ACTUALLY object? Or do I tolerate the intolerable and submit to Pelosi's "off the table" edict? Do I sound the call to arms and call on my fellow Americans to join me in the fight to impeach and remove? Or do I declare myself powerless and tell my fellow Americans that appeasement is the only option? Do I keep telling them we can do nothing to rescue the Constitution until the fascists "go away"? (If they go away. If they don't steal another election.) Do I drive more Americans into apathy and hopelessness by telling them to leave us alone with their demands to impeach. Or do I engage and inspire by becoming their champion?

Second, the claim that Republican support is necessary to bring a bill of impeachment to the floor is false.

From http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/impeach/houserules.pdf">Jefferson's Manual SEC. LIII.—IMPEACHMENT.

"A direct proposition to impeach is a question of high privilege in the House and at once supersedes business otherwise in order under the rules governing the order of business. . . It may not even be superseded by an election case, which is also a matter of high privilege."

"A resolution simply proposing an investigation, even though impeachment may be a possible consequence, is not privileged.

While there are "various methods of setting an impeachment in motion" a "direct proposition" is made "by charges made on the floor on the responsibility of a Member or Delegate"

From IMPEACHMENT: Selected Materials:

p. 769 (Section 468)
A member submitting a privileged resolution, memorial or motion proposing impeachment is entitled to recognition for one hour in which to debate it. A member recognized to present a privileged resolution may not be taken from the floor by a motion to refer.

pp. 770-71 (Section 470).
In order to secure this privilege of debate, however, the proposal must be put in writing and submitted to the Clerk of the House.

As Cynthia McKinney put it "The act of writing up Articles of Impeachment is not difficult. You just write them on a piece of paper." (http://www.atlantaprogressivenews.com/news/0111.html">link).

From Zeifman, Without Honor: The Impeachment of Richard Nixon and the Crimes of Camelot (1995) pp. 46-47

It is possible that such a resolution could be called up for an immediate vote; but that option appears to be within the control of the Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader.

The steps required to deal with a bill of impeachment are largely under the control of the Speaker of the House. Today Pelosi may be abusing her power to keep impeachment "off the table," but there is nothing to stop her from putting it in motion tomorrow. She can make it straightforward or she can complicate and derail it.

Bottom line: Each member has a voice and a conscience. They can submit to Pelosi's "off the table" edict or reject it.

What they can't do is justify their inaction with claims that "I'd love to impeach, but some_outside_force won't let me open my mouth." (Where some_outside_force = lack of votes; Pelosi's edicts; mythical backlash beast; or whatever.)

[onenote]

18. and if you think that there will be any impeachment process without first going through committee

I have bridge to sell you. Whether it 'could' happen is irrelevant. There have been very few impeachment efforts in US history and the most recent examples all have gone through committee. The chances that the process would be curtailed this time is easily computed. Its zero.

[pat_k]

19. Process or outcome are irrelevant. Members are duty-bound to demand impeachment.

There is only one moral and rational response to the stark realities of our national crisis. Each and every Member -- Democratic or Republican -- has a duty to sound the "call to arms" by calling on the Democratic Congress to take up the ONLY weapon capable of defending against the war on the Constitution being waged by bushncheney under our noses. A Member who believes their call will fall on deaf ears is nevertheless duty-bound to demand impeachment.

The course of events that unfolds -- events that are unknown and unknowable until they are behind us -- are irrelevent to the duty to impeach. Predictions of this or that response are immaterial. They can't escape their duty to act right now by claiming some invalid prerequiste or barrier.

Whining and refusing to demand impeachment because "there are too many people in on it" doesn't relieve Members of Congress of their duty.

Strossen's particular brand of lunacy -- the subject of this thread -- is indefensible. Repitition of irrelevant assumptions doesn't make them relevant to the discussion. Repitition of the many variations of "it's futile" doesn't make the excuse moral or valid. Like all the other false memes we are hearing, "it's futile" is nothing but a futile attempt to justify dereliction of duty.

The circumstances present Members of the House with a black and white choice. Their oath is an individual oath. There is no legitimate escape. Any Member of the House -- the body that charged with initiating impeachment -- who is derelict in that duty makes themselves accomplices in the destruction.

We expect men and women of the Military fulfill their oath even if they fear doing so will lead to certain death. We must expect no less from the men and women elected and bound by the same oath.

With his calls to impeach BOTH Bush and Cheney in the debate last night, Kucinich is the first Member to choose duty over complicity. (Something that his call to impeach "Cheney only" failed to do.)

He is the first. Perhaps he will stand alone. Other Members of the House must make their own choice -- duty or complicity.

And we must make ours. Keep pushing challenging false memes and pushing Members to impeach or share responsibility for allowing the USA to become a war criminal nation that spies on it's own citizens.

I have made my choice. You will make yours.

[onenote]

20. My choice has been to push my repub congressman to speak out against chimpy and cheney

And to commit to support financially his Democratic opponent in 2008.

[pat_k]

22. In other words, everything is "business as usual"

The extraordinary act of turning Americans into torturers doesn't require an extraordinary response. Their intolerable claims to absolute power aren't actually "intolerable enough" to require immediate and unequivocal rejection.

Crisis? What crisis?

[onenote]

23. Huh? Non-sequitur much?

I was asked what "choice" I had made in the impeachment matter. I said that my choice was to urge my repub congressman to come out against chimpy/cheney and in support of an impeachment inquiry. How is that business as usual?

[pat_k]

24. 1. "impeachment inquiry" is absent from your previous reply.

2. While calling for an inquiry is better than defending "off the table," we are WAY past the need for an inquiry.

Bushncheney openly & proudly tell us they torture. They have done it in executive orders. They have done it in signing statements. They have done it in public forums. They have repeatedly put forth their indefensible "defense." They make the intolerable and blanket claim that the Office of the President can violate any law as long as they clain the violation is necessary to protect us. They are saying "Americans have forbidden the acts in law, but U.S. Code is trumped by Presidential edict." They claim what they do can't be torture because the torturers do not specifically intend to main or kill.

All that remains is to reject their acts and claims. There nothing to "debate." It's long past time to take sides. Are we with the torturers or against them? A single charge of torture is enough to force Members to declare themselves on behalf of the American people.

Some Members may think it's fine and dandy for the USA to be a war criminal nation that's "tough" on those we arbitrarily label "terrorist," but since the Senate voted 90-9 for McCain's anti-torture amendment, it doesn't look like many are willing to go on the record. Unfortunately, those who claim torture to be intolerable refuse to actually DO the only thing capable forcing the torturers to stop by removing them from power. As long as they refuse to impeach, their claims that torture is intolerable are hollow.

We don't need "education" through hearings. This is not a typical "case." The public has been way ahead of Congress. The assumption that Bush and Cheney do that which we have forbidden is behind the snickers of talking heads. Rendition and torture has made it to the Today show. The assumption that Bush and Cheney are torturing has become fodder for jokes on Leno and Letterman. Since Congress refuses to give the people a way confront and deal with the horrible truth, comedians have stepped in to provide an outlet.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2174847&mesg_id=2183085">Related Post. . .

[pat_k]

4. "Don't have the votes" is as irrational as "they've been complicit". . .

The Members of Congress who rationalize their complicity with "Don't have the votes" are saying "I can't stand up to fascism and object to torture because I've decided that there are too many others who will stand with the fascist and embrace torture."

That is as irrational as saying "It would be a terrible idea for Congress to impeach because their failure to impeach is making them accomplices." It is as irrational as all their other http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Senator/14">false memes.

Their oath is not an oath to win -- it is an oath to fight; to "support and defend." To refuse to fight is not only an immoral violation of that oath, it confirms the "weak Dem" image that is destroying the Party, when they could be fighting and shattering that image. The political idiocy makes their immoral refusal all the more painful to watch.

And if that weren't bad enough, we have more reason to believe they DO have the votes than not. McCain's anti-torture amendment passed the Senate 90-9. Impeachment forces each and every member to take sides: To stand with the torturers or against them. To uphold unlimited executive power and declare Congress -- themselves -- to be powerless, or reject the Unconstitutional claims to absolute power and declare Congress -- the voice of the People -- to be the ultimate "last word" by the wielding the power that gives them the last word.

Whatever the outcome, impeachment forces the ultimate "up or down" vote on the worst of the bushncheney reign. Far better to go into the next election with the lines sharply drawn then to go in with the muddled and blurry blather we are hearing from our candidates.

[nashville_brook]

9. not an oath to win -- an oath to fight and defend!

that's all we ask -- that someone at least TRY to do the right thing.

[pat_k]

15. As it says in the flyer. . .

http://january6th.org/talking-impeachment-customize.pdf">Talking Impeachment in a Foreign Land
(the DC Beltway)

. . .
Impeachment is Objection:

• The need to voice objection in the name of the American
  People for that which they never provided their consent is the
  ONLY way to preserve the People’s sovereignty. It is what the
  Founders intended and what their oaths of office demand.


• Objection/accusation is the beginning of any accountability
  process. The Dreyfus Affair did not begin its return to justice
  with finding forgeries, but with Zola’s charge "J’Accuse."

. . .

[Baby Snooks]

5. I will join you...

She is speaking for the ACLU any time she speaks on public issues. And she has forgotten what the C and L stand for in ACLU.

Rather than hold Bush solely accountable for the crimes and misdemeanors, not to mention the felonies, and particularly not to mention his having removed the C and the L she is supposed to defend, as the basis of the Constitution, she instead blames Congress. All Bush did apparently is just sign all the legislation that has eroded the very basis of the Constitution. It is not his fault. Perhaps she believes that Congress misled him. No doubt that is how the Republicans will spin this. The Democratic Congress misled Bush as it destroyed our country. Cheney was obviously just out and out lied to. Damn those Democrats!

I didn't think I could read anything more shocking than a Democrat referring to Bush as a warm, caring human being. Until I read this. It's bad enough to wonder what the Democratic Party stands for at this point. Now you have to wonder what the ACLU stands for at this point as well.

[pat_k]

12. Like addicts, impeachophobes don't hear the absurdity of their. . .

. . .excuses unless the excuses are directly, and persistently, challenged.

For "insiders" Impeachment resides in the realm of the impossible -- the unthinkable. Like addicts who can't imagine stopping, they invoke irrational excuses without thought. They admit things are "bad;" they tell us they WANT to stop, but since stopping today is unthinkable, they grasp at the flimsiest "reasons" that they can't, won't, shouldn't stop today.

The notion that "We'll fix it all when we are elected" is as destructive for the nation as "I'll quit tomorrow" is for an addict.

Our so-called "leaders" WANT to live up to their ideals. They WANT to do the right thing. They know what the right thing is. The fight to impeach is not so much a fight to wake them up to what the "right thing" is. Our job is to break down the barriers -- the rationalizations that are keeping them from seeing that they CAN do it.

[nashville_brook]

6. no where in the Constitution does it say "Valid ONLY IF polically expedient."

thank you pat, for putting the lie to this.

[gratuitous]

10. Am I reading this right?

Because the Republicans laid down on the job in Congress for six years, and the Democrats haven't done enough in nine months, the crimes of the Bush administration should just be allowed to slide? Idiotic, to say the least.

As the Good Book says, it's never too late to repent and mend one's ways. Congress would watch its approval ratings quintuple overnight if they took up articles of impeachment against this corrupt administration.

[pat_k]

13. Tragically, you are. . .

Essentially she's saying

It would be a terrible idea for Congress to impeach because their failure to impeach is making them accomplices.]

This one is so nuts that she may actually see the insanity herself if she is forced to actually listen to herself. We need find ways to confront her with your question -- "Am I reading this right??. . . "

[pat_k]

14. And btw, people love stories of redemption. . .

(think David Brock).

Americans in particular seem to hold the repentant sinner in high regard.

Even more compelling is the narrative of fallen heroes. When our heroes take the wrong path we are gutted. When they get back on the right path, they become all the more heroic.

Any one of of our so-called "leaders" could gain the respect of people from across the political spectrum by simply standing up and saying "I am surrounded by good people who are making a horrible mistake. I have been one of them. I succumbed to the evil of 'off the table.' Today that changes. Today I become an evangelist of impeachment."

The words they use don't matter. Admission of failure and commitment to fight to see the torturers removed from power is all that's needed. Past failures, and the nearly universal blindness of their peers, would make the first one to lead the charge all the more heroic.

If one of the Presidential candidates stood up and "repented" today, they could galvanize the public in a way not seen in generations.

[T Wolf]

11. Agree absolutely - with you, not Strossen. Unless of course, I am supposed

to blindly bow down and support the ACLU because they are on the "correct" side and a lot better than the ACLJ.

[mmonk]

21. Contribute to CCR and Amnesty International

who fight the daily battles against these constitutional and international crimes.