• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Resolution to censure Bush/Cheney set in motion

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Ranking House Judiciary Democrat Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) has introduced a motion to censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney for providing misleading information to Congress in advance of the Iraq war, failing to respond to written questions and potential violations of international law:

The committee would also be charged with examining manipulation of pre-war intelligence, thwarting Congressional oversight and retaliatory attacks against critics. As part of this resolution, House Judiciary Democrats seek also to explore violations of international law as pertaining to detainee abuse and torture of prisoners of war.

Source

To view the resolution to create investigative body to determine if offenses are impeachable, click here; the resolution to censure President George W. Bush, click here; and the resolution to censure Vice President Dick Cheney, click here.
This could lead to another president getting impeached along with the vice president as well. If anything, I thorough investigation to find out what the president did and didn't know is well worth it. If he lied to the people, he should be forced out of office.

(Also, anyone who says "aiding the terrorists/enemy" in this thread loses their argument.)
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
shuamort said:
This could lead to another president getting impeached along with the vice president as well. If anything, I thorough investigation to find out what the president did and didn't know is well worth it. If he lied to the people, he should be forced out of office.

(Also, anyone who says "aiding the terrorists/enemy" in this thread loses their argument.)
Holy Moses! Bush's troubles get more interesting by the day.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
aps said:
Holy Moses! Bush's troubles get more interesting by the day.
Given that Bush buddies already gave classified national security information "that could get people killed" to Iran of the Axis of Evil fame, I'm not ready to make predictions about how long Team Bush will continue to flounder before drowning in their own morass until after Thanksgiving football.

If the Congressscritters haven't already lit their pitchforks, gotten their torches out of the haystacks, formed a committee to find a strong boughed rope, and started tying a tree into a noose at this point, I'm not willing to breathlessly speculate with puffy blue cheeks.

However, the Bush Admin is doomed.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
I'm in heaven right now. I am having a threesome with two moderators who agree with me (the fact that you're moderators has nothing to do with it--it's the whole agreement thing).

:bright:
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
aps said:
I'm in heaven right now. I am having a threesome with two moderators who agree with me (the fact that you're moderators has nothing to do with it--it's the whole agreement thing).

:bright:
I feel violated and dirty.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Simon W. Moon said:
I feel violated and dirty.
It meant something to me....I swear! :lol:
 

americanwoman

dangerously addictive
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
26,336
Reaction score
19,508
Location
Somewhere over the rainbow
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
shuamort said:
This could lead to another president getting impeached along with the vice president as well. If anything, I thorough investigation to find out what the president did and didn't know is well worth it. If he lied to the people, he should be forced out of office.QUOTE]


Amen.I just want to know the truth about what they knew and didn't know.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This could lead to another president getting impeached along with the vice president as well.
What do you think are the odds of passage of these?

According to your source...

Republicans are not expected to support a Select Committee, nor are they expected to approve censure motions.
And how many Repubs are likely to cross party lines to vote for these?

These look very much like a continuation of the 'silly season' motions, like the one previous ones about 'get out now'?
 

SixStringHero

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
1,586
Reaction score
133
Location
Southwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
oldreliable67 said:
What do you think are the odds of passage of these?

According to your source...



And how many Repubs are likely to cross party lines to vote for these?

These look very much like a continuation of the 'silly season' motions, like the one previous ones about 'get out now'?

Beat me to the punch.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It'd be a bummer if Senate republicans would rather hold allegiance to party lines than to truth or the public. Interesting to see where the loyalty lies. (Pun intended).
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
shuamort said:
It'd be a bummer if Senate republicans would rather hold allegiance to party lines than to truth or the public. Interesting to see where the loyalty lies. (Pun intended).
Given the blatant partisanship from both sides of the aisle lately?

A couple of Repubs have expressed support for the idea of hearings on the wiretap issue, but thats about it so far. But would you realistically expect any thing other than party line votes?
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
This just in...

President Bush jumped into a lake to save an elderly woman from drowning...

The Democrats have immediately pushed forth an impeachment process declaring that the President was fishing without a license...
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Whatever will happen will wait until after Thanksgiving.
 
H

hipsterdufus

aps said:
I'm in heaven right now. I am having a threesome with two moderators who agree with me (the fact that you're moderators has nothing to do with it--it's the whole agreement thing).

:bright:
I shall refrain from commenting on this post. :mrgreen:
 
H

hipsterdufus

cnredd said:
This just in...

President Bush jumped into a lake to save an elderly woman from drowning...

The Democrats have immediately pushed forth an impeachment process declaring that the President was fishing without a license...
"Bush sends Cheney abroad" - Details, along with some wild photos after this commercial about your breath. :mrgreen:

In the impeachment of Richard Nixon, Article 2 of the three Articles of Impeachment dealt with illegal wiretapping of Americans.

Article 2
Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposed of these agencies.
This conduct has included one or more of the following:

/snip

He misused the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, and other executive personnel, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, by directing or authorizing such agencies or personnel to conduct or continue electronic surveillance or other investigations for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; he did direct, authorize, or permit the use of information obtained thereby for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; and he did direct the concealment of certain records made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of electronic surveillance.

He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, authorized and permitted to be maintained a secret investigative unit within the office of the President, financed in part with money derived from campaign contributions, which unlawfully utilized the resources of the Central Intelligence Agency, engaged in covert and unlawful activities, and attempted to prejudice the constitutional right of an accused to a fair trial.


In disregard of the rule of law, he knowingly misused the executive power by interfering with agencies of the executive branch, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Criminal Division, and the Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, of the Department of Justice, and the Central Intelligence Agency, in violation of his duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.


In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.
http://watergate.info/impeachment/impeachment-articles.shtml
 
Last edited:

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
hipster,

The Nixon articles of impeachment you sourced said the following,

for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; he did direct, authorize, or permit the use of information obtained thereby for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; [emphasis added] and he did direct the concealment of certain records made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of electronic surveillance.
You seem to be alleging that Bush should be impeached using the same theory. Do I have that right?

If so, how does that square with various legal precedents for the NSA surveillance program, such as this executive order issued by Carter on May 23, 1979?

By the authority vested in me as President by Sections 102 and
104 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C.
1802 and 1804), in order to provide as set forth in that Act (this
chapter) for the authorization of electronic surveillance for
foreign intelligence purposes, it is hereby ordered as follows:

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General
is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign
intelligence information without a court order, but only if the
Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.
Source.
 
H

hipsterdufus

oldreliable67 said:
hipster,

The Nixon articles of impeachment you sourced said the following,

You seem to be alleging that Bush should be impeached using the same theory. Do I have that right?

If so, how does that square with various legal precedents for the NSA surveillance program, such as this executive order issued by Carter on May 23, 1979?

Source.
We have a lot of similar threads going on here. But Drudge is only giving a half truth with these arguments.

Here's what Drudge says:
FLASHBACK: CLINTON, CARTER SEARCH 'N SURVEILLANCE WITHOUT COURT ORDER
Clinton, February 9, 1995: “The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order”
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm

The Carter/Clinton did it too agrument is false on its face:

Here is what Clinton signed:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm

This relates to physical searches - not electronic survelienece.

Drudge uses the same chicanery with Carter:

Drudge says:

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: “Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.”
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm

Here is what Carter signed:

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm

Here the surveillance is for communications exclusively between foreign powers.

Clinton and Carter issued these orders to use the new powers that Congress gave them. Bush issued his to sidestep judicial oversight. Drudge’s links actually make the case that Bush was wrong if you look into the subject deeper.

The more I hear about this, the more information I need.
SCOTUS hasn't looked at this issue for a long time. Sometime in the 50's I think. Hearings on the issue will start in January.

No one is doubting that the country needs to be protected and that 9/11 exposed serious flaws in our ability to protect ourselves. The issue here seems to be Bush's skirting of FISA laws to get the job done.

The question then becomes, do the ends justify the means? Watergate taught us the danger of unlimited and unchecked Presidential power. And we don't need more J. Edgar Hoovers running around unchecked.

On the other hand - if FISA, which to me is a 21st century clarification of the 4th amendment, did not grant the executive office quick enough access to suspected terrorist surveillance then we have a process to modify that deficiency.

It seems to me like the president may have just bypassed the whole thing, surround by yes men, and said basically "I'm in charge, and I'll do what's best for the country." Sorry, that doesn't cut it. Our constitution is set up with checks and balances. No one - no matter how noble their means, is above the law.
 
H

hipsterdufus

shuamort said:
(Also, anyone who says "aiding the terrorists/enemy" in this thread loses their argument.)
or 9/11 changed everything
or compares "x" to Nazis

New Rules!
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
We have a lot of similar threads going on here. But Drudge is only giving a half truth with these arguments.
I sourced the Carter Executive Order itself, at fas.org, which of course includes the provision concerning the AG certification. It appears from the AG's description of the procedures being used by the Bush admin that there are doing this - after a fashion. Whether or not it is ultimately judged to be sufficient remains to be seen.

The Clinton EO clearly related to physical searches.
 
H

hipsterdufus

The Nation had this story from Conyers online.
On December 20, 2005, I issued a 273-page report outlining the Bush Administration's panoply of misconduct associated in the run-up to and since the Iraq War.

In brief, I have found that there is substantial evidence the President, the Vice President and other high-ranking members of the Bush Administration misled Congress and the American people regarding the decision to go to war in Iraq; misstated and manipulated intelligence information regarding the justification for such war; countenanced torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in Iraq; and permitted inappropriate retaliation against critics of their Administration.

As further detailed in the report, there is at least a prima facie case that these actions by the President, Vice President and other members of the Bush Administration violate a number of federal laws, including:

Committing a fraud against the United States, for example, the President saying he has not made up his mind about invading Iraq, when all of the documentary evidence shows otherwise.

Making false statements to Congress, for example, the President saying he has learned Iraq is attempting to buy uranium from Niger, when he had been warned by the CIA not to say that.

The War Powers Resolution and misuse of government funds, for example, redeploying troops and initiating bombing raids before receiving Congressional authorization.

Federal laws and international treaties prohibiting torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment--for example, ordering detainees to be ghosted and removed--and tolerating and laying the legal ground work for torture and mistreatment

Federal laws concerning retaliations against witnesses and other individuals; for example, demoting Bunnatine Greenhouse from the Army Corps of Engineers because she exposed contracting abuse involving Halliburton.

Federal laws and regulations concerning leaking and other misuse of intelligence; for example, the President's failure to enforce the law requiring disciplining those who leak classified information, whether intentional or not.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060109/motion_for_censure
 
Top Bottom