0
   

Impeachment against Cheney?

 
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jun, 2007 02:11 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
revel wrote:
...The whole gang aught to be prosecuted and put behind bars for this and a hundred other things. However, in my judgment, Cheney has shown the most arrogant contempt for other branches of the government, the rule of law both in the United States and international law on all sorts of issues namely the torture issue...

Okay, let's start with this, since you assert it's so important. What law did he break, and exactly how did he break it? You seem unable to cure yourself of providing only vague suggestions and inflammatory, but unsubstantiated, descriptions. What law was broken by Cheney and how - specifically?


The law he broke is the one about revealing the identity of a covert agent.

If a person hires a hit man they are still guilty of murder. Cheney in effect hired Libby to reveal Valerie Wilson's identity to reporters which is against the law because she was covert (if proved.)
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jun, 2007 02:49 pm
Correct, if true. I'd like to see some evidence.
0 Replies
 
Zippo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jun, 2007 02:55 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Correct, if true. I'd like to see some evidence.


Could we waterboard Cheney at guantanamo bay? surely he'd admit his guilt. Waddya say? :wink:
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jun, 2007 03:05 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Correct, if true. I'd like to see some evidence.


You should read up on the investigation ran by Fitz, and the Libby trial, if you want to see 'some' evidence. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence.

Direct evidence? Well, the Obstruction of Justice kind of makes that tough to come up with...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2007 04:56 am
Zippo wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Correct, if true. I'd like to see some evidence.


Could we waterboard Cheney at guantanamo bay? surely he'd admit his guilt. Waddya say? :wink:

Waterboarding is forbidden according to the military spec. How does this constitute a sin of Cheney's? All you really every post here is unsubstantiated name calling and wishful thinking.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2007 04:59 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Correct, if true. I'd like to see some evidence.


You should read up on the investigation ran by Fitz, and the Libby trial, if you want to see 'some' evidence. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence.

Direct evidence? Well, the Obstruction of Justice kind of makes that tough to come up with...

Cycloptichorn

If there were evidence that Cheney violated a law, someone would have posted it here. When you say that a political enemy of yours should be impeached, but that there's no evicence because of obstruction, you're just saying that there's no evidence of guilt. Just wait for the next election and promote your candidate, rather than implying without evidence that someone must be guilty of crimes.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2007 06:51 am
There is plenty of circumstantial evidence to be found in the Libby trial to at least conduct an investigation of Cheney. He shouldn't be allowed to get away with revealing a covert agent for his own gain.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2007 07:19 am
revel wrote:
There is plenty of circumstantial evidence to be found in the Libby trial to at least conduct an investigation of Cheney. He shouldn't be allowed to get away with revealing a covert agent for his own gain.

Can you give one or two examples of this "plenty of evidence" - hopefully in your own words, and not more links to articles which ultimately have no actual facts. You've accused, and accused, and accused, and have yet to produce a shred of actual evidence that the VP was involved in any crime at all.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2007 09:02 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
revel wrote:
There is plenty of circumstantial evidence to be found in the Libby trial to at least conduct an investigation of Cheney. He shouldn't be allowed to get away with revealing a covert agent for his own gain.

Can you give one or two examples of this "plenty of evidence" - hopefully in your own words, and not more links to articles which ultimately have no actual facts. You've accused, and accused, and accused, and have yet to produce a shred of actual evidence that the VP was involved in any crime at all.


First off I said circumstantial evidence and there is plenty of circumstantial evidence. There would have more concrete had Libby not repeatedly lied to the FBI and even during the trial. He was convicted of lying and obstructing justice. Cheney was involved with all these lies and cover-ups as was showed during the Libby trial. Had he not lied, then he along with Cheney and Rove would have been implicated in a much more serious crime along with lying and obstructing justice. They covered their tracks well but the tracks are still visible.

These are things we know from the trial:

- "Vice President Cheney himself directed Scooter Libby to essentially go around protocol and deal with the press and handle press himselfÂ…to try to beat back the criticism of administration critic Joe Wilson."

- Cheney personally "wrote out for Scooter Libby what Libby should say in a conversation with Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper."

- "Scooter Libby destroyed a note from Vice President Cheney about their conversations and about how Vice President Cheney wanted the Wilson matter handled."

We know Libby lied about how he learned of Plame's identity because he said he learned it from Russert when evidence showed he spoke of Plame's identity to reporters and Arie Fletcher days before he spoke to Russert.

We know Libby asked Marc Grossman, former secretary of state to look into the Wilson Niger trip and Grossman learned Wilson wife worked at the CIA and appeared to have arranged trip.

We know Judith Miller source was Libby.

All this is circumstantial evidence, clearly, but enough circumstantial evidence exist on paper (there are plenty of places to find more and better than I can offer) to warrant an impeachment investigation into this matter concerning Cheney. Even if it doesn't reach the level it would need to in a court of law, it might reach the level it would need to for Cheney to be impeached.

In any event, I am tired of talking about this, if you think this is not really any kind of evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, you're entitled to think so. I simply disagree and leave it at that.

(Since you don't appear to like links, I'll leave it to you to check out the trial transcripts and come to your own conclusions)
0 Replies
 
Zippo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2007 09:18 am
Brandon9000 is a type of guy who would 'defend to death' the right of weasels to investigate a hen house slaughter.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2007 11:25 am
Zippo wrote:
Brandon9000 is a type of guy who would 'defend to death' the right of weasels to investigate a hen house slaughter.

When you have no argument, insult the poster. As I thought.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Jun, 2007 05:52 am
So, just wondered. Is he impeached yet?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Jul, 2007 06:57 am
Since Cheney has been involved I think we should impeach both of them. I doubt it would be done; but it should.

It's time to check the balance of power
Quote:
Congress must rein in Bush's abusive actions

Since 9/11, President Bush's repeated assaults on the Constitution and celebration of international lawlessness in confronting al Qaeda have needlessly made Americans less safe. The president, for example, has flouted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in intercepting the conversations and e-mails of American citizens on American soil on his say-so alone. He has claimed authority to break into and enter our homes, open our mail and commit torture in order to collect foreign intelligence.

He has insisted that the entire United States is a battlefield -- even pizza parlors -- where lethal military force may be employed to kill al Qaeda suspects with bombs or missiles. He has detained citizens and noncitizens alike as enemy combatants based on secret evidence. And he has insisted that he is constitutionally empowered to keep U.S. troops in Iraq indefinitely.

Congress should restore the Constitution's checks and balances and protections against government abuses. Citizens would be safer. And international terrorism would be more effectively arrested by restoring cooperation with allies; by cultivating friendly democratic regimes abroad through democratic example; and by preventing injustices that serve as recruiting fodder for al Qaeda (for instance, Mahar Arar, the Syrian Canadian who was mistaken for a terrorist and tortured in Syria with U.S. and Canadian complicity).

The most frightening of Bush's abuses travels under the banner of "extraordinary rendition." In its name, Bush has kidnapped, secretly imprisoned, and tortured or treated inhumanely people he believes are implicated in international terrorism. The practice is what would be expected of dictators such as the Soviet Union's Joseph Stalin or Iraq's Saddam Hussein. The detainees are held incommunicado without accusation or trial. No judge reviews the allegedly incriminating evidence. No law restricts interrogation methods or the conditions of confinement. And the innocent are left without recourse as "collateral damage" in Bush's war on global terrorism.

The cases of Khaled El-Masri and Abu Omar are emblematic. In the former, a German citizen was plucked in collusion with the Central Intelligence Agency from the Serbian-Macedonian border, imprisoned in Afghanistan, and kicked, beaten and otherwise abusively interrogated in a filthy cell for more than four months.

El-Masri was never charged with a crime and was ultimately released in Albania. The United States has invoked the "state secrets" privilege as a defense to El-Masri's pending lawsuit alleging maltreatment and an unconstitutional deprivation of liberty. The German justice system has commenced criminal proceedings for abduction of El-Masri against CIA agents or collaborators. The United States is stonewalling.

Abu Omar was similarly abducted by the CIA in the middle of Milan and flown to Egypt, where he was tortured, released and then rearrested. Criminal proceedings in Milan have been instituted against 25 CIA operatives. The United States has sneered at extraditing the accused for trial.

The El-Masri, Abu Omar and sister precedents endanger American citizens. For example, they would justify Russian President Vladimir Putin in kidnapping Americans visiting Paris and imprisoning them indefinitely in dungeons because he suspected they sympathized with Chechen independence. By following Bush's precedents, the world could degenerate into a grim Hobbesian state of nature in which each nation would prey on the citizens of other states.

Congress should stop this slide toward international anarchy. Legislation should prohibit any U.S. official from participation in kidnappings abroad except for the purpose of bringing a suspected criminal to trial in proceedings that satisfy international standards of due process (for instance, the cases of Adolph Eichmann and Carlos the Jackal).

Bush's lawlessness further makes Americans less safe by provoking foreign governments and intelligence agencies to cease or to curtail counterterrorism cooperation. International terrorism cannot be defeated by the United States alone. Several nations were used in the planning and execution of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Alarmed by Bush's detentions without trial or judicial recourse and reports of U.S. kidnappings, secret prisons, and torture in Eastern and Central Europe, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which includes all European democracies, harshly protested in a draft resolution last year: "The Assembly condemns the systematic exclusion of all forms of judicial protection and regrets by depriving hundreds of suspects of their basic rights, including the right to a fair trial, the United States has done a disservice to the cause of justice and has tarnished its own hard-won reputation as a beacon of the defense of civil liberties and human rights." Accordingly, Europe has grown chary of sharing counterterrorism intelligence and assets with the United States, which make a second edition of the Sept. 11 attacks more likely.

Bush has acknowledged that terrorism feeds on despotic, non-democratic governments. But his assaults on the rule of law breeds new terrorists by encouraging despotism: Spying on Americans on his say-so alone in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act; detaining Americans indefinitely as enemy combatants on his say-so alone; employing military commissions, which combine judge, jury and prosecutor, and using secret evidence and coerced confessions to prosecute alleged war criminals; claiming inherent constitutional authority to torture in violation of law; and insisting that the entire United States is a battlefield where lethal military force can be employed to kill or maim al Qaeda suspects.

The United States has been spared new terrorism incidents on its own soil since Sept. 11, 2001, but not because of Bush's scorn for the rule of law. The criminal law featuring the trappings of due process has been repeatedly and successfully deployed to thwart embryonic terrorist conspiracies. And no convincing evidence has surfaced indicating that military commissions, kidnappings and imprisonments abroad, torture, or circumventions of the foreign surveillance act have been necessary to frustrate even one terrorist incident.

In sum, Bush's lawlessness has made all American less safe with no commensurate benefit. It is up to Congress to set the law right and make Americans safer.

Bruce Fein is a constitutional lawyer at Bruce Fein & Associates and chairman of the American Freedom Agenda, an organization devoted to restoring checks and balances and protections against government abuses. He is author of the forthcoming book, "Constitutional Peril: The Life And Death Struggle Of Our Constitution And Democracy."

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/29/ING0UR6C1D1.DTL


The opinion piece speaks for itself and I see no need to add anything further than I already have.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/11/2024 at 04:49:21