OpEdNews » Is impeachment "off the table" due to Congress' voting record?

Tags for This Article:

Populum Tag Cloud Control Panel
	Fine tune your search to access content

Articles	Links
Diaries	Products
Events	All

All time
Last 6 mos
Last month
Last week
Last 24 hrs

From:
Month Day Year

To:
Month Day Year

Alphabet Popularity	Count ON Count OFF
This Level	Sub-levels

Tag(s): ACLU; Activist; Congress; Congress Failed Oversight Democracy; Congress House Legislation; Congress Legislative Failures; Congress Republican GOP; Congress Senate Legislation; Congressional Coverups; Detainees; (more...) Government; Immunity; Impeachment; Investigations; Military; Torture; Voting (less...)
Add to My Group

June 15, 2008 at 08:43:45

Is impeachment "off the table" due to Congress' voting record?

by Kathryn Smith Page 1 of 3 page(s)

www.opednews.com

SAVE FAVORITES

VIEW FAVORITES

View Ratings | Rate It

So, why is impeachment "off the table?" Of course, it is not within my powers to read minds and hold a crystal ball. Not being some kind of Merlyn or Wizard of Oz, all I can do is speculate. But based on a few facts, I think there is ample evidence to conclude that Congress fears not turning off their constituents with the "waste of time" argument by doing a negative show where impeachment is concerned. Neither are they, I believe, lying down or "caving" in to Bush's fear mongering.

Instead, I believe they are protecting themselves. If they impeached either Bush or Cheney, so much would come to light about Congress' own complicity in Bush and Cheney's crime rings, that they would be impeaching themselves along with the two murderers holding nuclear weapons in their hands.

Having posted this a million times before, let me apologize right now for the eyeball-rolling repetition. Those of you who have read what I have posted about the Congressional voting record, may sign off here right now, keeping in mind what I have stated above. But before you do sign off, let me suggest that it would be terribly important to have a communal brainstorm: How do we get around the problem of impeachment being "off the table" based on Congress' attempts to protect their seats in office, and not to earn themselves a seat in jail? I doubt that they are protecting Bush and Cheney, who are disgraces to the Republican and Democratic parties alike. Far from it. Instead, they are self-concerned. And until we can find a way to break through, impeachment is never going to happen. Period.

What do you, dear readers, think is the solution?

More about the Congressional voting record here: I spent four hours at a time, for a number of nights in a row, combing through the *entire* Congressional voting record as pertains to several of the post-911 bills. Who voted for the Patriot Act? The Military Commissions Act (torture bill)? Restore the Constitution Act? Who voted to oppose the government control of American travels in CAPPS II, and who voted for it? I wanted to know.

You can verify all the facts below on the ACLU"s website, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, by punching in the names of each bill into their search boxes: www.aclu.org www.ccrjustice.com www.eff.org

It was the former Republican majority which passed the Military Commissions Act (MCA, or torture bill) by nearly unanimous vote. This bill allows for the euphemistic term "torture" of detainees and their confessions squealed up under pain levels "equivalent to severe organ failure or death", such as invoked by a "hand slap" done with steel cables three inches thick. This false evidence, squealed up by mostly completely innocent detainees, is permissible as "evidence" in the MCA. Habeas corpus is nixed, meaning that the detainees have no right to challenge the grounds for their detention (thus assuring the secrecy of the crime ring, in which mostly innocent people are captured and tortured as so-called "terrorists").

Worse yet, and here is the really cryptic piece of information, the MCA grants the President the unilateral authority to "interpret" the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions, which provide us with a guide regarding what torture consists of. Thus, the President himself decides ("interprets") what exact form torture takes. Again, this euphemistic "torture" is defined in the MCA as invoking "severe pain levels equivalent to organ failure or death". Not funny.

And worse still, it grants the Prez, and future Prez's, immunity from prosecution as a war criminal for invoking this kind of cruel and unusual punishment for the crime of not being a terrorist at all, in most cases. To boot, a mere photo in the newspapers would seem to be enough "evidence" to convince a world full of people that a "terrorist ringleader" has been caught. All this in absence of court trials...and we automatically believe everything we hear and read! Please pass word on: It ain't right, to say the least, to consider a mere newspaper photograph as ample "proof" that the Government has caught a "terrorist".

In fact, the ACLU states in its movie Stop the Abuse of Power, that out of 850 Guantanamo detainees, only twelve of them (in the best of my memory) are guilty. The Red Cross estimates that more than 75% of "terrorist" detainees are innocent, and Amnesty International is vociferous. Check out the Center for Constitutional Rights's website about this, too.

So....why the "revelation" and "Surprise" and "horror" to "find out" that Bush presided over individual torture cases all along, and that he "approved" ?

Repeat: CONGRESS voted for this. IE it wasn't just Bush who is The Problem Acting Alone. It was the Republicans, by nearly solid unanimity who voted for the MCA. Democrats just as solidly voted against it.

Is the "Surprise" and the ensuing "investigations" of Bush's torturing a big pretense? Methinks the answer is "yes", as may be obvious by now.

If Dems voted against the MCA, are they innocent and not guilty? Far from it. The unconstitutional Patriot Act works hand-and-glove with the MCA. It may be subtle, but on close analysis one comes to realize that the Patriot Act is actually quite instrumental in capturing innocent "Terrorists":

a) Defines "terrorists" to include activists. The Center for Constitutional Rights is vociferous about this, stating that the definition of terrorists in the PA "Could be misconstrued" to crack down on "First amendment rights", ie, free speech. Thus, vocal individuals would be vulnerable to targeting as "Terrorists". Witness: 911 truth activists called "Terrorists" by the Administration. After all, the rationale is this: If you expose the truth about 911, you are siding with terrorists, ie committing treason. That's a twisted rationale which, in fact, is more likely a stunningly accurate projection of the Government's own dynamic. What we reject in ourselves, we see in the world around us. Such would seem to be the case, where our Government is concerned.

b) Grants expanded wiretapping powers without warrant. Thus, the PA side-steps the power of the judiciary as a fundamental arm of government, with the function of putting a "check" on government power. The implications of this unchecked power is scary.

1 | 2 | 3

	Contact Author
	Contact Editor
	View Other Articles by Author

Bookmark this page: (what's this?)

(More...)

5 comments

Hello friends
I have decided to take a break from political writing for a while and have disconnected my email address correlated with Opednews. If any of you send me a message to my Opednews box and I do not respond, I am not ignoring you: The message simply is not getting through to me because of my disconnected email at home. Thank you and best wishes, Kathryn Smith

This quote summarizes the nature of my concerns and the content of personal experiences which stir my activis...

to see more of bio, click on member name
Kathryn SmithHello friends
I have decided to take a break from political writing for a while and have disconnected my email address correlated with Opednews. If any of you send me a message to my Opednews box and I do not respond, I am not ignoring you: The message simply is not getting through to me because of my disconnected email at home. Thank you and best wishes, Kathryn Smith

This quote summarizes the nature of my concerns and the content of personal experiences which stir my activis...

to see more of bio, click on member name

Let's get this discussion started....

Let me start here by suggesting that, even while many of us are quite understandably discouraged, the fact is that ultimately our voice will count. The reason is simple: Politicians rely on our vote to maintain their seat in office.

Have you ever noted how politicians reverse their positions 180 degrees when MOveon.org sends in signatures by the millions? Perhaps the voices of the few won't count, but the voices of the masses surely will. (Otherwise, why would politicians bother to manipulate public opinion? OF COURSE what we think and want matters!)

Thus...

If ENOUGH of us put pressure on Congress to impeach, telling them that we will vote them out of office if they don't uphold, protect and defend the Constitution....and American lives and lives internationally......then they will simply have to act. That is, if enough of us weigh in.

It's only if (as most of us understandably do) we collectively say that "it won't matter anyway, so why bother?" then they will literally get away with murder.

Please pass word along, urging friends to contact House Reps and Judiciary Committee members in support of impeachment! Please write the facts in letters to the editor, not just your opinion, which would only be blown off. But if facts convince people, things can turn around. Dynamo, let's go!

Thank you.

by Kathryn Smith (93 articles, 2 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 361 comments) on Sunday, June 15, 2008 at 4:37:51 PM

I hate George W. Bush et al.
I write with a passion to try an effect his impeachment and imprisonment. That of him and his entire administration past and present. Never in the history of our country has our Constituttion has been subjected to an assult such as this. It is our duty as American's to do what what we can to udue the damage that this administration has done to our country. Both here at home and to our international standing. We have become the laughing stock of the entire w...

to see more of bio, click on member name
alan1111I hate George W. Bush et al.
I write with a passion to try an effect his impeachment and imprisonment. That of him and his entire administration past and present. Never in the history of our country has our Constituttion has been subjected to an assult such as this. It is our duty as American's to do what what we can to udue the damage that this administration has done to our country. Both here at home and to our international standing. We have become the laughing stock of the entire w...

to see more of bio, click on member name

USE THEIR OWN LAWS AGAINST THEM

I have been saaying for a couple of months now but most of the time my blog gets shut down so no one hears, but here are my thoughts.

Pelosi, Conyers and Waxman are quite simply to be charged with one of their own favorite things. CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS.

Are they not guilty of just that? Are not Conyers and Waxman failing to fulfill their judiciary responsibilities for the committiees they chair by not allowing the impeachment filings present to them allowed to go forward? Should they both not be found in contemt for allowing the impeachment of Cheney to languish on a shelf for more than a year without any action?

The same holds true for Pelosi, but she can be VACATED from her position as speaker for simply refusing to move the impeachment proceedings along. She has NOT the right to interfere in the way that she has. She has intervened in a LEGAL process in an ILLEGAL manor using personal rather than legal procedures as she should have. By simply saying from day one and repeating time and again that "impeeachment is off the table", end of story, close the book now go to sleep, she has departed from precident and decimated the fragile check and balance system that was in place.

If this was or is the case now knowing all of the horrendus things/crimes the Mr. Kunich so professionally laid out over 35 times the other night and Mrs. Pelosi still refuses to act, my question to her is simply, why did you allow Bill Clinton to be impeached over nothing?

by alan1111 (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Sunday, June 15, 2008 at 9:47:37 PM

DOB -- September 20, 1940. Became active in civil rights and peace movements in 1962. Active in socialist and antiwar movements -- 1963-69. Active in Gay Liberation from 1969 to present.
rhalfhillDOB -- September 20, 1940. Became active in civil rights and peace movements in 1962. Active in socialist and antiwar movements -- 1963-69. Active in Gay Liberation from 1969 to present.

IMPEACH ALL FEDERAL OFFICIALS WHO VIOLATE THEIR OATH

A more direct and less convuluted approach is to impeach her for violating her oath of office. All federal elected officials, as well as all federal judges, take an oath to preserve and defend the constitution upon taking office. If Nancy Pelosi has not only refused to start impeachment in the face of the massive constitutional violations of Bush and Cheney, but has used her power to squelch others attempts to impeach, she has clearly violated her oath to preserve and defend the constitution.

In fact, we should use impeachment to make a clean sweep of the federal misgovernment. The constitutionnal violations of Bush and Cheney are so clear that all House members who won't support impeachment are violating their oath of office. All members of the Senate who wont vote to convict once the House votes for impeachment will also be in violation of their oath of office. And while we're at it, we should also impeach all the Supreme Court Injustices who ordered us to stop counting the votes in 2000 and appointed Bush. Their actions was clearly in violation of the oath to preserve and defend the constitution so it is an urgent necessity to impeach them. And the Supreme Court Injustices who voted to uphold Bush's unconstitutional actions, along with all the lower court judges who did the same, have also violated their oath to preserve and defend the constitution, so there is an equally urgent necessity to impeach them.

So write to your Congresspeople and tell them that they are violating their oath of office if they don't support impeachment. And another thing I have wondered about: There was a movement to have people send impeachment memorials to Congress. Is it possible to send similar memorials not only for Bush and Cheney but all the federal officials who are violating their oath of office?

Robert Halfhill

by rhalfhill (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 285 comments) on Monday, June 16, 2008 at 12:40:21 PM

French canadian
Sylvain PimpareFrench canadian

Revolution

The only way to solve this problem is revolution but people are way too mind controled to do this. The forces of Evil already own this planet, its over, they won.

by Sylvain Pimpare (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 24 comments) on Monday, June 16, 2008 at 2:18:45 AM

I'm a native of New York City who's called the Green Mountain state of Vermont home since the summer of 1994. A former freelance journalist, I'm a fiercely independent freethinker who's highly skeptical of authority figures -- especially when they're on the wrong side of the issues I care about. But I'm not afraid to also call into question those with whom I would usually be "on the same page" if and when they, too, are on the wrong side of the issues I care about.
Skeeter SandersI'm a native of New York City who's called the Green Mountain state of Vermont home since the summer of 1994. A former freelance journalist, I'm a fiercely independent freethinker who's highly skeptical of authority figures -- especially when they're on the wrong side of the issues I care about. But I'm not afraid to also call into question those with whom I would usually be "on the same page" if and when they, too, are on the wrong side of the issues I care about.

Time for a Reality Check on Impeachment...

When... Ohhhhh, WHEN -- are you going to wake up and face the reality that the REAL reason that impeachment of Bush and Cheney is "off the table" is because the Democrats DON'T HAVE THE VOTES IN THE SENATE TO CONVICT AND REMOVE THEM FROM OFFICE???

Reality check: There are only 48 Democrats in the Senate. There are 49 Republicans and two independents.

One of those two independents -- Joe Leiberman of Connecticut, who's already campaigning for John McCain -- has repeatedly threatened to DEFECT TO THE GOP if the House Democrats pass impeachment articles against Bush and Cheney.

Leiberman's defection would THROW CONTROL OF THE SENATE BACK TO THE REPUBLICANS, with Cheney casting the tie-breaking 51st vote and the GOP taking back all Senate committee chairmanships.

Faced with this cold, hard political reality, perhaps NOW you can understand why impeachment is "off the table."

WE CANNOT AFFORD TO HAVE THE SENATE BACK IN REPUBLICAN HANDS BEFORE THE NOVEMBER ELECTION -- especially with rumors flying about a possible Supreme Court vacancy (Namely, the retirement of 88-year-old Justice John Paul Stevens) when the justices finish their 2007-08 term at the end of June.

by Skeeter Sanders (32 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 78 comments) on Monday, June 16, 2008 at 8:51:18 AM