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.