Letters to the Editor
casual_observer
Published Letters: 1249 Editor's Choice: 1
-
WT
[Read the article: Still more White House secrecy -- this time in the Tillman investigation]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I just don't think that the initiation of impeachment proceedings is the only way for Congress to do so; in that I agree with kovie.
I'm not aware that any commenter here has said that impeachment is the only tool available. Kovie may have characterized the argument that way, but I think most would agree that impeachment is not the only game in town. However, impeachment is an appropriate tool that fits the task at hand, which is why the founders put it there. I have to think that the founders would be wondering why it had not already been employed.
The initiation of impeachment proceedings could be, I believe, the establishment of a committee or subcommittee to assess the merits of impeachment. The committee would then report to the body. But even this, totally non-commital effort has not been made or even discussed by house members, that I know of.
My only real regret is that exactly this debate isn't taking place in the MSM, and in public meetings all over the country.
The public debate is taking place. The blogs are alive with it, even though many major bloggers have not come out on this issue. Which concerns me. Anyway, Re: MSM--that's a big part of the point being made by many here today. The MSM will get into it plenty if the House does. The formation of a subcommittee itself would, I believe, create a storm of headlines. And yes, they would come in on all sides of the issue, and the coverage would be subject to all the bias, idiocy and sloppiness of any other issue. So what.
-
What if
[Read the article: Still more White House secrecy -- this time in the Tillman investigation]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What happens if by hook and by crook impeachment proceedings are somehow begun, but directed and run incompetently, spinelessly, and compromisingly by the Democratic initiators?
You go to war with the congress you have, and not the congress you wish you had, or might like to have.
-
Rich Subtext?
[Read the article: Still more White House secrecy -- this time in the Tillman investigation]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If you cannot or will not read the rich subtext there, then that is not my fault.
What, was she blinking her eyes in morse code when she said "off the table"?
If so, I'd like to know what the rich subtext was. Is there a transcript?
-
@sysprog camera panning
[Read the article: Still more White House secrecy -- this time in the Tillman investigation]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It is annoying that the CSPAN camera never pans anywhere, remains tightly locked on the speaker. I understand that congress members don't like to show that, more times than not, the entire chamber is empty, aside from the speaker. Hiding the rot, they are.
-
subtext-challenged
[Read the article: Still more White House secrecy -- this time in the Tillman investigation]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So I'm not sure what kind of transcript you're looking for. When someone says "off the table" instead of "never going to happen", I'd say that there's a pretty rich subtext there to mine.
As in, I'm not supporting it now, but neither am I ruling it out entirely in the future. If she had wanted to be Shermanesque, she would have been Shermanesque.
As Bismarck once said, politics is the art of the possible. Was Pelosi a bit too artful for you?
Kovie, I fear she was. I am apparently missing the ability to pick up on subtext. I am beginning to doubt my abilities in this area, and I'm concerned that I've never used the word "Shermanesque". These issues may be related, in subtle ways. Regardless, I'm prepared to learn. If you'll send the subtext to Speaker Pelosi's office and ask them for confirmation--just that single source--I will count myself corrected and will beg your pardon fervently.
-
Habeas
[Read the article: Various matters]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There was a brief piece on NPR this morning regarding the ongoing habeas debate. What caught my attention was Lindsay Graham's description of Heabeas as a "Legal Nicety".
Translated, I take this to mean that Habeas is something that (theoretically and ideally) would be "nice" to have. But Graham is arguing that we just can't afford it in this time of war, fear, and terror.
In my opinion, Graham is a disgrace--to the senate and to his oath. But he is by no means alone. There are many parts of the Constitution that are now considered "niceties" by members of both parties.
-
Correction--Lott on Habeas
[Read the article: Various matters]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]NPR just played the Habeas piece again. It was not Graham but Lott who should be attributed with the concept that Habeas is a 'legal nicety'.
-
@Habeas
[Read the article: Various matters]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Regarding Shooter's "clarification". US Attorney General Gonzales has stated in sworn testimony that the United States Constitution does not expressly guarantee habeas rights to United States residents or citizens.
I agree with many that there is indeed dishonesty or lack of clarity regarding the current status of Habeas. Citizens are free to contact our Attorney General and ask him whether Habeas applies to US citizens or not. Or, REPORTERS could do so.
Folks also might want to look again at the constitution, Article 1, Section Nine. There is states: The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
Note that this stipulates that your Government can't suspend Habeas, except in conditions where our country is invaded, or is in rebellion. I see nothing written there that stipulates citizens, legal residents, or illegal aliens. To me, this is simply saying that the government cannot tinker with Habeas, period.
-
Absolutely Right
[Read the article: The GOP is the party of the Iraq war]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Spot on, GG. And a surprising miss--a bad miss--by Huffington. I wonder why.
Fundamentally, it appears there are only two planks for the Republicans in this iteration:
1. Lock the Borders
2. Subdue the Muslims
Everything else is derivitive from these two. Torture, erosion of civil liberties, scorn and contempt for other nations and the UN, etc. etc.
The connection between these two, imbedded deep and dark in the twisted conservative brainstem, is fear.
To the extent that Republican presidential candidates deviate from a message of pure fear is the extent to which they will be weeded from the field, by those who tend the Republican Field until it's ready to be harvested.