AGAIN, this is currently in debate as to whether or not Presidential Executive Order along with the Homeland Security trumps this.

There is no such debate. Debate would be where all the facts are discussed on their merits. The facts of the NSA spying program have not been disclosed by the Bush Admin. In order to have this debate and answer these questions, these facts must come out. An impeachment trial appears to be the only way.

AH but it prohibts torture for POWs or NONcombatants...NOT "civilian" combatants. It was specifically written for wars between countries not for terrorist activities.

Nice try, and true as far as it goes. But you purposely ignore (or perhaps were ignorant of) the ways in which Geneva has been interpreted since it was enacted.

The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the Celebici Judgment quoted the 1958 ICRC commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention: Every person in enemy hands must be either a prisoner of war and, as such, be covered by the Third Convention; or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. Furthermore, "There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law,"[1] because in the opinion of the ICRC "If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered 'unlawful' or 'unprivileged' combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action"

So you say it "may well have been knowingly fraudulent" yet you say a lot of evidence has come out indicating he did know the claim was faulty...well, which is it? And if so, why not bring it out to debate rather than talk about it here?

The comment "may well have been knowingly fraudulent" reflects my own top-of-the-head certainty of this. The evidence I referred to is something I can't be bothered to dig up for you, but what an impeachment hearing would clearly go over. Again, the decision of impeachment does not rest purely on what I as a Salon commenter can cite off the top of his head.

Before we send someone to the equivalent of a grand jury, one would HOPE there were sufficient evidence to bring to the jury. I hear innuendo and rumor and unsubstantiated facts but no hard evidence...yet you believe this should go to the equivalent of a grand jury.

I believe there is sufficient evidence that can be brought to the jury. I don't have this evidence here on my person. I run a web development company, and am not a member of Congress.

I can show you one thing that you will have no answer for. The case of Curveball, on whose testimony the entire case of WMDs was built and sold to the UN by Colin Powell. At the time of Powell's UN hearing, the intelligence community, and presumably Cheney who was central to that intelligence analysis, knew that Curveball's tesimony had serious problems. Here, read all about it, and then come back and explain why we DO NOT need to look any further into that.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/01/60minutes/main3440577.shtml

I believe I have answered them quite well, thank you.

No, you don't actually believe that, as I have demonstrated that you haven't answered any of these questions to any reasonable degree of certainty. Your statement above is wishful thinking on your part. In fact, every fact-free assertion you've made today can be characterized that way.

FIRST of all, I DO believe the executive branch should be scrutinized...

Uh-oh. You're about to completely contradict this statement, all in the same paragraph!

but I do NOT believe it should be railroaded by those who disagree with their policies and who want them out of office accordingly.

Oh, but you do support that precise thing, so long as the president is a Democrat. Because the whole "railroaded by those who disagree" thing is a precise characterization of the Clinton impeachment. Remember: $70 million fishing expedition in search of a blue dress, about which Clinton (stupidly) lied.

SECOND, I DID agree with the Clinton impeachment because he DID lie under oath (as evidenced by his loss of his license to practise law and the fine given him) but I have NOT seen anything saying Dick Cheney lied UNDER OATH...so if you have evidence to show that I would appreciate see it, paulpsd7!

Anonymouse, in the same way you personally possessed no evidence of Clinton's wrongdoing, but instead relied on the results of a thorough investigation, I feel the same way about this case. Of course, unlike during the Clinton hearings, there is a lot of circumstantial evidence one could refer to. But that is just circumstantial. Like in the 90s (but this time, with a reason that addresses the well-being of the country), an investigation is required to firm up that evidence.