Letters to the Editor
-
Re: your argument proves the need for impeachment hearings
paulpsd7,
"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."
Currently under litigation: check out developments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy
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 treatment of prisoners who do not fall into the categories described in Article 4 has led to the current controversy regarding the Bush Administration's interpretation of "unlawful combatants". The assumption that such a category as unlawful combatant exists is not contradicted by the findings by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the Celebici Judgment. The judgement 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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention
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.
So in other words, it's your OPINION that he lied. Ok...you're entitled to your opinion. Yet an opinion is NOT material sufficent for impeachment proceedings.
"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."
Neither am I a Congressman...yet if you could find it, so could they. One must wonder why Kucinich wouldn't reference such information, if it were pertinent.
"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"
Actually I can answer that. Even if Curveball was a fraud, we contacted other foreign agencies who believed the same thing including the French and German intelligence agencies: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/
"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."
Really? We apparently differ on that opinion.
"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!"
Only in your opinion.
"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."
HARDLY. AGAIN, I did NOT agree with spending $70 million on said fishing expedition...HOWEVER, I DID say that once evidence of a crime was discovered they should have followed up on it. What did you want them to do, paulpsd7? Ignore it because it was a Democrat President in the White House?
"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."
Um, sorry paulpsd7, but there was HARD evidence not circumstantial, with reguards to Clinton's wrongdoing:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/pjones/docs/clintondep031398.htm#lewinsky
Indeed...so you have circumstantial evidence but NO hard evidence but you want an impeachment but no investigation PRIOR to that? That makes no sense. Request an investigation first, then ask for an impeachment. Make sure there's sufficient evidence to warrant an impeachment first. Unless, of course, you want to determine the verdict first, THEN figure out how to manipulate the evidence to get to it.
-
Hey Anonymous
Do you know what a Republican calls himself to make himself sound smart?
An independent.
For someone who says he's not a Republican, everything you say comes right from their playbook. You sound exactly like my redneck brother-in-law who gets all his news from Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly.
Lastly, the difference between Kennedy's call for tax cuts and the antics of the last three Republican presidents is that America was a much more properous country during Kennedy's time.
All Reagan and both Bushes were interested in was 1) providing tax cuts for their corporate masters and 2) starving popular social and environmental programs.
I don't know what kind of idiot suggests tax cuts and keeps suggesting tax cuts when faced with a multi-trillion dollar National Debt. It would seem to me, we need to bite the bullet and find new sources of revenue or risk going bankrupt.
Actually, I do know what kind of idiot. Here's four examples. 1. Ronald Reagan, who saw the national debt triple under his eight year reign of error; 2. George H.W. Bush, who added another $2 trillion to the debt; 3. George W. Bush, who's brought the national debt to past the $9 trillion mark; 4. Anonymous, who trolls around Salon parrotting the latest talk-radio-wingnut talking points because he doesn't have any facts to back up his point of view.
Do us a favor - please go back to Rush Limbaugh and let the adults have their conversation.