The ACLU wants a special prosecutor to investigate Bush’s admission that he authorized torture. I think that is a swell idea that is likely to go nowhere.
I hear John Conyers asked an assembled crowd today in Philadelphia whether any of them would object to impeaching the president. No one objected. Then he asked whether anyone would object to impeaching Cheney. Again, no one objected. I don’t know the full context of Conyers’ remarks, but the timing indicates it is related to Bush’s admission.
If you were strategizing a blogswarm to get Congress, the press, and the administration to do something, what would you suggest we focus on? Should we focus on the lack of media coverage? Should we focus on getting a special prosecutor? Should we focus on getting the administration to comply with requests for documents and testimony from congressional committees?
I’m asking because I’m not sure what we should do, only that we should do something.
ClammyC has a great diary up at Daily Kos-where he writes that the only way to straighten this out is to hand down some criminal indictments. In my book, he’s on to something. We do need criminal indictments. Plenty of them.
Focus on drawing up a dispassionate, legal, factual bill of indictment. Keep it credible and realistic. Forget the rhetoric. Then ask the media, Congress, candidates, the public which, if any, counts they disagree with. If any points are not dismissed, ask why there should be no prosecution of criminal offenses. Do you want a country where the powerful need fear no legal consequences or investigation for their actions?
make the specific charges the issue, not the broad question of whether impeachment would be proper.
Whatever you write send a copy to the World Court in the Hague because nothing is going to get done here in the US of A.
Maybe when Bush is transferring planes somewhere outside the country on his way to South America someone will show up at the airport and arrest him. Maybe some kind of Pinochet action.
I wish I could have been at that meeting so I could spit in John Conyers’ face.
I don’t know why anyone bothers to listen to that lying sack of shit. He talked big right up until he had the power to actually do something, and then he stuck his thumb up his ass and did nothing.
So we’re up to another election cycle and he wants to drum up another handful of impotent outrage votes. This is news? Did anyone ask him why Sibel Edmonds doesn’t exist in his universe? Or about his oath to defend the Constitution?
The man is an accessory to the war crimes and treason of the executive branch. We’re not going to get Bush indicted unless we can somehow indict people like Conyers, too.
Sorry, but Conyers and his ilk have zero credibility. Zilch. None. Nada. He’s a craven, cynical opportunist without a shred of moral decency.
Stop, eodell. You’re making me cry.
the truth hurts, doesn’t it.
i think it’s too late to do anything. much too late.
permanent stain on our nation now. the democrats had a chance to do something, and they failed miserably.
“failed” is prpobably the wrong word: that would imply that they tried and didn’t succeed.
instead, they did nothing.
“Screw Conyers”… afuckingmen!
and pelosi, reid and all the other spineless opportunists with the “impeachment’s off the table” cave in.
these people will never be brought to justice… so the question is moot…don’t waste your time boo, etal.
I understand your frustration, but saying that about John Conyers is out of line in my opinion. Moreover, it isn’t really responsive to my question. And I doubt it’s helpful in any way.
Fair enough. It isn’t responsive to your question. The answer to the question is this: we continue to organize and gain strength, keep making contributions to and casting votes for reformers, take our case to the public as eloquently as possible, and systematically purge people like John Conyers from the party. At the end of the day, political organization requires some kind of political discipline, and it is possible to have a functioning, powerful party whose tent isn’t so large it includes every last hypocrite and Judas.
If by “out of line”, you mean my calling Conyers a sack of shit, I’ll yield the point. But a liar and a do-nothing and a cynical exploiter of the despair of people who actually believe in the principles enshrined in the Constitution? I think that’s a simple matter of incontrovertible fact. We can debate all night about what might or might not lie in his heart, but all that matters in the end is what he does, and his actions fit the description I have offered for them.
I understand taking a principled stand.
I don’t understand your position that John Conyers is the problem, or that he deserves to be purged from the party, let alone spit upon. Anyone that spit on John Conyers would earn a grade A beat down in my book.
Are you familiar with his history and his record and his service to the nation?
Your rhetoric angers me, even as I understand the frustration and principles that underlie it.
I am not an apologist for do-nothing Democrats and I have my criticisms with how Congress has dealt with the Bush administration (there is a record of my daily observations). But no one should spit on John Conyers. And he isn’t to blame for the decision not to pursue impeachment.
This is all bullshit anyway. I asked what we should try to accomplish. I asked because I don’t know. I know the last thing I want to do is purge John Conyers from the party. I wish we had 434 more John Conyers. I wish I was qualified to wash John Conyers jock strap. But I’m not, and neither are you.
I let this sit for a couple of days so I could approach it in a calmer frame of mind than it inspired at the time.
I am familiar with John Conyers record. He served with distinction in Korea. He’s been on the right side of some votes. He’s been investigated for violations of House ethics rules and acknowledged responsibility. Replace “Korea” with “Vietnam” and “House” with “Senate”, and you could replace “John Conyers” with “John McCain” and the preceding three sentences would still be factual. Doing good in the past doesn’t excuse one’s present actions. In a court of law, prior good behavior might get a reduced sentence, but it doesn’t change the verdict.
But we can go back and forth on that forever. If my contempt for John Conyers steps over one of your bright lines, your last two sentences step over one of mine.
In an egalitarian, democratic society, there is no one so low beneath another person that they are not “qualified to wash [their] jock strap.” That notion runs contrary to the bedrock principles of egalitarianism. John Conyers is just — just — a man, like everyone else, including you, me, and the gum-popping teenage cashier down at the quickie mart. There’s no room for demigods and pedestals in a society of equals. If you aren’t down with that, well, fair enough, it’s your blog, and you can do as you please with it.
As for me, I’m going log out one last time and go wash my dishes like an ordinary mortal.
let’s not lose focus on your call to spit on him.
that was my line, not mere contempt
Hey Boo- are you serious.You really don’t know what to do?
Well-here is what you have to do– NOT A DAMN THING! There isn’t a damn thing to do. Any actions possible have long been gone. Make lists. Stand on the corner and cry. Give me a break. Those that could and those that should have sold this country down the drain.
You want to know what to do?
Make sure your passport is up to date and check into all possible exit points from this country. Pack a bag with what you will need. Keep it ready and wait for the shit to hit the fan. That is what you should do. And while you are at it- maybe you should elicit a list of :how to get a passport. Where are the exit points. What should be included in your suitcase or back pack.
fugeddabowtit.
Special prosecutor, definitely.
The best way to get serious traction for impeachment is to threaten the RNC with RICO for vote fraud, intimidation, etc. They will sell their mothers in a heart beat.
Stink up the place with the truth about our president and his administration.
Don’t talk or write about anything else. We should never be drawn into a gossip-fest over the intelligence of Rush, Bill, or Timmeh. Especially never over which ivy league graduate is more elitist.
Criminal indictments are lovely, but the media are where it’s at in this country. They all need to feel the wrath of the people. Let them eat what they have done to us all.
The next time somebody gets shot in the face by a drunk, I want to see a real furor. Remember we are at war.
Tomorrow edition of the Scotsman is going to have a story saying that Gore and Carter are getting ready to have a “Come to Jesus” moment with Clinton.
this calls for a sternly worded letter.
We were just talking about that over at EuroTrib.
This may be very off the wall but since you asked…
There may be a point to saving impeachment till the very, very end of Bush’s term. I have no clue if this is Conyer’s plan (or Pelosi, Reid, etc.). It’s certainly possible they have no plan at all, and are just being chickenshit, as many have said.
But we live in hope. Maybe there is a plan, and maybe this is it.
WHAT IF…. they are planning to impeach both Bush and Cheney just before the end of the term?
Why wait till then, you say?
Pardons. Maybe.
We all know damn well that on 1/19/09 Bush is going to pardon everybody and their cousin. I just wrote a DKos diary on this, wondering if one way to nullify these pardons might be for the next President to take the position that the Presidential power to grant pardons includes the Presidential power to revoke pardons, under limited circumstances. Many people shot down my harebrained speculation, and on reflection I’m sure they’re correct, and that way won’t work.
But the problem still remains. Is there any way to short-circuit Bush’s inevitable January pardons?
What does the Constitution say about pardons? The language is that the President “shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.” That’s the whole thing.
Notice that last clause. Is it possible that Conyers, Reid, et al are thinking a case can be made that “except in cases of impeachment” means that while an impeachment is under way, the Presidential pardon power is not available?
For going on two years, Reid has said that he doesn’t have the votes to convict, so he isn’t going to support impeachment. Everyone else has gone along, and many here in Left Blogistan have been frustratingly baffled as to why.
Maybe this is why. What if the Dems are planning to take the position that while a Senate impeachment trial is under way the pardon power is on hold? What if they spring an impeachment on Bush at the last minute? What if the Senate impeachment trial runs from, say, November through the end of Bush’s term? No pardons. At least, according to this hypothesis.
Wishful thinking? Maybe. I’m probably just as full of shit today as I was yesterday. But damn, I’d love to find a way to shut down Bush’s last minute pardon power.
I read that sentence to mean that a President can’t pardon himself or his VP or anyone else who’s being impeached. So he can pardon Scooter Libby and anyone other than the individuals who are being impeached.
That being said, I don’t believe that the Dem leadership have either (a) the cohones or (b) the wits to affect this strategy.
In the view of Pelosi and Reid, the past eight years has been an unfortunate tour of the political wilderness for the Dems. The assault on the Constitution was simply part of the game. Should they regain power then it’s time to party!– not time to enforce justice.
Alas, I fear you are correct.
Well, a fella can dream.
With so many smoking guns, it’s almost become a smoke screen. Which one leads to the tipping point, where the media, Congress, and the public can no longer stick their heads in the sand?
Politicians can be scared by a legitimate opposition from within their own party or by convincing their largest contributors.
The press can be influenced by threatening it’s perceived legitimacy or (to more effect) its ad revenue.
The Administration can be influenced by ‘Lies They Want to Hear.’ It’s easier influence a gold prospector with tales of nuggets than tales of silk.
First of all, you must get over the futile fantasy that the Dems will take any action no matter how much political capital that they accrue in the elections.
They will continue to make the same mistake that Bill Clinton made– assume that they’re not in an existential fight with rightwing ideologues seeking to turn the country into a fascist dictatorship. The right wing repaid Clinton’s generosity in turning a blind eye to Iraq-Contra by impeaching him after years of crippling warfare.
The best bet is to solicit big money and injured parties sue in civil court. Use discovery and the threat of perjury charges to bring to light the corrupt, shady and illegal activities of the Cheney/Bush Administration.
Does a special prosecutor have a time limit? In other words, can the prosecution process extend beyond the end of Bush – Cheney’s term?
If the answer is yes, then I think the idea of doing something is important – very important, perhaps even unifying many of those who have splintered over the primary process. A Republican friend sent me the link to the NYT article on our torturing. He felt it was important for people to know. There may be a great many more people who can look at this as citizens, not party members.
I think the focus on the lack of media coverage is not worth our time. Imo, the media follows.
Getting the administration to do anything also seems rather fruitless. As others have noted, Bush still has an incredible grip on congress – beyond anything he should have had given his ratings and the change in the ’06 election.
So, focusing on getting a special prosecutor – IF the investigation-prosecution process can be carried into the next administration.
But rather than direct energy toward members of congress, I think our efforts should be directed toward getting businesses and organizations to speak out against torture and for a special prosecutor. The ABA, the AMA, unions, associations – heck, even PTAs.
Maybe businesses that do international work might be ready to stand up. Plus, with this administration just about finished, haven’t they moved on to funding and shmoozing with the next round of contenders?
If I may recycle a comment I just posted on EuroTrib:
The US is polarized between a minority that screams for high-level prosecutions and a majority that favors, at most, a change of administration and policy.
I think we can be confident that the high-level prosecutions will never happen, and I think that most here would agree that it isn’t enough to quietly change people and policies (for an election cycle or two).
Neither attempting to prosecute nor ignoring the crimes and moving on can heal the US — no more than prosecutions or denial could have healed South Africa.
I advocate what has succeeded in similar cases: a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. (According to this Wikipedia article, Josh Marshall has already called for this).
From the page linked above:
This seems to fit the case better than any alternative I know.
My answer: Swarm the Clinton and Obama campaigns. Demand that they devote some time during CNN’s “Compassion Forum” tonight to the question of torture.
If elected President, I will expose and publicly revoke all this psychotic torture shit that George Bush and Dick Cheney have done in our names. It is wrong. It is barbaric. It is unamerican. It has made us less safe. I will end it and work tirelessly to make sure it cannot happen the next time the American people happen to elect a sadistic monster President.
Where is the data to support this? I would like to see the results of a poll asking now, in light of recent admissions that the top officials in this administration were approving of application of SPECIFIC torture methods, do you favor prosecution?
Despite the media diversion to orange juice and bowling, I think a surprisingly high number might vote for prosecution and/or impeachment.
Amazing that this is not being asked regularly, and published widely!
I hope I am wrong about this, because broad support for prosecution would be good news for the moral health of the republic and its people. There may be polls on the broader question of approval of torture — I’d be interested to know the results.
BTW, when I advocate a truth and reconciliation commission I have in mind a broader inquiry into the pervasive rot in government. We’ve all seen numbing and acceptance as the response to the unending reports of scandal, crimes, and war crimes. It seems that prosecution cannot handle rot on this scale, but with the political will to back it, prosecution of the top decision makers would be both just and beneficial.
———-
A follow up: a 2004 ABC poll on torture is somewhat promising: A significant majority of US citizens opposed at least some forms of torture, after they were given pro and con arguments.
I wonder, however, how much opinion has shifted in the 4 years since, how much further it will shift now that high elected officials (not rogue agents) have given their blessing, and now that generational shift has moved forward a notch. To quote the article:
By a large margin, people approved of practices that can break a person — blinding with a hood, sleep deprivation, and relentless, deafening noise. They just don’t see this as “torture”. About 25% of men approved of methods such as holding under water, threatening relatives, and electric shock.
What fraction those who “disapprove” would actively support prosecution?
——-
More:
2005 MSNBC poll: “In America, 61 percent of those surveyed agreed torture is justified at least on rare occasions.”
2005 Harris poll: “Majorities of Public Believe that Torture, ‘Rendition’ and the Use of Secret Prison Camps Outside U.S. are Sometimes Justified”
——-
I came here from Tristero’s post which included your question. Here’s my response:
Impeachment is the sole means by which we have any hope to stop this constitutional dictatorship and to reverse the silent coup d’etat which has been achieved.
I would put all efforts into sending this message to Congress:
failure to do everything proscribed by the Constitution to halt the continued assault on it by Bush, Cheney and “The Principles” is itself an act of treason. You (elected member of Congress) will be held accountable should you fail to do your Constitutional duty effectively and in a timely manner, and you will be supported when you act to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution by bringing forward articles of impeachment and voting on legislation which restores habeas corpus, repeals the Military Commissions Act and fully restores the Constitution and all of the rights of we, the people.
Military officers must resign their commissions en masse in response to orders which are illegal (preemptive war, occupation of a country which is not an imminent threat). The national Guard must be released from service in foreign lands, and service members and respective equipment returned home, where it can be ready to defend against domestic enemies.
This is the heart of the matter. This is the only form of resistance we have.
It is critical to send one uniform, powerful message. It is critical to be clear that we, the people, have not relinquished our government of the people and by the people under the rule of law. It is imperative that we convey the consequences of Congress’ failure to do its duty and to be accountable to the will of we, the people.
It is absolutely critical that we act upon that message in a public, transparent, unified and effective fashion. That may mean voting personable, party favorites out of office. That may mean voting in non-traditional ways. It may mean voting for country over party.
This is our last chance and our only chance. We absolutely have to get this right. Now.
What we do is stay on the topic to the exclusion of everything else. I’ve tried to do that at Pruning Shears. If we’re serious we should take the “No Primary Pledge”. For God’s sake stop contributing to the Clinton/Obama drama. Every word we write on it gives aid and comfort to the horserace paradigm. I’ve seen a lot of hand wringing over it on the left-leaning blogs but every word posted on it dignifies the talking heads. We might not be able to change them but surely we can change ourselves.