Reply #67: My point is that we have all the hard evidence needed to make an indefenisble case for removal. [View All]

[pat_k]

I absolutely agree that the longer the outlaws are allowed to hold power, the longer they have to destroy records of as yet unrevealed crimes.

But the role of impeachment is not to expose all their crimes. The role of impeachment is a defensive one -- remove power to corrupt by removing corrupt government officials from office by the speediest route possible. The shorter the road to removal, the quicker and more effectively Congress and the Justice Department can move on to the pursue a more comprehensive investigations and prosecutions.

A single charge is all that is required (or set of charges related to a single crime). The simplest, most egregious, and most indefensible case we have is their refusal to take Torture "off the table." It is the charge most likely to result in removal by verdict of the Senator or by resignation (to let Repub Senators "off the hook").

Even a failed vote to impeach or remove is "success" -- it gives each Member of Congress the opportunity to break the bonds of complicity; it validates the countless Americans -- the authorities, the public figures, the government officials, the military officers, and the oridinary citizens -- who have been sounding the alarm and demanding justice for years. Refusal to impeach is a slap in the fact to each and every one of them.

Here's something I posted on the subject of charges many months back:

. . .
Impeachment on any grounds is better than no impeachment at all, but there is no simpler or more compelling reason for removal than torture. There is nothing more subversive than their fascist fantasy of unitary authoritarian power they invoke to "defend" their actions. There are no charges that are more likely to result in removal.

Prosecution for war crimes is the prosecution they fear most. Their own futile attempts to find cover -- the public statements, executive orders, and signing statements -- condemn them.

"Drowning torture" ("waterboarding" to the propagandists) is absolutely and unequivocally forbidden under U.S. Federal Law. It is as clearly forbidden as "The Rack" and "Thumbscrews." Bush and Cheney refuse to acknowledge that subjecting any person drowning torture is immoral, inhumane, and prohibited in ALL circumstances. They refuse to acknowledge that arbitrarily seizing and indefinitely committing any person to U.S. custody is prohibited in all circumstances.

These laws reflect core and inviolable principles. Our treatment of the people who are in the custody of the state and the processes by which they are committed to state custody are central to our identity as Americans. Their refusal to acknowledge these laws, in and of itself, makes them a clear and present danger to the Constitution.

"Lying us into war," the central charge in Kucinich's resolution, is a weaker charge. Unlike torture, is not a crime in progress and they don't invoke their unconstitutional "unitary" fig leaf as cover. Illegal spying was stronger charge than "lying us into war" until the Democrats inexplicably "fixed" FISA. (They'd have a tough time making an effective case that the program is an intolerable breach when they've legalized much of it.)