Received a letter back from Joe Lieberman about Cheney Impeachment.

[ihelpu2see]

He feels it would distract us from other things??? I respectfully replied that he was wrong not knowing the facts:....

first my response below that his letter to me...

Dear Sen. Lieberman,

I am truly sorry that your view is that impeachment would not succeed. Especially since all the facts have not been born out. You must recall Mr. Cheney's secretive energy task force meeting in 2000, we still have not found out what oil companies were present. If you then look at the constant mis-information put forth by Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and President Bush about the reasons for the Iraq war and the continuation of the war (of-course you agree with this tragic misuse of our brave soldiers). Overlay that with the recent Oil law being considered by the Iraqi Congress ( a law written by International Oil firms). I think there will be plenty of "high crimes" to be found when all of the subpoenas are filed. (also remember Dr. Rice has been served with one and has not agreed to testify.... I believe that is Contempt of Congress).

Hopefully those in the CT for Lieberman Party can stand by your reasoning I believe our Brave Soldiers should come first in this conflict and there has never been a successful occupation of a country and that is just what this is. Our Military won the war but you don't win occupations.

Respectfully,

Dr. Frederick







On May 14, 2007, at 4:42 PM, [e-mail] wrote:







May 14, 2007



Dr. Frederick


Dear Dr.


Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns about Vice President Dick Cheney. I appreciate the time you took to share your views with me.



The government of the United States is unique because it structurally decentralizes, divides, disperses, and limits power. Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution outlines the provisions regarding impeachment. The framers adopted a narrow view of the English practice of impeachment, and it has only been carried out on a select few occasions in our nation's history. Congress must first confront whether the conduct in question falls within the constitutional parameters of "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" before contemplating impeachment of a federal official.



Elections have consequences, and that is why we should be extremely reluctant to employ impeachment except for exceptional circumstances.Impeaching Vice President Cheney would undoubtedly not succeed but would distract Congress from achieving progress on important issues such as health care, education, the environment, and global warming.



My official Senate web site is designed to be an on-line office that provides access to constituent services, Connecticut-specific information, and an abundance of information about what I am working on in the Senate on behalf of Connecticut and the nation. I am also pleased to let you know that I have launched an email news update service through my web site. You can sign up for that service by visiting <a href="http://lieberman.senate.gov/">http://lieberman.senate.gov</a> and clicking on the "Subscribe Email News Updates" button at the bottom of the home page. I hope these are informative and useful.



Thank you again for letting me know your views and concerns. Please contact me if you have any additional questions or comments about our work in Congress.



Sincerely,





Joseph I. Lieberman

UNITED STATES SENATOR



JIL:ae

[sinkingfeeling]

1. Nice response, but you will never convince Joe.

[zbdent]

2. He should be continually asked why he felt it wasn't distracting

when he voted to allow the impeachment procedings ... while Clinton was trying to do something about Osama bin Laden and the Middle East ...

BTW, Rush was saying (at the time) that Saddam rattled the sabre when he felt that the President was weak ...

[TankLV]

3. Then what the fuck happend to your "standards" "holy"LIEberman when it you were considering Clinton!

LYING us into an ILLEGAL war versus a private sexual indescretion...

Your fucking LYING hypocricy is showing you repuke asshole!!!

[pat_k]

4. Seems to be asking for a follow up.

Perhaps a little chat with the appropriate legislative assistant?

If, as he says, "Congress must first confront whether the conduct in question falls within the constitutional parameters of "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" before contemplating impeachment of a federal official." then Lieberman has an obligation tell us what Bush/Cheney conduct he has "confronted." Has he confronted the question of whether or not claiming to have the "unitary authority" to commit war crimes (e.g., to declare Gitmo a Geneva-free zone; to abduct and hold prisoners indefinitely in secret prisons; to nullify McCain's anti-torture amendment with a signing statement) "falls within the parameters" of high crime?

If he has confronted their war crimes, what did he conclude? If he concluded that their war crimes are not "high crimes" an explanation is in order. Given that war crimes are so grave they are subject to the penalty of death, such crimes ought to meet any sane person's definition of "high crime."

If he claims he there is insufficient evidence, he needs to explain what more he could possibly want than what's on the public record. For example, what "evidence" is lacking for the following case:

February 7, 2002, the Office of the President published http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/20020207-13.html">Fact Sheet: Status of Detainees at Guantanamo, in which they declared "The President has determined that the Geneva Convention applies to the Taliban detainees, but not to the al-Qaida detainees."

There was never any doubt the conventions applied to the abductees/detainees held by the USA, whether on or off shore. In Hamdan, even a Supreme Court stacked with their fascist minions couldn't escape that inescapable reality when they ruled that the conventions applied (and with that ruling, declared that three years of War Crimes had already been committed -- something that had been self-evident all along).

Under the Geneva conventions, Parties to the treaty must enact and enforce the conventions under domestic law. To this end we enacted U.S. Code Title 18 section 2441 (War Crimes). When the Office of the President asserted the power to arbitrarily dictate which groups are, and are not, subject to the Geneva conventions, they gutted our War Crimes statute, an act that is in itself a War Crime. We know J.T.F-170 employs "harsh interrogation" (torture), but there is no need to argue or prove the point because, whether or not they actually engaged in torture, they committed a War Crime when they gutted the law.

There is a reason that violators of Geneva are subject to the death penalty -- to give those with the power to commit such crimes a compelling motive not to step anywhere near "the line." And to give those with the power to stop the crimes a compelling motive to do everything in their power to do so.