I say skip impeachment & start arresting neo cons for TREASON.

[Philosoraptor]

I just can't kick the notion that impeachment is nothing more than a public scolding, they impeached Clinton in the blink of an eye, but he finished out his term with his popularity numbers in the nineties. Impeachment won't make dick and dubya go away, they'll still be there, in our White House.

Impeachment is just too good for em', I say we try them all for high crimes and treason and let the punishments fit the crimes.

I know I sound a bit wacky sometimes, but I've been calling for impeachment for years, everyone has, the notion of impeaching bush has been laughed at, ridiculed, and dismissed, yet now people are addressing like it was a real possibility. Arresting these assholes for treason and sending them to jail IS A REAL POSSIBILITY TOO.

Have they committed high crimes and treasons or not? Do they deserve to be arrested and tried or not? Can they not find one, single felony or tyranny to hang on these fuckers? I don't believe it for one second. If anyone ever deserved to be arrested and tried for treason it's dick, dubya, condi, colin, rummy, wolfie, perle and all the other neo con assholes, what's the fucking hang up?

[elocs]

1. Impeachment without convictions does not mean much.

Just a slap on the wrist in the history books. Even if Buscho does not like the Constitution or due process, most of us here support those concepts and so to get Bush it must be done by the book and by the numbers.

[papau]

13. Just arrest and hold the neocons as "enemy combatants" as their policies help the enemy - seems OK?

[pat_k]

19. To surrender to fascism without a fight is reprehensible.

It is not our problem if too many fascist minions vote down the charges.

Our only job is to insist that the Congressional leadership and our Reps. and Senators, whether Republican or Democratic, take up the ONLY "lethal" weapon in their arsensal and fight to "take out" the fascists. Win or Lose. My response to another poster who believes "We will look like the biggest assholes in the world" if we fight and lose:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1169359&mesg_id=1172432

[mmonk]

20. It's a universe better than continuing this.

[warren pease]

36. How does the OP's point obviate "the Constitution or due process?"

No need to recap their indictable offenses here. The litany of BushCo's treasonous acts has been cataloged by many people and various versions are all over Web impeachment sites.

But the point here is that these same acts are not only impeachable but highly illegal under federal law, and constitute serious felonies -- particularly in time of war. And Bushie, by constantly claiming that "we're at war," has elevated several of these treasonous offenses to "high treason," which carries the death penalty.

Talk about ambivalent; I've been stridently opposed to capital punishment all my adult life. I think it's cruel, barbaric and unworthy of a society with pretenses of civilization.

On the other hand, I've never detested the death penalty with the kind of grinding, visceral, intense, searing, pure white rage that comes over me every time I see or hear or even read about the Codpiece in Chief or Defibrillator Dick or Condi the token or Rove or Rumsfeld (in absentia, but not forgotten) or Gonzales the memory-deprived, or any of the other soul-shriveled sociopaths lured by the promise of endless self-enrichment opportunities and unrestricted power that are the hallmarks of the right wing coup of 2000.

So, much as I hate the ideology behind capital punishment, the idea of watching this gang lined up on the gallows, hoods in place, hangman at the levers, the overwhelming sense of history and awe silencing the witnesses, the muted movement of well-oiled machinery, the trap doors opening with astonishing speed, and....


wp

[krj44]

2. first thing is that we have a no

balls, congress that is, they want to play nice and add to their numbers in 08,ain`t going to happen, at this rate they may lose seats and they have a chance to add probably 5 seats in the senate and another 10 seats in the house.you see dems squabble amongst each other and their message gets misconstrued,the way the rethugs have held onto power over the last 12 years is to be on the same page whether they believe what was happening or not.so in the end if the dems don`t get balls soon we are all in trouble in 08.all this cheney bush crap and constitutionality is just a smokescreen to take the war off the front pages of the newspaper.thats the issue they lose on, the war.impeachment would further take the war off the front pages.

[WritersBlock]

3. I'm with you.

You don't sound wacky to me. You sound like an American patriot.

I firmly believe that they *are* traitors by the Constitutional definition:

Article 3:

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

If providing money to groups linked to al Queda isn't giving aid & comfort to enemies, then please tell me what is. http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/25/hersh-qaeda/

If lying the nation into a war against a country that posed no threat to us, against warnings that such a war would result in opportunities for al Queda and Iran to enhance their influence isn't giving aid & comfort to enemies, then please tell me what IS.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/23/iraq/main2844536.shtml

And if outing a CIA agent in the furtherance of those lies isn't giving aid & comfort to enemies, then please tell me what is.

Yes, they are traitors.

[mwb970]

10. We used to execute traitors.

Now we "re-elect" them.

[Philosoraptor]

11. AND give them the Medal of Freedom.

[pat_k]

22. Impeachment is of absolute necessity. . .

Violators of our War Crimes statute are subject to the penalty of death.

But We the People cannot skip over impeachment. If we do, we are failing to "support and defend." Criminal prosecution serves a differet purpose. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1172150&mesg_id=1172569

[pat_k]

21. If We the People skip impeachment we surrender to fascists. . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1172150&mesg_id=1172569

[RC]

4. I am with you.

If you or I were guilty of anything even remotely close to the crimes bu$h&co have done, the powers that be would have no problem getting us off the street and into the Federal prison system.

So what is the problem here? We all know what the charges would be. We all know who the guilty parties are. We all know what the evidence is and have the evidence in hand.

[Philosoraptor]

6. Soon they'll be arresting people like us for daring to speak out.

[pat_k]

23. Can't escape our duty to "support and defend" -- and ONLY impeachment

accomplishes that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1172150&mesg_id=1172569

[conscious evolution]

5. Sounds like a damn good idea

Creating enemies sure sounds like giving aid and comfort to me.

[pat_k]

24. Prosecution is a "good idea," but skipping impeachment is a bad one

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1172150&mesg_id=1172569

[Demeter]

7. I'm With You, Phil.

But you must have gotten out of the wrong side of bed this morning!

The question is: who has the right and power to arrest Dick and W? Could it be a citizen's arrest, maybe?

Then, how to get a trial going? Can we set up a kangaroo court, just like Yoo did?

Then, as punishment, can we ship them off to the Hague?

When do we start?

[pat_k]

25. We start by impeaching to "support and defend". . .

. . .the most urgent task. Rescuing Our Constitution.

Fighting to turn them over to the Hague is of absolute necessity, but our FIRST duty is the fight to impeach. It is a duty that We the People try to escape at our peril. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1172150&mesg_id=1172569

[Solly Mack]

8. S'OK by me

I believe impeachment would help restore checks and balance but Congress seems to be OK with their complete marginalization at the hands of Bush and Cheney

So... I'm OK with just dragging the thugs out of the WH and putting them on trial and then sending them to prison for the rest of their lives.


Not gonna happen but I am OK with it.

[pat_k]

27. Prosecution is about "Them;" impeachment is about "Us"

Lobbying to rescue our Constitution is our first task. You don't commence with prosecution while a gunman is out there shooting. The first duty is to seek to "disarm."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1172150&mesg_id=1172569

[Solly Mack]

29. Yes - impeachment is about the Constitutional process

of checks and balance on an executive (and not just an executive) that is abusing its powers, in order to protect and defend the Constitution.

Yes. I know that.

Did you see the dig at Congress I made? About not seeming to care about their own marginalization? That's an indicator that I was being sarcastic.

[pat_k]

32. I know you are clear about it. . .

. . .but your post seemed to me to be a little less so. But I should have refrained from tossing out a reply to it. You were clear enough. Guess the momentum of going down the cheers and challenging them got the best of me. Apologies.

:patriot:

[Solly Mack]

33. Bush and Cheney have marginalized Congress and with the help of Congress

I might add. Just recall the 109th Congress. Rubber-stamping the executive to the point Congress was fast becoming an obsolete branch of government. Who needs a legislative branch when the executive becomes a tyrant? Other than for the sake of appearances, that is...

It's up to Congress to restore the balance of power and defend the Constitution in the doing. Impeachment would go a long way in accomplishing that.

I support impeachment for just that reason. The Constitution has been jeopardized and as a result, our government & our country have been directed along a path that demands restoration of the guiding principles of the Constitution - impeachment in this case.

It's not a case of our Constitution will be or could be jeopardized ...it's a case of - has been jeopardized. We've been in a Constitutional crisis for a while now. It's just getting uglier and harder to deny - is the reason why more and more people are speaking about it in those terms.


I also want them arrested and prosecuted.

I also don't think either will happen.

But that won't stop me from demanding both.

[emanymton]

9. Do Not Strike To Wound!

.
When one draws one's sword against one's prince, throw away the scabbard. The people find themselves in a Constitutional crises of the first order.

Be there any group in USA willing to stage a coup, it is Cheney and Co. Many of Cheney's actions show just how far the administration is willing to go outside of the rule of law. Given how much is at stake, it is a great mistake to think Cheney et al are not willing to commit the final solution within the world of power.

Cheney and shrub have the forces and have shown themselves willing to use them to protect themselves. They have to see how vulnerable they are once they leave office and give up power. These people will not go quietly into the night to leave themselves and their families open to arrest.

The threat to democracy is real. This junta will not leave peacefully. Once the impeachment process is begun by Congress, a coups d'etat will follow. The coups d'etat will lead to civil war.
.

[formercia]

12. That's why violence won't work

they have the means and will to crush any rebellion. They would love an excuse to establish permanent Martial Law and suspend the Constitution.

[emanymton]

14. Hope For The Best; Prepare For The Worst.

Challenging times, they are a comin'.

The USA is a land of law. It is possible the shrub/Cheney junta can collapse peacefully like that of USSR.

[formercia]

34. A British educated lawyer from South Africa

by the name of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi defeated the Raj without firing a shot.




On edit: That reminds me. I have some brass I need to clean and reload.....

[cassiepriam]

15. I agree, we have gone way past impeachment. Time for criminal proceedings.

But most likely they will never have any consequences,
and be fabulously famous and wealthy for the rest of their lives.

The best sociopaths don't break the laws, they make them.

[pat_k]

26. Prosecution doesn't rescue the Constitution. . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1172150&mesg_id=1172569

[cassiepriam]

38. All legal, civil, criminal, constitutinal consequences should be applied.

The argument should be who starts what proceedings first,
not IF any of the proceedings take place.

[treestar]

16. They are so slippery, it is hard to get the proof in time

That's the problem, and the repukes are so dishonest they would not vote for conviction even if it were deserved. The repukes care about their power, not about the nation.

Impeachment is something Bushco deserves, but full of pitfalls for the Democrats. It's a tough question. No one wants them to get away with what they have done, but it's so extreme what they have gotten away with, that it will take more years than Bushco has in office to untangle it.

[pat_k]

28. They're committing their crimes in plain sight. They confess every. . .

. . .time they invoke the fascist fantasy of unitary authoritarian power. (If they weren't breaking the Constitution, there would be no reason to invoke the fantasy.)

The case is made. They made it against themselves. Torture and abuse of signing statements: We have what all we need for an indefensible case on the public record. Their War Crimes have even been adjudicated by SCOTUS. Hamdan was a declaration that three years of war crimes had already occurred. You don't "unring" the bell. There is a reason War Crimes are subject to the penalty of death. So those with the power to commit them don't step anywhere near the line. "Didn't know where the line was" is not defense.

But, impeaching Bush and Cheney MUST be our first task. Impeachment and prosecution serve completely separate purposes.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1172150&mesg_id=1172569

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

46. Shrub came out in public and admitted to breaking the law on Domestic Spying. What more

proof do you need?

[pat_k]

50. Whenever the fascists invoke unitary authoritarian power. . .

. . they tell us they are violating our Constitution and U.S. Code.

Chaney, Bush, and their minions only need the cover of that fascist fig leaf when all can see they are committing grave violations.

Their criminal intent is crystal clear with every scribbled "signing statement" that claims excecutive power to violate the law. When they declared Gito a Geneva-free zone, they declared their intent to torture. We can prove they acted on that intent, but we don't need to. The intent alone is intolerable.

It is hard to imagine how Bush and Cheney could possibly have made the necessity of their immediate removal any clearer. A couple examples from the public record and it's "case closed."

The case for impeachment and removal is so simple, so compelling, and so grounded in our most treasured principles, the Democratic establishment's refusal to make the case is beyond rational comprehension.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

51. Beautifully said. eom

[pat_k]

52. wish. . .

. . .I'd managed to post w/o all the typos.

Opps.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

54. psssssst.......

I won't tell the typo police.. ;) :hi:

[pat_k]

17. Failure to impeach is failure to "support and defend"

Impeaching Bush and Cheney is a defensive act. Impeachment is the power to enforce the dictates of our Constitution -- to "support and defend.". It is the means by which we assert our sovereign authority over the people we "hire" to serve us. The formal accusation must be made by "We the People" though Congress; Our Voice. Win or lose. To surrender without a fight is reprehensible.

Bush and Cheney are waging open and all our war on our Constitution. Members who refuse to call the nation "to arms" are choosing the path of appeasement. Pelosi's "off the table" edict is pre-emptive surrender..

Prosecution does not force those we elect to the House and Senate choose sides -- American principle or Fascist Principle.

Our commitment to the pursuit of justice demands Retribution -- prosecution and punishment. But that is for the Courts, not Congress. Failure to turn them over to the Hague for prosecution for War Crimes would be an intolerable breach our international compact, but it would not force us confront the stark truth as a nation and find out where We the People stand.

We must force Mambers of Congress take sides. Win or lose, the American people will stand in judgment of their actions in the next election. We will assert our collective will. If fascism wins the day, then at least we know what we are truly up against.

The Constitution -- amended and entrusted to us to protect and perfect as we strive to "form a more perfect union" -- calls on us to put our trust in our fellow Americans (you know, "We the People"). If we aren't willing to do that, how can we claim to stand for true American values?

[Bonhomme Richard]

18. One way ticket to Abu Ghraib.

It's only fitting.

[HootieMcBoob]

30. Why not both?

get them out of office first then charge them with whatever crimes they've committed. the biggest problem is that even if it's possible to impeach it will be nearly impossible to convict in the senate with the current make-up.

[Philosoraptor]

31. I'm good with that too.

[hack89]

35. You need to brush up on the definition of treason

straight from the Constitution:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason#United_States

The founders of America made a conscience decision to limit the definition to avoid historic abuses by English kings.


Neo-cons can start all the wars they want and as long as they are not aiding someone waging war against America it is not treason.

[pat_k]

41. As with Bush v. Gore, perhaps no technical crime of treason was committed. . .

. . .but that's only because it is hard to imagine the need for a "law" to prevent a U.S. President from claiming absolute and unlimited power. Just as it's hard to imagine needing a "law" to keep Members of the Supreme Court from stealing Presidential elections.

It could be assumed that men or women who committed such acts would be immediately impeached (The inexplicable failure of our Congress to impeach Bush and Cheney or the Felonious Five Justices. notwithstanding.)

The term treason has a common definition: a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.

In the United States, it is We the People that are sovereign.

Bush and Cheney have violated their allegiance to us.

They usurp our authority, violate our Constitution, violate our laws, and make the intolerable, unconstitutional, and Un-American claim that the Office of the President has unlimited and absolute unitary authoritarian power to commit such intolerable acts to "protect us."

That's treason.

Their treason against us is not for a court to deal with. It is for Congress. Impeachment is the means. Impeachment is not about punishing them. It is about declaring their acts intolerable violations of our sovereign authority. It's about defending ourselves by removing their power to commit such crimes against us.

We can deal with their treason. The Hague will have more than enough to prosecute with their many war crimes.

-----------------

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20010205&s=bugliosi">None Dare Call It Treason
by VINCENT BUGLIOSI
The Nation, February 5, 2001

. . .
Essentially, there are two types of crimes: malum prohibitum (wrong because they are prohibited) crimes, more popularly called "civil offenses" or "quasi crimes," such as selling liquor after a specified time of day, hunting during the off-season, gambling, etc.; and malum in se (wrong in themselves) crimes. The latter, such as robbery, rape, murder and arson, are the only true crimes. Without exception, they all involve morally reprehensible conduct. Even if there were no law prohibiting such conduct, one would know (as opposed to a malum prohibitum crime) it is wrong, often evil. Although the victim of most true crimes is an individual (for example, a person robbed or raped), such crimes are considered to be "wrongs against society." This is why the plaintiff in all felony criminal prosecutions is either the state (People of the State of California v. _______) or the federal government (United States of America v. _______).

No technical true crime was committed here by the five conservative Justices only because no Congress ever dreamed of enacting a statute making it a crime to steal a presidential election. It is so far-out and unbelievable that there was no law, then, for these five Justices to have violated by their theft of the election. But if what these Justices did was not "morally reprehensible" and a "wrong against society," what would be? In terms, then, of natural law and justice--the protoplasm of all eventual laws on the books--these five Justices are criminals in every true sense of the word, and in a fair and just world belong behind prison bars as much as any American white-collar criminal who ever lived. . . .

[wiggs]

37. Right on. When an employer catches an employee stealing, embezzling, lying,

and murdering...just firing them is not the solution. That is not accountability. Impeachment is just firing, really, It is a trial but the penalty is the senate telling the perpetrators they have to find another job in which to misbehave.

Impeachment may mean some tarnish on the legacy and some humiliation...but that pales in comparison to the trillions of dollars funneled into the hands of their friends and relatives. I'm sure the neocons and their CEO friends feel the recent resignations, low approvals, and possible impreachment is SMALL PRICE TO PAY for the benefits of the last six years. Cheney and Bush will be heroes in their small circle of friends for a long time.

Jail. Yesterday.

[John Kerry VonErich]

39. Do you understand the penalty for which if they are found guilty?

Death.

[pat_k]

42. There's a reason war crimes are punishable by death . . .

. . .so that those with the power to commit such crimes won't step anywhere near "the line."

"U believed the line was somewhere else" is not a defense.

When they declared Gitmo a Geneva-free zone, they were committing war crimes. SCOTUS confirmed it in Hamdan. There is no "unringing the bell."

Done is done.

Now lets get them impeached so we can ship them off to the Hague aleady.

[Philosoraptor]

40. ...............

[BreweryYardRat]

43. We can definitely get them for gross corruption...treason wouldn't be much of a stretch.

Make sure we get their private contractors too!

[Vinca]

44. Agreed - impeachment is too good for this bunch.

Spirit them away to the Hague for war crimes trials.

[lonestarnot]

45. Shit!

To late to recommend!

[NotGivingUp]

47. they'd be in front of a firing squad if things worked they're supposed to. nt

[DemoTex]

48. What shoe best fits? Try on the Nuremberg Indictments for size. Tailor-made for Bu$hco.

Nuremberg Indictments

(1) Crimes against Peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a Common Plan or Conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;

(2) War Crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;

(3) Crimes against Humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of domestic law of the country where perpetrated.

If the shoe fits Bu$h/Cheney, kick them in the ass with it! :kick:

[Philosoraptor]

49. Grandpa bush was Hitler's buddy, Nazi behavior is a family tradition.

[onenote]

53. don't think you're looking for a serious discussion, but here goes:

Are there sufficient grounds for impeachment: undoubtedly

Is there a case for treason? Almost certainly not. If we are truly concerned about protecting the Constitution, then I can't support twisting the extremely narrow clause relating to treason just to have another way to get at chimpy and gang.

Article 3, Section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Note that all important "only". And while I know some will argue to the contrary, there is not a serious case to be made that chimpy and gang have levied war against the US or have adhere to our enemies giving them "aid and comfort".

Impeachment, by all means.

[conscious evolution]

55. I think Waxman is setting the stage for treason charges.

With the focus on the handling of classified documents by bushco the only charge that makes sense is treason.
If it were bribery they would have trotted out David A Smith and the misdirected emails he received.
If it were for high crimes and misdemeanors there are other crimes that are much easier to prove.

Treason is the only thing that makes sense.Waxman is playing for keeps here.

Someone once said that if you are going to draw your sword on the prince you may as well throw away the scabbard.I think Waxman has thrown away the scabbard.

[JerseygirlCT]

56. I'm sort of hoping for The Hague and some juicy war crimes trials, myself. nt