In this hypothetical, you have to make a choice: Impeach or Imprison

I'm an impeachment hawk. I want to see 'them' impeached and then prosecuted, found guilty, and either imprisoned or sentenced to the even more extreme punishment. But for this discussion, assume that you cannot have both.

Impeachment takes the car keys away from the drunken children now using them. It is purely about saving the country from further damage.

Criminal trial assumes we have to endure the rest of their term before we charge, try, convict, and sentence them. It is purely about punishment.

So ..... what is your preference - impeachment or a criminal trial after they leave office - and why?

the moment the cabal is out of power through impeachment or end of term. perp walk them directly to the hague.

.... where sentiment lies .... for correcting the mess they created or for pure revenge.

Personally I fall on the 'revenge' side of the scale.

Although I answered your OP in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3228011&mesg_id=3228838">If we fail to rescue the Constitution, there can be no justice/retribution, I'm jumping in here because I find your reference to "revenge" troubling.

I know many impeachment advocates who are demanding retribution via prosecution and judgment in court, both here and at the Hague, but so far I haven't met any who are seeking revenge. Just wanted to check to see if "revenge" is really what you mean.

From The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.

ret·ri·bu·tion (n)

1. Something justly deserved; recompense.
2. Something given or demanded in repayment, especially punishment.
3. Theology Punishment or reward distributed in a future life based on performance in this one.

re·venge (n)

1. The act of taking vengeance for injuries or wrongs; retaliation.
2. Something done in vengeance; a retaliatory measure.
3. A desire for revenge; spite or vindictiveness.
4. An opportunity to retaliate, as by a return sports match after a defeat.

.... but not without a smattering of revenge, too.

I'm very angry at this bunch.

. . .but I suspect that your anger is not actually a vindictive anger, but a righteous anger that generates energy and action easily channeled into seeking justice through the institutions we established in the US Constitution -- our common contract, amended and entrusted to us to protect and perfect as we strive to "form a more perfect union."

We so often hear authoritarian/reactionary propagandists tell the vast anti-fascist/anti-Bush majority that we are "hateful" it is hard not to begin to believe it. But detesting injustice, the doctrine of "might is right," and the horrors being committed in our name a virtue, not a vice.

on edit: Here are some questions that help me to distinguish:

Would I set aside the principles I treasure to see those who I accuse are subjected to the punishment I believe they deserve?

Would I set aside principles like the golden rule or the principle that government power can only be derived from the consent of the governed?

Would I violate the dictates of our Constituion, which is the product of our commitment to the audacious belief that common people can design and perfect a system -- the framework, officials, powers, evolving institutions and body of law -- that balances conflicting interests in a way that reflects common values and the principle of consent.

If my need to punish the offenders is stronger than my commitment to such dictates and principles, then it is a need for revenge that consumes me. If my commitment to principle and my belief that adherence to such principles is the only path to real justice trumps, then I am driven by a need for justice/retribution.

Stop the harm now and let the rest of the world know we do not endorse these criminals.

Plus impeach them all and remove them and their noxious ilk from our body politic.

If they had been investigated and impeached after IRan/Contra we would not have the current crop of Chick(Shit)Hawks infecting our government.

but mitigating further damage is most important, punitive revenge takes second.

Impeach them now and get them out of office. Then send them to The Hague

Because, that way THE ENTIRE COUNTRY is on record as saying we won't put up with this facistic crowd.


If we allow them to fiinish their term then everything they did becomes just a private crime And nothing, I mean NOTHING, that has been done since 2001 has been about their private acts. Everything has been done to corrupt public policy at virtually every level.

It's not just *, but he needs to be impeached so that his supporters, his minions who think this dreadful march to right-wing totalitarianism will not go unchallenged. They need to understand that this county will not abide it.

The Bush Frog March.


The Peace Palace. The Hague. Netherlands. Home of the International Criminal Court.


The International Criminal Court in session.


The U.N. prison at the Peace Palace.


Home of convicted war criminals.

it would have to include the Bush administration entire. All of them. Past and present. There would be nothing "off limits" either.. the corporate media who assisted them would not be able to hide from the crimes they have committed. Indictments would flow in all directions from the impeachment. Everything done by this administration would be undone as a matter of course. Our country needs saving.

The thing is that after impeachment there would have to be a criminal trial. The world would demand it and so would America. So it's win/win. :evilgrin:


INVESTIGATE IMPEACH INDICT IMPRECATE INCARCERATE :patriot:

for which the penalty is something greater than removal from offices. I'm talking prison time. Or turn them over to the international courts.

My fantasy is that they be forced to ride around the country naked on a railroad open flat car and all citizens be required to line up along the tracks as they ride through their town and throw tomatoes eggs and other messy things at them as they point and laugh at their teeny weenies. And selected members of the so called librul media along with them.

Then let 'em go.

The Republicans are too partisan.

Although, I still want an impeachment just for the precedent and the history books.

Because if the next president that wants to lie us into a war or torture people has to wonder if it will land him in prison that cant be a bad thing.

What they have done to this country, and other parts of OUR world is reprehensible! They have allowed torture upon the innocent, taken away our civil liberties, lied, stolen, and cheated. They have outed a CIA agent who was working in our best interest, they stole not one, but at LEAST two elections, and *dumbass likes killing too much for my liking.

Jenn

edited to add: And that is just for starters!

If we do not unequivocally reject their fascist fantasy that the Office of the President has absolute power and unlimited power "to protect us" our Constitution -- our common contract -- is null and void. With a broken Constitution any attempt to seek "justice" would be built on lies.

Impeachment is the ONLY way to rescue our broken Constitution.

If we are to have any hope of bringing the war criminals and their minions to justice, we must confront the truth head on as a nation and break our bond of complicity. Impeachment is the ONLY way to do it.

There is no time limit on the fight for impeachment. If the 110th Congress fails us, we must call on the 111th to impeach "in absentia."

By refusing to impeach, Members of Congress have created a national crisis graver than any natural disaster or social ill. It is bigger than any international crisis. By tolerating the intolerable, they are surrendering our capacity to recover from disaster with humanity, solve our common problems in ways that reflect our common values, and serve as a force for good in the world. When the good will of the American people is cut out of the loop, no peoples, not our fellow Americans, not other nations, can look to us for help.

That's like saying "Pick one: fucking Scarlett Johansson or winning Powerball." Not exactly Sophie's Choice. I have to choose? I should be so lucky. There's less than a snowball's chance in hell that I'll ever come close to any of it: the Johansson-fucking, the Powerball, the impeachment or the incarceration. Give me any one of them, I'll be pleasantly surprised.

for which I will remind you we do not have the votes yet... IS A CRIMINAL CASE

Impeachment is purely indictment and would NOT, I repeat, WOULD NOT remove them from office

In order to do that, you need the indictment in the Senate

Gosh darn it, the reason why Clinton remained in office is he was NOT convicted, just INDICTED

Damn it people, how many times do we need to explain how this works.

If you oly get impeachment, you will NOT see removal from office, and for joe six pack it will prove they are as innocent as a baby's bottom

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

. . .of a legal/judicial process (or as you say a "criminal case"), but it is absolutely NOT a legal/judicial process. It is a 100% political process.

They are Congress, NOT the Courts. They both have a role to play when it comes to the outlaws in the White House, but those roles are VERY different.

Impeachment is the weapon we gave Members of Congress to enable them to fulfill their oath "support and defend" by seeking to remove officials who pose a threat to the Constitution. It is the means by which we stay true to the vision of a true American embodied in the dictates of our Constitution by removing officials who corrupt that vision. It is the means by which we withdraw our consent from a public official for any reason we deem it necessary. All that is required is the political will to act.

When it comes to impeachment there is no appeal. There are no legal technicalities that can trump our will as expressed by Members of the House and Senate.

If we are to make impeachment a reality we need to be clear about its purpose.

For more on this see http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/20

I am talking of it in the Constitution

And please tell me where am I wrong regarding removal from power

What is more, if you do not impeach (and convict) the President, after they are gone from office, they are free and clear

So lets be clear about it. Without the whole process, political in its modern reality, or legal, the original intent, without it you can dream about trying any of these bastards in a court of law within the legal system

Again, how many times do we need to explain this?

(Oh and since it is political, as we approach 2008 chances are many of the needed votes for indictment will flip. Snowe is starting to show her wavring... more will follow)

Impeachment is not, and never was intended to be, a legal/judicial process. If that had been the intent we would have vested the power in the Judiciary, not Congress.

I have not come across ANYONE on DU who doesn't know that impeachment by the House does not automatically remove an official so I'm not sure who you are addressing when you say "Damn it people, how many times do we need to explain how this works."

You are mistaken to assert that Bush and Cheney are "free and clear" if they are not removed by the Senate.

1. Impeachment is not really about Bush and Cheney.
   Bush and Cheney turned the USA is a War Criminal nation that spies on its own citizens. Impeaching Bush and Cheney is about saying "that's not who we are." Impeachment is about declaring our commitment to the dictates of our Constitution. It is about unequivocally rejecting torture. It is about unequivocally rejecting their Unconstitutional claim to unitary authoritarian power. It is about saying "We refuse to tolerate the intolerable violations of our Constituion." Anything short of impeachment IS tolerating the intolerable.


2. Impeachment is NOT a "one shot" deal.
   If the Senate fails to convict on the first set of articles the House votes out, then the House can vote out another set. Tragically, Bush and Cheney have given them enough ammunition for at least a half-dozen impeachments. If the 110th Congress fails to force Bush and Cheney out of office, then the 111th can start from scratch and impeach "in absentia."

Your core argument seems to be "We can't win so don't fight." If that is what you are saying, then you are echoing the most insidious and destructive of all the rationalizations for inaction. There can be no victories if we refuse to fight and risk failure. Even if we believe the fight will be a "charge of the light brigade," when principle demands action, we must act, if only to show those who look back that there were some who refused to appease evil-doers.

In the 1930's, would you have told a prosecutor who had a town full of witnesses and confessions not to prosecute a lynch mob because you didn't think a racist jury would convict? Perhaps you would have, but if you did you'd be on the wrong side of history, standing with those surrendered to the horror of racist murder without a fight.

The case for impeaching and removing Bush and Cheney makes itself. We are all witnesses. Each time they claim unitary power to break our laws to "protect us" they "confess" and declare themselves intolerable threats to our constitutional democracy. Like squatters, they are laying claim to unconstitutional power through openly hostile possession. They trespass in plain sight. They do something unequivocally forbidden under our Constitution, publicly declare it is not forbidden, and dare Members of Congress to stop them. By refusing to accuse/impeach, win or lose, Members of Congress become complicit by legitimizing the fascist fantasy that the American presidency is vested with unlimited power.

As I said, when principle demands action, we must act, win or lose, so it doesn't matter how we think the Senate vote would come down. But consider this: if Bush and Cheney are impeached it is unlikely to ever get to a vote in the Senate. Republican Senators are already scrambling over each other to "distance themselves" from Bush. They aren't going to be keen on having to choose between voting to defend war criminals or voting to put Pelosi in the White House. You can bet they'll be doing everything in their power to force Bush and Cheney to resign "for the good of the Party" so they can escape having to make that choice and keep the White House in Republican hands.

not only on DU, but outside of DU

most people DO NOT, I repeat DO NOT know how impeachment works

And without the FULL PROCESS, the President and his people ARE IMMUNE from prosecution after they leave office

That is ANOTHER Consittuional reality. The only way to remove that immunity is impeachment and indictment and why impeachment and indictment can also happen AFTER a chief executive leaves office, but I am sure you knew that

And if you are going to prosecute you NEED those 67 votes in the Senate

Not only are you failing to acknowledge the fact that impeachment is not a "one shot deal," your assertion that Bush and Cheney are somehow "immune" from prosecution if not impeached is utter nonsense. They could be taken into custody and tried at the Hague at anytime by any party to the conventions. They could be charged and prosecuted by any future justice department. (Just as Bush I could have been prosecuted by the Clinton justice dept for the crimes he committed in Iran-Contra and for abusing his power by attempting to issue pre-emptive pardons to his co-conspirators and thus obstructing the course of justice.)

You also fail to address the moral imperatives. I ask again, in the 1930;s would you have told a prosecutor who had a town full of witnesses and confessions not to prosecute a lynch mob because you didn't think a racist jury would convict?

Further, there is no more reason to believe that more than 34 Senators will be willing to stand and defend torture than to believe that fewer than that .will be willing to publicly defend torture (Or that a vast majority of Republicans won't run for the hills by mounting a full court press to force Bush and Cheney to resign.)

and that is the end of this discusion as far as I am concerned

I have made several. I realize that you have no desire to continue the discussion, but I would appreciate it if you would let me know which points you accept and which ones you would argue against.