Jim Hightower: How about impeaching for torture?

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/28914

How about impeaching for torture?
Submitted by davidswanson on Fri, 2007-11-23 22:17. Impeachment

By Jim Hightower, www.Minutemanmedia.org


Bill Clinton got roundly ridiculed and then impeached by Congress for a sexual encounter that he tried to dismiss by quibbling over what the meaning of "is" is.

Yet, we now have a president who is engaged in a far more damning constitutional encounter that he is trying to dismiss by quibbling over what the meaning of "torture" is. Why isn't he facing an impeachment inquiry?

From Abu Ghraib to Guantanamo to extraordinary renditions, Mr. Bush and Co. have violated our own laws and international treaties that flatly prohibit torture of war prisoners. Yet, they keep trying to excuse their abhorrent behavior by writing secret memos to themselves redefining torture, as well as not torture.

Two more of these self-excusing memos have recently surfaced from the misnamed Justice Department. Responding in 2005 to a new law passed by Congress, and to Supreme Court decisions prohibiting "Cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment" of prisoners, Bush-appointed lawyers wrote a clandestine memo merrily defining CIA torture techniques as not being cruel, inhumane, and degrading. The revelation of this crude attempt to circumvent the laws of our land were so explosive that Mr. Bush himself had to be trotted out in a hastily arranged press appearance to declare with a straight face: "This government does not torture people."

Why should anyone believe him? Because I say so, says the prevaricator-in-chief. Of course, the president refused to show us the memos, and his staff has even attacked the media for revealing that they exist. No one believes him, because... well, he's unbelievable.

Clinton tried to mince words about a sexcapade. Bush is mincing words about running his own secret legal system in defiance of our Constitution. Let me ask you: Which offense do you think does the most harm and is the most impeachable?



For more information on Jim Hightower's work — and to subscribe to his award-winning monthly newsletter, The Hightower Lowdown, visit www.jimhightower.com.
» add new comment |

:kick:

God knows, there are enough already known reasons for impeaching these criminals. There are probably an equal if not greater number of as yet undiscovered reasons!

But JUST DO IT! It's the job that's never started that takes forever to finish.

If the dems opposed the things bush was doing, he would have been impeached a long time ago.

they just want to replace him, and manage the crimes better.

surfaced that proved that he engaged in Torture of Detainees, personally.

Molly Ivins type Texan!

Sadly, this was negated (again, impeachably) via Rule By Signing Statement.

But how likely is it that ALL those GOP Senators will suddenly reverse themselves -- with the world watching, with their families watching, with their own historical legacies in the balance -- just to protect the megalomaniacs who have brought their party to near ruin?

We need but a handful for a moral victory.

Good to see someone finally getting to the nub of it.

---

They let Gonzales and Alito pass

Republicans would never have let that happen. I hate the R's but I now respect them at least.

All that dose is help the Republicans. Getting rid of 18 Republican Senators would work. All Republicans believe in absolutism. ab·so·lut·ism <ábssə lt ìzzəm>
n
1. political system: a political system in which the power of a ruler is unchecked and absolute

Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

While you're at it, check out the definition for a "Cult", and see hoe Republicans fare there... :)

Not only is he on top of everything important that happens and often reveals stories that other journalists miss, his writing style is brilliant and entertaining. I subscribe to the Hightower Report and it's worth every penny.