the non-impeachment rosetta stone

[sophiaserpentia]

A piece in this weekend's Washington Post is the Rosetta Stone that unravels the mystery of why Democrats like Nancy Pelosi took the impeachment of Bush and Cheney off the table - their hands are in the torture pie too.

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

So, there you have it. The Democrats won't impeach for the same reason that Mukasey, during his confirmation hearings, could not even admit to have pondered whether waterboarding is torture: because it makes them open to prosecution too. They are personally and individually complicit in the Bush Administration's crimes against humanity.

Comments

[liminalia.livejournal.com]

That doesn't really compute to me. Impeachment was about lying about the lead-in to the Iraq war, and maybe Plamegate, not waterboarding. And being briefed about a practice does not necessarily mean you are liable to prosecution for it.

I mainly think they did not pursue impeachment because they didn't see a political plus for the Dems in it. The GOPers got a lot of animosity from impeaching Clinton.

[lassiter.livejournal.com]

I mainly think they did not pursue impeachment because they didn't see a political plus for the Dems in it.

One would think that winning the presidency and senate, and keeping control of the US house, might be considered a "political plus." And it would be, by anyone other than the national Democratic party. Now, thanks to Reid and Pelosi's refusal to impeach, end war funding, or stop illegal domestic wiretapping, the congressional Democrats' are polling at 11 percent. It takes some real effort to be even less popular than our war criminal president, but damn, they've sure managed to do it.

At any rate, Pelosi needs to be removed from office immediately and tried for conspiracy to cover up war crimes. Maybe if she's made the poster child for this, the rest of the Democrat pack will remember they tooka n oath to preserve and defend the US constitution, not (as they seem to think) an oath to preserve and defend the Bush/Cheney neocons.

I'm sending a nice check to Cindy Sheehan's campaign to defeat Pelosi this week.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Well, any investigation in Washington is going to creep all over the place. For example, the Whitewater investigation turned into a lurid investigation of Bill Clinton's sex life. So it doesn't matter under what pretext an impeachment proceeding starts, it would *eventually* turn towards the legality of torture authorized by the Administration. And then any Dems who knew and didn't object would be complicit, or at least seen to have a conflict of interest in continuing to preside over the impeachment proceeding.

Waterboarding has grown into a radioactive 800 lb. gorilla - no one will go near it, if they can help it, because their own complicity can probably be traced.

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

The GOP got a lot of animosity for impeaching Clinton because Clinton was highly favored at the time. It's difficult to impugn a person that so many intuitively like and will likely defend.

Also, historically speaking, those who have pursued impeachment have come out winners in the next national election.

But...

[publius-aelius.livejournal.com]

They are personally and individually complicit in the Bush Administration's crimes against humanity.

Barack Obama is not. Neither is Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich. It is still perfectly possible to believe in a handful of our national leaders.

Re: But...

[liminalia.livejournal.com]

Oh Lord, don't get me started on the 101 reasons to dislike Ron Paul. Why do so many otherwise leftie people think he walks on water? I don't get it.

Re: But...

[publius-aelius.livejournal.com]

Why do so many otherwise leftie people think he walks on water?

Because, despite his honest but erroneous conviction that radical libertarianism is most beneficial for the majority, he is still a truth-telling man of peace. It's really quite reasonable that fair-minded "leftists" can respect his integrity while differing with some of his ideas.

Re: But...

[la-veuve-chibi.livejournal.com]

Whereas Kucinich isn't just a truth-telling man of peace, but also--gasp!--a leftist! Wow, imagine voting for someone you agree with completely instead of partially...

Re: But...

[publius-aelius.livejournal.com]

But I do NOT agree with Kucinich "completely"; I am somewhat more of a libertarian than he is. I LIVED in two socialist countries for almost a decade of my life, and I'm convinced that socialism is incompatible with human nature. The levels of sheer dependence and mind-numbing bureaucracy convinced me that a capitalist social democracy is better for any traditional Western Judaeo-Christian society.

Re: But...

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Yes, but it takes more then two or three people to impeach the president. We need more than a handful to show some genuine leadership.