murraysovereign Posted June 9, 2004 Share Posted June 9, 2004 Wasn't "torture" one of the reasons given for deposing Saddam Hussein in the first place? So, when Saddam orders it, he's an evil tyrant who must be removed from power, by force if necessary. But when it's US agents doing the torturing, it's OK because they fiddled the rules to make it look legal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat_Teddy Posted June 9, 2004 Share Posted June 9, 2004 How many Presidents have been impeached? 2 Wrong. Which 2? Correct. Andrew Johnson & William Clinton I thought Johnson missed impeachment by one vote. If I'm mistaken, thanks for the correction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted June 9, 2004 Share Posted June 9, 2004 I thought Johnson missed impeachment by one vote. If I'm mistaken, thanks for the correction. Johnson was impeached 126 to 47, the vote on the charges was 1 vote short of the 2/3's majority required to convict. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat_Teddy Posted June 9, 2004 Share Posted June 9, 2004 I thought Johnson missed impeachment by one vote. If I'm mistaken, thanks for the correction. Johnson was impeached 126 to 47, the vote on the charges was 1 vote short of the 2/3's majority required to convict. I should have looked it up. Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted June 9, 2004 Share Posted June 9, 2004 How many Presidents have been impeached? 2 Wrong. Which 2? Johnson and Clinton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted June 9, 2004 Share Posted June 9, 2004 sorry... didn't refresh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graupel Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 The memorandum advised that for this to work, the United States officials must be able to contend that the prisoner was always in the other country's custody and had not been transferred there. International law prohibits the "rendition" of prisoners to countries if the possibility of mistreatment can be anticipated. Kinda sounds a little like Nick Berg. The US was claiming the Iraqi police were detaining him prior to his demise, yet supposedly he told his parents that the US had been holding him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeezix Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Didn't impeachment attempt against Clinton fail? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Didn't impeachment attempt against Clinton fail? look in a dictionary what impeachment means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-rock Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 I would just like to add to this thread that Fat_Teddy is a big fat stupid dick! (Unless he's Adamson, and then I take it back) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 I would just like to add to this thread that Fat_Teddy is a big fat stupid dick! (Unless he's Adamson, and then I take it back) Pussy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markinore Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 MrE, the writing of a paper answering a question does not necessarily constitute direction by Bush's Administration or the Justice Department. From what I read, Justice was simply answering a question on legality and legal exposure that was posited by CIA. Nothing wrong with that. They are giving an opinion on THE LAW, not directing POLICY. They are two different things. The issue here is not that torture was approved by Bush (there is no evidence that that is true) or that torture occurred (hard to argue with). The issue is that lawyers working for this administration made the rather stunning determination that the President of the United States can order torture and it is perfectly legal. How can any thinking person not be appalled by such a statement? As a species, we may be hard pressed to justify our "civilization," but at least there is one principle that pretty much anyone who purports to be civilized can agree with: torture is wrong. It's wrong if you do it. It's wrong if I do it. It's wrong if you have a "good reason" to do it. It's wrong if you're just doing it for fun. Now if you are a leader and a lawyer or another advisor of tells you that something as heinous as toruture is okay, you have an obligation to explicitly reject that advice and preferably to fire the person who gave it to you. Unless, of course, the lawyer was just telling the client what he wanted to hear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeezix Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 OK, I looked up "impeach" (Merriam Webster site), and it can mean either "to bring charges against" OR "to remove from office." So, depending on which definition you're using, Clinton either was or was not impeached. The articles of impeachment against him failed to pass. Of course, the original thread was about the Bush Admin. torture memo. It's the blunder of the day for this administration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johndavidjr Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 (edited) I think technically he was impeached by the House but then acquitted by the Senate. Weird episode. Edited June 11, 2004 by johndavidjr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 Both were impeached. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeezix Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 Unless, of course, you use the definition "to remove from office." I think when we speak of impeaching a gov't official in this country, most people think of it in the sense of "to remove from office." Therefore, Clinton was not impeached. He served out his full two terms in office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat_Teddy Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 im·peach ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-pch) tr.v. im·peached, im·peach·ing, im·peach·es 1. 1. To make an accusation against. 2. To charge (a public official) with improper conduct in office before a proper tribunal. 2. To challenge the validity of; try to discredit: impeach a witness's credibility. Clinton was impeached. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeezix Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 He was impeached in the sense of being charged, but he was not impeached in the sense of "to remove from office." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat_Teddy Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 m·peach ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-pch) tr.v. im·peached, im·peach·ing, im·peach·es 1. 1. To make an accusation against. 2. To charge (a public official) with improper conduct in office before a proper tribunal. 2. To challenge the validity of; try to discredit: impeach a witness's credibility. Clinton was impeached. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeezix Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 How come you have two 1's and two 2's there? Main Entry: 1im·peach Pronunciation: im-'pEch Function: transitive verb Etymology: Middle English empechen, from Middle French empeechier to hinder, from Late Latin impedicare to fetter, from Latin in- + pedica fetter, from ped-, pes foot -- more at FOOT 1 a : to bring an accusation against b : to charge with a crime or misdemeanor; specifically : to charge (a public official) before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office 2 : to cast doubt on; especially : to challenge the credibility or validity of <impeach the testimony of a witness> 3 : to remove from office especially for misconduct - im·peach·able /-'pE-ch&-b&l/ adjective - im·peach·ment /-'pEch-m&nt/ noun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat_Teddy Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 dunno. It's a cut and paste from dictionary.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 He was impeached in the sense of being charged, but he was not impeached in the sense of "to remove from office." Hey dumbass. The way the goverment uses the term in this sense means to have charges brought up against. Quit trying to mire everything in semantics and admit that you were wrong. Look in a history book if you are too studpid to figure it out for yourself. I did that in the 3rd grade... I think you can manage it with some help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johndavidjr Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 You need a dictionary of terms used by U.S. Congress or possibly a law dictionary. For example if you look up "indict" (is that how its spelled? I don't own a dictionary) it means to accuse with lots of evidence. But to be indicted by the government means they convened a grand jury, held hearings, and then charges are brought on that basis. In the case of impeachment, its an action done by the House, and in the case of Clinton, the rabble majority approved the articles of impeachment. However, the Senate can vote to acquit, which they did. Beyond that I'm stretching my memory, but wasn't the "trial" held in the Senate? So impeachment is like an indictment, with the House (heavily populated by car dealers, real estate agents, failed lawyers and chamber of commerce types) serving as grand jury. The trial follows in the millionaire's club. You better check all this if you care, but it sounds right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeezix Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 Whoa, Scott ...we were still on the civil level. You descend so quickly to the level of name calling. I argue that most people think of the term impeach as "to remove from office". I have no more evidence to back this assertion up than you have to back up your assertion that "the goverment uses the term in this sense means to have charges brought up against.." I am neither stupid, nor a dumbass. The right tried to impeach Clinton --to remove him from office-- but, like in so many other instances, they were impotent. Oh, and it's government ...not "goverment." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johndavidjr Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 Perhaps Scott listens to too much talk radio. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.