Bush Administration torture memo

[murraysovereign]

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?

[Fat_Teddy]

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.

[cj001f]

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.

[Fat_Teddy]

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!

[scott_harpell]

How many Presidents have been impeached?

 

2

 

Wrong.

 

Which 2?

 

Johnson and Clinton

[scott_harpell]

sorry... didn't refresh

[graupel]

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.

[Skeezix]

Didn't impeachment attempt against Clinton fail?

[scott_harpell]

Didn't impeachment attempt against Clinton fail?

 

look in a dictionary what impeachment means.

[E-rock]

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)

[scott_harpell]

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

[markinore]

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.

[Skeezix]

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.

[johndavidjr]

I think technically he was impeached by the House but then acquitted by the Senate. Weird episode.

Edited June 11, 2004 by johndavidjr

[scott_harpell]

Both were impeached.

[Skeezix]

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.

[Fat_Teddy]

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.

[Skeezix]

He was impeached in the sense of being charged, but he was not impeached in the sense of "to remove from office."

[Fat_Teddy]

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.

[Skeezix]

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

[Fat_Teddy]

dunno. It's a cut and paste from dictionary.com

[scott_harpell]

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.

[johndavidjr]

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.

[Skeezix]

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."

[johndavidjr]

Perhaps Scott listens to too much talk radio.