Saturday, July 14, 2007
Impeachment
It's time to put impeachment (of President Bush and Vice President Cheney) back onto the table. This administration has openly admitted committing crimes (FISA violations for starters). There are more reasons to impeach Bush and Cheney than there were to impeach Nixon during Watergate, and far more reasons than there were to impeach Clinton.
Failing to hold them responsible for their actions sets a dangerous precedent. It tells future presidents that obeying the law and upholding their oaths to the Constitution are optional, that obedience to the law is merely a political question, not a question of duty.
(If the folks in Congress wants to work their way up to this, they can always start by impeaching Alberto Gonzales.)
A lot of folks on the left have argued against impeachment, because there's so little time left before the end of the Bush administration, or because we can't possibly get the required 67 votes
in the Senate for a conviction (though for some reason neither argument stopped the Republicans from impeaching Bill Clinton). Ok, maybe there's some validity to that.
But if we refrain from impeaching Bush and Cheney, we must make it clear that political considerations are the only reason for doing so.
Failing to hold them responsible for their actions sets a dangerous precedent. It tells future presidents that obeying the law and upholding their oaths to the Constitution are optional, that obedience to the law is merely a political question, not a question of duty.
(If the folks in Congress wants to work their way up to this, they can always start by impeaching Alberto Gonzales.)
A lot of folks on the left have argued against impeachment, because there's so little time left before the end of the Bush administration, or because we can't possibly get the required 67 votes
in the Senate for a conviction (though for some reason neither argument stopped the Republicans from impeaching Bill Clinton). Ok, maybe there's some validity to that.
But if we refrain from impeaching Bush and Cheney, we must make it clear that political considerations are the only reason for doing so.
Monday, July 02, 2007
He'll always be inmate number 28301-016 to me
President Bush has just commuted Scooter Libby's prison sentence. Apparently Mr. Bush feels that 30 months in prison is too harsh a punishment for lying to investigators, perjury, and obstruction of justice.
Is Mr. Bush going to introduce a bill reducing the sentences for these crimes? After all, if 30 months is too harsh for Scooter Libby, surely it's too harsh for anyone else who lies to investigators, commits perjury, and obstructs justice. Right?
Or perhaps prison is only for people the President doesn't know personally.
The real message here is that Scooter Libby was just doing his job, and that job was to obstruct justice.
UPDATE: Much has been made of the fact that the President has absolute authority to grant reprieves and pardons. But consider this. Under the First Amendment, all of us have absolute freedom of speech -- but there are any number of crimes in which the criminal action can consist entirely of speech. Perjury is one example that springs to mind.
Now that Libby's sentence has been commuted, he has much less incentive to alleviate the effects of his crime by coming forward and telling the truth. By commuting Libby's sentence, has Bush now obstructed justice? If Bush's action were, hypothetically, part of a conspiracy, could he hide behind the fact that he was using a power granted by Article II of the Constitution?
Just a thought.
Is Mr. Bush going to introduce a bill reducing the sentences for these crimes? After all, if 30 months is too harsh for Scooter Libby, surely it's too harsh for anyone else who lies to investigators, commits perjury, and obstructs justice. Right?
Or perhaps prison is only for people the President doesn't know personally.
The real message here is that Scooter Libby was just doing his job, and that job was to obstruct justice.
UPDATE: Much has been made of the fact that the President has absolute authority to grant reprieves and pardons. But consider this. Under the First Amendment, all of us have absolute freedom of speech -- but there are any number of crimes in which the criminal action can consist entirely of speech. Perjury is one example that springs to mind.
Now that Libby's sentence has been commuted, he has much less incentive to alleviate the effects of his crime by coming forward and telling the truth. By commuting Libby's sentence, has Bush now obstructed justice? If Bush's action were, hypothetically, part of a conspiracy, could he hide behind the fact that he was using a power granted by Article II of the Constitution?
Just a thought.
