There is no legal argument against Bush’s impeachment.

Tuesday, November 6th, 2007 @ 1:56 am | Middle East, Politics

Andrew Sullivan tells us what he really thinks:

It tells you all you need to know about some neoconservatives that they now side with the arguments of the Gestapo against the arguments of the US to defend their own willful ignorance and power.

Of course, this reveals how elementary and relevant to centrism Chomsky is:

Also, bear in mind, people ought to be pretty critical about the Nuremberg principles. I don’t mean to suggest they’re some kind of model of probity or anything. For one thing, they were ex post facto. These were determined to be crimes by the victors after they had won. Now, that already raises questions. In the case of the American presidents, they weren’t ex post facto. Furthermore, you have to ask yourself what was called a “war crime”? How did they decide what was a war crime at Nuremberg and Tokyo? And the answer is pretty simple. and not very pleasant. There was a criterion. Kind of like an operational criterion. If the enemy had done it and couldn’t show that we had done it, then it was a war crime.

We’ve tortured, thus it’s not a war crime anymore.

-jb

5 Responses to “There is no legal argument against Bush’s impeachment.”

  1. Jesurgislac Says:

    Kind of like US attacks on civilian broadcasting stations.

    When the US does it, it’s not a war crime – not even when the other side does the same thing.

  2. Dana Says:

    General Curtis LeMay, who commanded the Army Air Force’s strategic bombing campaign against Japan, a campaign which included the two nuclear attacks as well as the firebombings of Yokohama and Kobe, said that, had the Japanese won, he’d have been in the dock being tried for war crimes.

    War crimes are the excuses used by the winners to hang the losers.

  3. Dana Says:

    Of course, you entitled this article, “is no legal argument against Bush’s impeachment.” Well, there never was; as Gerald Ford once said, when he was House Minority Leader, an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives says it is.

    But the simple fact is that the House will not impeach President Bush, and y’all know it. Although the Democrats have enough votes, by themselves, to pass articles of impeachment, to actually remove the President from office would require the affirmative votes of 67 senators — and y’all have only 51. That means you’d need at least 16 Republicans to agree, and that ain’t gonna happen.

    Besides, I have a difficult time imagining anything that the Democrats could do which would reunite the GOP more than trying to impeach the President.

  4. jeromy Says:

    Dana: Is it that hard to admit Bush is guilty of criminal wrongdoing?

    BTW, why exactly would trying to impeach Bush unite the GOP so much? Pure party loyalty, I take it? My point was precisely that you guys don’t have any actual argument except “Bush is The Decider-in-Chief and all is permitted!” So it’s pure authoritarianism, isn’t it? You don’t have any defense but you know you can keep Bush in office and avoid some degree of disgrace (though it’s hard to get lower than this) through particular actions.

    It’s funny, back in the 90’s Republicans were very fond of legal arguments that construed Clinton’s perjury in a civil lawsuit unrelated to national security as a “high crime.” Now we have obvious high crimes and you fellas yawn.

    I strongly recommend, Dana, that you try picking up John Dean’s “Conservatives without Conscience.” He’s got you guys nailed.

  5. Jesurgislac Says:

    Dana: Besides, I have a difficult time imagining anything that the Democrats could do which would reunite the GOP more than trying to impeach the President.

    I guess there’s just one thing we have in common, Dana; we both see the Republican Party as utterly corrupt, who would defend a President who has committed crimes and claimed vast and unConstitutional powers, just because he’s of their party.

    Heh. But then, I believe you’re a Republican, right, Dana? So you should know how corrupt the Republican Party is…