Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Any comments on the Movement to Impeach?

Posted 1 year ago on April 23, 2013, 12:15 p.m. EST by ZenDog (13421) from South Burlington, VT
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

By now all of us, I am sure, are intimately acquainted with the events that transpired on Boylston Street, in Boston, on Monday, April 15, Patriots Day.

We are acquainted with the twin bombs and everything that came after: the intense investigation, the photographs, the shootout, the lockdown of a major metropolitan area and the intense manhunt.

We are acquainted with the victims: Krystle Campbell, 29; Martin Richard, 8; Lingzi Lu, 23, and MIT officer Sean Collier, 26.

We know that each of these human beings died as a result of the callus actions of two men, and we know this because of extensive photographic evidence. We now know who they are, and we know one of them is dead, and the other is in custody.

And Finally, we know that four members of Congress did issue a statement calling for the surviving perpetrator to be turned over to military authority.

http://www.lgraham.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=283aeb5a-ffc4-7534-730b-b9df7e3a648f

“The accused perpetrators of these acts were not common criminals attempting to profit from a criminal enterprise, but terrorists trying to injure, maim, and kill innocent Americans. The suspect, based upon his actions, clearly is a good candidate for enemy combatant status. We do not want this suspect to remain silent,”

Joint statement by: Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) and Representative Peter King (R-N.Y.)

No doubt, all of us are by now well acquainted with the suspect in question. His name is Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, he is 19, and a citizen of these United States. Naturalized to be sure, but he is a citizen, having lived among us since the age of nine, having gone to our schools, lived and played along side our children. He is, without any question, one of us.

What these legislators have proposed is that this young man, this citizen, be classified as an enemy combatant, and be turned over to military authority, for an indefinite period, as a response to his criminal conduct. Most of us are well aware that any of our children may fall victim to the process of radicalization today. It is a prospect that none of us would wish, for anyone. Yet it can, and it has, happened, many times in recent memory. Never once has such a suggestion been made. Until now. That it has been made, on this occasion, seems so incredulous, that many of us may be apt to think to ourselves, they must be joking.

But this is no joke. By weight of their authority alone, such a statement becomes credible. This then is a very serious matter, and we must devote our undivided attention. We must do so now, for if it is acceptable for one of our children to be so declared and held indefinitely, then any of our children may treated in like manner under similar circumstance, and we do not perceive clearly where all of this may end.

The current President has insisted that we will not engage in enhanced interrogation. Let us be frank. What he has said is that we will not permit torture to remain as a matter of state policy, under any circumstances. He has also dispensed with the term: enemy combatant. The legislative actions that produced such terms and instituted torture as a matter of state policy may, perhaps, be forgiven, in that they were a response to an event that shook this nation, overwhelmed it with grief, inspired not only the imperative of response, but also an outpouring of rage.

What this President has done is to have stepped this nation back from the abyss where only darkness and tyranny rule.

What these four legislators have proposed is to propel us back toward that darkness.

We have, in this nation, erected long standing curbs to such action. They come to us in the form of our Constitution, wherein the right of due process has been enshrined.

The rights granted the People of these United States come to us at high cost, they were not easily won, and we see they are not easily maintained. We see that in time of war we may set them aside, however briefly. We have seen war waged between brothers, between father and son, and we have seen this nation torn in half in that dark hour. Yet we did emerge the stronger, with steps toward the promise of equality for all. Each step bore with it a heavy price, the price of American blood. Our fathers’, and our grandfathers’ blood.

We cannot today, take this most recent, most heinous criminal act, and convert it into an alter of war, whereon the memory, and the blood of three American children and one foreign national - a guest in our house - may be sacrificed. If we are to preserve all that has been purchased at great sorrow and great cost, from that day to this, we must hold these four legislators accountable to their sworn oath, to uphold the United States Constitution.

This they have not done, and so must be impeached.

.


.


.

UPDATE:

Representative King Ups The Game

Petition to Impeach Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) and Representative Peter King (R-N.Y.)

72 Comments

72 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by grapes (2770) 1 year ago
  1. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is a naturalized U.S. citizen.
  2. Naturalized U.S. citizens swore to uphold the Constitution of these United States of America just as the foursome elected Congressional representatives did who had advocated classifying Dzhokhar Tsarnaev as enemy combatant.
  3. All of the people mentioned in 2. have all of the rights, privileges, immunities, and responsibilities.
  4. Advocating denial of rights, privileges, and immunities of U.S. citizens are un-American because it goes against the Constitution.
  5. That coming from a group which swore to uphold the Constitution amounts to betrayal.
  6. Impeachment is just and called for. Let our Constitutional legal process decide.
[-] 2 points by Narley (-629) 1 year ago

I know this is off topic, but the intent is to provide another reason for impeachment. Our legal system is broken.

On November 5th, 2009, Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan, shot and killed thirteen people and wounded thirty more. He still has come to trial. In fact they argued in court for about six months on whether he should shave his beard. The trial is now scheduled to start on July 1st, 2013. I’m not holding my breath.

When it takes 3 ½ years for a admitted terrorist to come to trial something is wrong with the system

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13421) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I'm not a lawyer, but his crime was committed on a military base while he was in service. Our judicial system may not apply in this instance.

[-] 1 points by Narley (-629) 1 year ago

OK then, the military legal system is broken. Three and a half years is too long for justice to be served. When I was in the Navy I did something wrong and got an Article 15 and a dock in pay. I did the deed, got caught and went before the judge all on the same day. Granted this was more like a simple case of disorderly conduct. The Malik trial is taking too long to get going.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13421) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Perhaps no one in the military wants to demonstrate that there is any cause for hurry when it comes to the dispensation of . . . terrorists . . . I guess on the one hand I don't blame them, there are one or two terrorists I'd like to disappear myself . . .

[-] 1 points by grapes (2770) 1 year ago

Speedy, thorough and deliberate administration of justice is the foundation of all good governance. Army Major Hasan's case has dragged on unreasonably long, calling into question if due diligence had been given to the investigation. As any cat can meow you, not licking its anus clean fast is bad for feline hygiene.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13421) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

That is a very nice summation. Thanks.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13421) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

That's it? 24 signatures?

  • Are you people high?
[-] 2 points by grapes (2770) 1 year ago

Yes, but not high enough to commit high crimes like some can.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (18067) 1 year ago

I can only speak for myself and say 'yes, a bit - so ?' lol & recommend that you post it on other fora too, like : http://occupy.net/ and on the chat streams of, http://occupystreams.org/ etc. You are nearly there right ? You haven't got too many ... ''Miles To Go'' : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTOB-JW9sM4 :-)

pax ...

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13421) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

50 is the number signon gave it. Lets face facts. We need millions.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (18067) 1 year ago

Of course you are right but nevertheless and in compliment and solidarity, I append :

fiat justitia ruat caelum ...

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13421) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

It is an outrage. It is madness.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (18067) 1 year ago

Yep & I'm gonna lay this down here softly and just quietly back away :

I respect and applaud your efforts but please don't pop a gasket at that link & maintain your 'Zen', dog !!

fiat lux ...

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13421) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

LoL!

Haven't read it yet - but I would point out that:

  1. the threat of extremism is real, regardless of which branch of fundamental conservatism we are talking about.
  2. the use of drones does predate the current President
  3. in the U.S. the military industrial complex is a vast network comprising both corporate and public sectors, and their allies are tightly interwoven into the cultural fabric at the pinnacle of U.S. society and power
  4. they are very, very influencial
  5. One of the obligations of President is to protect and preserve the nation and its people, and much, though certainly not all, of that responsibility falls under the title Commander in Chief.

Almost none of the above is taken into consideration when anyone examines the President's foreign policy, regardless of where the criticism is coming from.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34900) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Tweeted - http://occupywallst.org/forum/any-comments-on-the-movement-to-impeach/

Thought it a good post for wider consideration.

Any comments on the Movement to Impeach? http://occupywallst.org/forum/any-comments-on-the-movement-to-impeach/#.UXsc5FIYiZE.twitter 4 U'r Consideration on Healing Government. Please Consider/Share/Circulate

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34900) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Yep - a properly functioning democracy of the people is not just about electing people to office - it is also about getting rid of the mistakes in office ASAP as well.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34900) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Excellent Exercise In Participating In A Direct Democracy.

People - this is how a direct democracy can begin.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Calling for enemy combatant status for the bombing suspect is like a tiny splinter in America's eye. There's an enormous plank in the other eye called Afghanistan that needs our immediate attention.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

No, calling for the enemy combatant status puts you, your family, your compadres and everyone else at risk. Period. This needs your immediate attention.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

The enemy combatant status issue goes back to at least 2002 when Bush declared Jose Padilla an enemy combatant. This is nothing new.

Again our disagreement comes down to strategy. Thoreau put it best. "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to the one who is striking at the root."

[-] 0 points by ZenDog (13421) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

pithy

sounds like an excuse to do nothing.

Finally we have an opportunity to square some of the legislative actions that have taken place since September 2001 against the principles contained in the U.S. Constitution and all you have to offer are pithy old saws with no teeth.

This issue tends to possess certain subtleties, many of which may be quickly grasped with but short explication. It is a fundamental issue, and it points the road to a very deep and very dark place, and there is no assurance that should we descend too far along that path we will ever find the means to return the people to the light of freedom and democracy, the only place where liberty may thrive.

Consider carefully what these four legislators have clearly said:

  • it is acceptable to detain in military custody any U.S. citizen apprehended on a charge of terrorism, even if they have committed their crime in the U.S., have been apprehended on U.S. soil, and there they may remain indefinitely, with no recourse to, or oversight by, civilian authority.

If we do not stand up now, it is inevitable we will return to this question, when it will be even more difficult to push back against this inexorable down hill slide.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

This already happened with Padilla on 2002. How can we slide down a hill we're at the bottom of?

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13421) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Completely different case with a completely different outcome. He had his day in court. These four legislators offer the prospect of indefinite detention without habeas corpus FOR AMERICAN CITIZENS.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/jose_padilla/index.html

We have an opportunity to begin to roll some of this back - if we act now.

[-] 3 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Padilla was an American citizen born in Brooklyn. He spent 3 1/2 years in military prison, tortured, before he was finally tried in civilian court.

[-] -1 points by ZenDog (13421) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

One whose crime was not committed on U.S. soil.

We are further from September 11, 2001, we have established numerous times the effectiveness of the Judicial system in terrorist cases, and now we have these four once again opening a door that we had begun to close.

We have an opportunity. Certainly you are under no obligation to avail yourself.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Where the alleged crime took place doesn't matter. Because he's an American citizen is the pivotal issue.

These four have only opened their mouths. Are we going to try them for words?

[-] 3 points by ZenDog (13421) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Yes, and remove them from office on the basis of them. Their words have meaning. Their words have weight and that weight arises by virtue of the office they hold, and for which they swore an oath, to uphold the Constitution.

By their words, and words such as these are deeds indeed, and by their deed they did defy their oath, in a very clear and particular manner.

It may seem like a minor point - but it is one worth noting. Their words lend legitimacy to this entire program of indefinite detention, and that is completely contrary to Constitutional law.

What these four did was to literally push this nation in the wrong direction. They lent their voice, and so the appearance of legitimacy, to an illegitimate procedure.

The public has calmed somewhat, since 2001. We have an opportunity. I am advocating that we take it. Immediately.

[-] -1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

Where have "we established the effectiveness of the Judicial system in terrorist cases"?

The "testimony" given to NIST? Confessions given under torture?

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

[-] -1 points by Builder (3490) 3 hours ago

With ID's as loose and interchangeable as they are around this joint, how could you honestly state that I'm here "chasing pussy"? I do live a full day's flight away from you people, remember?

As for your credibility, you're skating on thin ice here, ZenDog. After disappearing for the worst of the troll escapades, and returning to a rather staid group of debaters, you seem to have taken on this role of camp adjudicator, or maybe even mind-bending empathy sensei.

It's wearing pretty thin, ol' mate.

That's if you really are still ZenDog, and not his stand-in sock puppet. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink


So, are you down with impeachment?

I find Zen to be quite credible. It isn't necessary for me to agree with every thing he says. That's very cool. Zen is Zen. He is exactly who he says he is.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13421) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

lets face facts - I don't have any choice. No one else will be me, so I must . . .

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13421) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Was the underwear bomber tortured?

How about Kaczynski or McVeigh?

I'm sure there are any number of legal experts you could turn to for a break down of the specific cases that have been tried within the Judicial system and how each was handled at every step of the way.

Each case, on the basis of its own unique set of circumstances, will argue in this same direction, each illuminating this issue from their own perspective. All will indicate how they can be handled, and offer us a choice.

We have an opportunity, to act, now.

Or we can sit on the couch, jus' chillin' to Beavis . . . and Butthead . . .

the choice is yours.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

It's not mine, actually. It's yours.

You've wiped your hands of 9-11, and the torture that resulted in admissions of guilt. You take as gospel the corp-media releases of the latest psy-op, as if there never was an attempt to pull the wool over America's collective eyes in the past.

Now, despite the prez himself playing judge and jury with drone attacks, and the passing of laws that basically makes legal what your "special four" guilty of something, your focus is narrowed, and your target defined.

What's with that?

[-] -2 points by ZenDog (13421) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

come on. Be honest. You aren't here to confront the power structure when and as opportunity does arise, you aren't. You're just here for the hot chicks. It's clear. Hey, I don't blame you, hot chicks are, well, . . . hot.

No doubt.

Embrace the system, bend it to your will, or not.

Not it seems. Do as you wish.

[-] -1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

Attack the post, not the poster.

You've hijacked ZD's ID, haven't you?

What have you done with him?

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13421) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Hey if you aren't down with the issue, I get it. But lets be fair, shall we?

When you say I've wiped my hands of 9/11 you have not attacked my post at all. You have attacked my credibility, my integrity, and seem to suggest that if I do not accept the wildest explanations for that event then I simply cannot be trusted.

I rarely share my thoughts on that event and I do not because it is so painful, and painfully divisive, to so many. It was clear to me by September of 1997 that day would come, I was wrong, perhaps, about why.

If you do not see the opportunity that exists, then there is nothing to seize.

Go back to chasing pussy.

[-] -2 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

With ID's as loose and interchangeable as they are around this joint, how could you honestly state that I'm here "chasing pussy"? I do live a full day's flight away from you people, remember?

As for your credibility, you're skating on thin ice here, ZenDog. After disappearing for the worst of the troll escapades, and returning to a rather staid group of debaters, you seem to have taken on this role of camp adjudicator, or maybe even mind-bending empathy sensei.

It's wearing pretty thin, ol' mate.

That's if you really are still ZenDog, and not his stand-in sock puppet.

[-] 0 points by ZenDog (13421) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

eeyeah - so now I'm confused

Do you live in Boulder? Or Australia?

Because I think I've seen you claim both - not that I care.

As for the rest of your nonsense my response

[-] 0 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

You think? Never mentioned Colorado.

Is it too late to impeach a former prez?

You know that Tony Blair would be beaten to a pulp if he ever had the gall to show his face on a British street?

I guess Bush the rerun is still making cash on the speaking circuit. With people like Murdoch still claiming he was a good prez, I guess that's alright, isn't it?

[-] 0 points by ZenDog (13421) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

We are poised to draw down as it is. Would you contend over policy specifics on an issue that will soon disappear from the public eye?

The statement of these four was clear, and plainly opens the door to an untenable Constitutional breach. Commentators from both sides of the political divide have made that clear, as the links above indicate.

If this issue is resolved as it need be, there may be a new openness, a new honesty, a new level of integrity, within the hearts of those elected to serve. It may not go as far as we would like, and the struggle will be far from over.

Each journey begins with a single step - and many have already been made on the road that leads only into despotism.

We must make this one step back, here, now.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago
[-] 3 points by ZenDog (13421) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I believe we must thank these individuals for their past service, Senator McCain in particular, give this matter the careful, sober, consideration it demands, and act accordingly.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

I've thought about it. I think that it is imperative that we move to impeach them.

I hate to say that regarding these circumstances. But, the reality is that this will set a precedent for citizens.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13421) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

It is not an attractive proposition. I haven't followed these individuals very closely, but it occurs to me they may represent what is left of moderation among the right.

But if this is moderation - placing before the public the very real prospect that U.S. citizens may be apprehended and turned over to military authority for criminal behavior - then we are in far worse danger from within than ever we were from without.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

They pretend to be moderate. I don't think they are. If you put one of them next to say........Bachmann then you see sanity for a minute.

[-] 3 points by ZenDog (13421) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I think that this is a very important issue but I think that it would be absolutely necessary to work towards removing the option all together.

It is silliness. We do not need that option. All we need is the will to operate within the judicial framework that exists. I have confidence we can do that, though it might require quantifying with specificity what constitutes the kind of national emergency that extends the length of time one might be held without miranda, and that would have to be watched very closely.

Surely if any citizen has placed bombs that are set to go off, we do not intend to provide an attorney prior to dismantling and disposing of them. That's silly, and legal provision needs to reflect that - but it must be absolutely clear what kinds of circumstances we are talking about and when they apply.

What we have now is the very real possibility of fascist rule, we are not but a step or two away. Commentators on both sides, as the links above, recognize that, even if they do not speak so out loud.

I think it is absolutely imperative that the public push back against this inexorable slide into despotism that was clearly and distinctly delineated in late 2001.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Surely if any citizen has placed bombs that are set to go off, we do not intend to provide an attorney prior to dismantling and disposing of them.

I know, right?

And one more round of enhanced interrogation techniques and I will lose my mind. Thousands of years old and doesn't bloody work but let's play another round of denial.

No, we don't need that option.

I am in favor of impeachment or expulsion- since that is a bit unclear. My preference is to acknowledge limitations in advance so that there are no surprises and, frankly, it allows me to continue to give the finger to commentators that serve no purpose.

Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995 indicates that we were on that track before 2001. If we choose not to acknowledge this then it would surely lead to circular arguments specifically designed for distraction and halt momentum.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13421) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I haven't seen that - at least not recently. But one can argue that since at least the 1950s we have been sliding toward that dark abyss. What makes this different I think is the statement itself, where it comes from, what it means, and where it will obviously lead, all of which I've attempted to outline above.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Made me want to chunk the tv and computer. I agree that the argument could very well be made it started in the 1950s. I agree with the outline. Let's roll.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13421) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

lets

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13421) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I think just this once I'm going to hold my tongue.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

lol

I am reading through Impeachment Grounds: A Collection of Selected Materials. It's PDF. I know. S.L.O.W. But, it's about 36 pages.
http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%26*2%3C4RL%3B9%0A

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13421) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

high crimes and misdemeanors

a high crime is one that can only be made by virtue of authority

failing to uphold their oath is a high crime

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Do you think 2/3 of the House would get on board with the impeachment?

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13421) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I would have to guess - each of them would come to the issue on the basis of information and influence which I have no knowledge or experience of. If it is constructed as a partisan issue, probably not.

If serious consideration is given to the matter, and they are convinced to consider it seriously, then it is possible.

The real question is one of credibility.

The real question is one of legitimacy.

Some might argue that the government has already passed into a state where it no longer has legitimacy or authority based on the last 13 years of executive and legislative behavior. As a personal matter, I would argue that corner was turned far earlier - but this isn't about me, and if it were I would convince no one.

The whole world watches what the United States does. This latest move by these four individuals must have unnerved our allies, and they must seriously wonder - what will happen after the next election.

I seriously wonder that myself. the whole world watches, and this shit won't wash.

.

I do believe that the best we can do is the best we must do. The only reason we have not closed Gitmo and used a supermax facility instead, is why? We don't know why. It's all smoke, no mirrors. In the end it must be a quest for power, in part driven by fear. We do not need to be afraid. Civil authority can manage this, IF everyone works together and takes it seriously, refusing to allow politics to stand in the way. I thinnk that is the only way to preserve what has been gained - to preserve this nation's Constitutional freedom.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

There has only been one attempt to impeach a member of Congress. That is William Blount. http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/expulsion_cases/Blount_expulsion.htm

[-] 3 points by ZenDog (13421) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

That is interesting. Sounds like quite a circus. Under the present circumstances I thinnk it would be best all around if the circus was kept to a minimum and thus placate our allies and the general public. I am a bit afraid the temptation otherwise may be irresistible. It might even be useful - but there is a cost, and that is the credibility of our government itself. Republicans I would point out, are not heavily invested in the credibility of our nation's government in the minds of the general public.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Well, I don't think that it is possible to avoid a circus and it can become bipartisan real fast-on the outside. They are four republicans. I doubt very seriously that you will find any of the house willing to go that far. I doubt very seriously that you will find any Dems to get on board with that because they would be up next or standing right next to them.

I'm merely stating this because we have already seen this repeatedly.

.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13421) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

You may well be correct, and I am not sure that a widespread, bipartisan grassroots demand that Congress take up the question will over come the points you have made.

If any of them were serious about doing their jobs then a grass roots campaign would not be necessary.

In a very real and practical sense, the legitimacy of the United States government as a whole has been placed in question by the actions of these four legislators. As the links above indicate, that is felt if not clearly understood by commentators on both sides of the political divide.

This is I think a very serious issue, because with their behavior we have crossed a line where it becomes reasonable - some may say necessary - to articulate a case that justifies, or mandates - revolution, against the U.S. government.

Congress can let such a notion fester among the public.

Or they can act.

Governments gain their authority to rule in only two ways - one is through force of arms, and the other is through the will of the people. Questions of legitimacy have been very important among kingdoms, where allegiance and subservience to the king was expected. This behavior could not be secured without an understanding among the people, an agreement, that the king was the rightful ruler.

In the U.S. we have a slightly different process, with a different agreement - but it works in the same manner. The mind must not question the legitimacy of those in power.

That question arose very clearly as the results of the 2000 election became clear.

It arises again, very clearly, now.

To enlist the cooperation of the public in the war on terror, the public will need to take comfort from the assurance that somehow, we remain true to those ideals to which we aspire and have yet to achieve - backslidling of this nature simply provides excuse to those who would tear us apart from within.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

The legitimacy of the US government as a whole has already been placed in question and recently by Hedges v Obama. Given the opportunity to protect citizens-they failed to act. As it stands they have left enemy combatant status as a completely arbitrary option. They seem to have no problem allowing it to fester.

They aren't serious. They haven't been serious for quite awhile.

We may call for impeachment and it might serve our immediate needs. However, what we need is a complete removal of the option itself. Otherwise we have prolonged the agony and with each and every change of power it becomes a serious risk.

One of the issues that I find fascinating is that the international community CAN sanction the US. I think that we have come close to that, however, more than likely this would merely confirm many other countries beliefs.

I think that this is a very important issue but I think that it would be absolutely necessary to work towards removing the option all together. That said, it might very well open a whole new can of worms.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by ZenDog (13421) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago
[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34900) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

It may just be a small start- but it is a good one. Impeach all that are working to destroy the Constitution - to destroy the rights of every citizen.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13421) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

It is a shot across their bow, let them prepare to be boarded or be blown out of the water . . .

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34900) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Yep - let em see it coming - their downfall - caused by their own actions as well as in-actions. Get people to consider the possibilities. The more actions like this getting out to the Public - the more the Public can grow in getting properly involved.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (4187) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Tamerlan Tsarnaev reportedly listened to the conspiracist radio host (Alex Jones). “My show is anti-terrorism.” [RW Hate and Lie Radio IS Terrorism!]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/alex-jones-downplays-connection-to-boston-bomber

[-] 0 points by ZenDog (13421) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

He is a misguided fool.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (4187) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Tamerlan, Alex or both?

[-] -1 points by ZenDog (13421) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

well, yes. I initially meant Alex, but yes.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Fourtunately the lyin Rs will not get their way.
IMHO - their whole game is not based on ANYTHING except giving Obama the finger

I wish someone could convince me that a single Rs in the federal government should NOT be impeached -
If I could, I would impeach them all

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13421) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Interestingly, as the links above illustrate, this can and must be a non-partisan proceeding.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (4187) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

As Cons descend more completely into a criminal cult, justice itself becomes partisan and avoiding it is just denial of facts.