A president who makes an executive order to during wartime that wouldn't pass constitutional muster should be impeached? I could name a whole slew of presidents that should be impeached starting with Lincoln.
__________________
Obamanfreude - 1. taking pleasure from the misfortunes of an Obama supporter as he or she is adversely affected by the policies of their Dear Leader.
Absolutely not. I'm not comfortable with Bush's decision, but it is not grounds for impeachment in any way. And there's no comparison between this situation and Nixon's situation.
__________________
We must be the change we wish to see in the world -- Ghandi
http://www.rightminded.net
Absolutely not. I'm not comfortable with Bush's decision, but it is not grounds for impeachment in any way. And there's no comparison between this situation and Nixon's situation.
Quote:
There can be no serious question that warrantless wiretapping, in violation of the law, is impeachable. After all, Nixon was charged in Article II of his bill of impeachment with illegal wiretapping for what he, too, claimed were national security reasons.
Both parties committed the same offense for the same reason , why should Tricky Dick be impeached(attempted) and not Bush ? Your logic eludes me . The only functional difference I see is that Nixon was embroiled in a "police action" rather than a declared war , other than that the offense is the same and definitely an impeachment offense .
__________________
Kevin Haendiges
NAHC Life Member
NRA Member
Wildlife Forever Member
GOA Member
Buckmasters Member
http://hunting-indiana.com
There can be no serious question that warrantless wiretapping, in violation of the law, is impeachable. After all, Nixon was charged in Article II of his bill of impeachment with illegal wiretapping for what he, too, claimed were national security reasons.
And the different part is ... ?
__________________
Kevin Haendiges
NAHC Life Member
NRA Member
Wildlife Forever Member
GOA Member
Buckmasters Member
http://hunting-indiana.com
Through the FBI, Nixon had wiretapped five members of his national security staff, two newsmen, and a staffer at the Department of Defense. These people were targeted because Nixon's plans for dealing with Vietnam -- we were at war at the time -- were ending up on the front page of the New York Times.
Nixon had a plausible national security justification for the wiretaps: To stop the leaks, which had meant that not only the public, but America's enemies, were privy to its plans. But the use of the information from the wiretaps went far beyond that justification: A few juicy tidbits were used for political purposes. Accordingly, Congress believed the wiretapping, combined with the misuse of the information it had gathered, to be an impeachable offense.
Quote:
On Friday, December 16, the New York Times published a major scoop by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau: They reported that Bush authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to spy on Americans without warrants, ignoring the procedures of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
Apparently these were , same as Bush(see above) .
Both have committed the same offense beyond question , the only difference I see is that Bush has done so far more often . Nixon spied on his own , Bush seems to be spying on everyone , both did so illegally . I don't dislike Bush , and I never liked Nixon , but why should one lose his job and not the other .
__________________
Kevin Haendiges
NAHC Life Member
NRA Member
Wildlife Forever Member
GOA Member
Buckmasters Member
http://hunting-indiana.com
well, the clinton impeachment proceedings were for lying under oath about a BJ.... so of course these offenses may well be more egregious, and if we applied the same standard.... that situation, however, was surrealistic, and I don't believe we should ever look at it for any precedential value it might have. (let's do, however, roll it around in the back of our minds when we try to put things in historic perspective)
nixon's situation was distinguishable...I thought the hearings in that instance were based not upon the vietnam papers, but the watergate break in and cover-up. that latter of course was purely political, and as such, justified in my mind the impeachment movement.
like Ben, I am not at all comfortable with our abuse of civil liberties, but am not yet ready to say a sitting president (even one I am NOT a fan of) should be impeached because of it.
To impeach or not , that is the question .
. that situation, however, was surrealistic, and I don't believe we should ever look at it for any precedential value it might have. (let's do, however, roll it around in the back of our minds when we try to put things in historic perspective)
