Posted on 10/18/2006 8:50:02 AM PDT by Froufrou
For a variety of reasons, Democrats are criticizing the military tribunals bill that President Bush signed into law on Tuesday -- but it's the "stealth pardon" for "war crimes" allegedly committed by President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that upsets one Democrat the most.
Former U.S. Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman, a New York Democrat and a Bush impeachment advocate, issued a news release on Tuesday, saying that President Bush, by signing the military tribunals bill, "has created a "culture of impunity" for himself and others who allowed the "torture and abuse of detainees," such as that at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.
Holtzman complained that the new law sanctions the abuse of foreign detainees in defiance of the Geneva Conventions and suspends habeas corpus in defiance of the U.S. Constitution.
Democratic control of Congress "would make impeachment a serious reality," Holtzman blogged Tuesday on the Huffington Post.
According to Hotlzman, passage of the military tribunals bill provides another important reason for impeachment -- because it "guts" the War Crimes Act of 1996, a Clinton-era law that made it a federal crime to mistreat detainees in violation of the Geneva Conventions. (The Bush administration has complained that some provisions of the Geneva Conventions are vague, and he pressed Congress for clarification. See earlier story.)
Said Holtzman in a news release on Tuesday, "When a president violates the country's criminal laws and then gets a secret grant of immunity for those crimes, he makes a mockery of the rule of law. Then all lawlessness is permissible."
Holtzman said the "immunity" provision was slipped secretly into the bill, without hearings or debate. "Most members of Congress, most reporters and most Americans have no idea that this has happened," Holtzman said.
She accused President Bush of striking a "horrific blow" at democratic values and the U.S. constitutional system.
"Instead of pardoning himself with the complicity of Congress, the President should be making public what acts of prisoner abuse he authorized the CIA to undertake or what acts of theirs he ratified," Holtzman said.
The New York Democrat has been advocating Bush's impeachment for months, and she has co-written a new book "analyzing the illegal, unconstitutional and/or impeachable actions" of the Bush administration.
In a January 2006 article posted on the Nation website, Holzman cited the president's alleged "scorn" for international treaty obligations, "torture scandals," the war in Iraq, and the secret wiretapping program, intended to eavesdrop on terrorists who contact people in America.
"As a matter of constitutional law, these and other misdeeds constitute grounds for the impeachment of President Bush," Holzman wrote in January.
"While impeachment is a last resort, and must never be lightly undertaken (a principle ignored during the proceedings against President Bill Clinton), neither can Congress shirk its responsibility to use that tool to safeguard our democracy. No President can be permitted to commit high crimes and misdemeanors with impunity."
In the January article (the one posted on the Nation's website), Holman notes that she sat on the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment proceedings against President Richard Nixon.
"As a Democrat who opposed many of President Nixon's policies, I still found voting for his impeachment to be one of the most sobering and unpleasant tasks I ever had to undertake. None of the members of the committee took pleasure in voting for impeachment; after all, Democrat or Republican, Nixon was still our President."
As the midterm election draws closer and the drumbeat for impeachment grows louder, it appears that in the case of George W. Bush,some Democrats would take great pleasure in impeaching this particular president.
The Republican Party has warned that for Democrats, impeaching Bush is what the midterm election is really all about.
And that will esssentially set the stage for a second American Civil War.
Regards, Ivan
Correct, it really is all a sick, immature game to these people. Like a little brat who simply must have the last word or exract a pyrrhic revenge for a perceived injustice.
Mark my words, if Democrats ever take control, Americans will die.
Wouldn't this mean President Cheney ?
As much as I like President Bush...I do love the sound of that.
Third parties may see record numbers this fall. Either that or voter turnout isn't going to exactly be stellar.
Not voting isn't an option for me. I will never, EVER, vote Dem though.
Which makes it doubly important to keep the Senate. Let the moonbats demonstrate their idiocy in the romperoom. I'm more concerned with maintaining the ability to confirm additional Supreme Court Justices if the occasion arises.
Liz Holtzman needs to take her meds again.
Dems are just as much a danger to the U.S. as Al Qeada
If Conservatives stay at home on Nov 7th, we will get this an more crapola.
VOTE REPUBICAN
They really do want to go back to Sept. 10 2001, the good ole times for terrorists. "Don't ask, Don't tell"
One can only hope ... as it seems the American constituant has fallen asleep, or doesn't care or both.
A second American revolution would be just dandy - in my opinion.
A-ha! A silver lining! I love the positivity you found in this...well done!
Spot on. Well said.
The NRCC and NRSCC really ought to be running ads in close races talking about this very issue. It might enrage Dems but who cares. It is one issue sure to fire up conservatives and get them voting. I an surprised they haven't been running more edgy ads already. They should be talking about how the Dems are soft on terror. Unless maybe they are constricted by idiotic McCain-Feingold rules.
Three boobs go into the local democratic campaign headquarters, and ask to see Bill Clinton ....
http://anechoicroom.blogspot.com/2006/10/good-evening-and-welcome-t_116110096728894363.html
Apparently they don't mind the idea of our troops being in limbo while Pres. Bush is being dragged through the mud in impeachment hearings.
The justification for voting for Republicans who are more liberal, (and no, I don't buy this "act just like Democrats" nonsense because most of them aren't out to impeach Bush, defund the war or to filibuster Bush's judges much less to embolden our enemies by using national security and the war in Iraq as a tool to divide the nation. Other than Lincoln Chafee, even the most liberal of Republicans are more responsible and reasonable people than most Democratic Congresspeople) is that their seat at least represents one more seat towards maintaining control of Congress and its agenda, as well as keeping Piglosi out of the Speaker's Chair, Rangel out of the chairmanship of Ways and Means, Barney Frank out of the chairmanship of Banking, John Conyers out of the chairmanship of the judiciary committee. You REALLY need to consider this fact when making the absurd claim that it really doesn't matter who controls Congress or that voting for even liberal Republicans make no difference. It will make a HUGE difference in terms of who controls the committees and thus the Congressional agenda. And voting Third Party is a TOTAL waste. Why not just vote Democrat in that case? It does absolutely no good and in fact does a lot of harm.
If we were not in a time of such grave national danger and our political enemies not so extreme and the agenda they're pursuing so far to the left (again, it is so far out as to make even more nonsensical your claim that even the most liberal Republicans act "just like them) then we could afford such careless political promiscuity. But the stakes are WAY to high for the nation in this election to go pursue some third party fantasy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.