While he is no friend of mine, and I would prefer he not be in the Senate, nevermind Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he may be getting a bad rap here. And I hate rap! ;)
Posted on 01/16/2006 5:03:36 AM PST by Kaslin
A top US Republican senator for the first time mentioned impeachment in connection with President George W. Bush's authorization of electronic surveillance inside the United States without a court warrant.
Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, cautioned it was too early to draw any conclusions as his committee prepares to hold open hearings into the growing controversy early next month.
But in his appearance on ABC's "This Week" program, Specter insisted the Senate was not going to give the president what he called "a blank check."
When asked what could happen if Congress finds Bush in violation of the law, Specter answered: "Impeachment is a remedy. After impeachment, you could have a criminal prosecution, but the principal remedy ... under our society is to pay a political price."
He made it a point to clarify, however, that he was speaking theoretically and was "not suggesting remotely that there's any basis" for a presidential impeachment at this moment.
The controversy erupted last month after the New York Times reported that Bush had repeatedly authorized the National Security Agency to monitor overseas telephone calls and e-mail traffic to and from people living in the United States without requisite permission from a secret court.
Under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the government can conduct such surveillance only for 72 hours as it seeks a warrant for continued monitoring.
Bush has blasted the disclosure as harmful to national security and vowed to continue the wiretaps, arguing he had the right to authorize them under his constitutional war powers as well as a resolution passed by Congress in the wake in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The measure adopted three days after the strikes allows the president "to use all necessary and appropriate force" against those involved in them, but contains no specific language on surveillance.
What are the grounds for impeachment under Scottish law?
There, that's better.
FRINO!
That's not the context this was discussed. Specter was set up.
Steffy asked, what remedies the Congress had if the Prez acted illegally, and Specter listed them.
All along Specter said not in this case with what he knows.
Remember, Bush played a crucial role in making sure Specter survived a primary that was nearly won by a true conservative.
This is what happens when you abandon principle for quid pro quo... the quo arrives as a dagger in your back.
Specter is just saying what a good moderate Republican would say, it gets the media excited, he gets airtime. Its all BS, seriously..
Misleading headline alert!
This article is Rick Santorum's career ending.
Aesops Fable:
A man saw a viper perishing in the cold [Spectre in the primary]. The man [Bush] took pity on the viper. So he put it under his shirt, close to his chest. When the viper recovered, it bit and killed him.
8 a.m. -- Jack Bauer is told that terrorists have a nuclear weapon and we need to listen in on their phone conversations to see where and when it will be set off.
8:30 a.m. -- Jack arrives at the office of the FISA judge to ask for the warrant to listen in on the phone call.
8:35 a.m. to the following day at 7:58 a.m. -- Jack sits in the waiting room, watching soaps, napping and reading issues of National Geographic and Highlights from 1986.
7:59 a.m. -- The secretary finally hands him the warrant to listen in on the phone calls.
7:59:59 a.m. -- Mushroom cloud. The End.
Beat me to it.
Specter answered: "Impeachment is a remedy.
Wonder what ole Arlen's posting name is over at DU?
Tel: 202-224-4254
His contact page is experiencing technical difficulties..........
Here's our fundamental problem: The 'Almighty', Baby-Killing, Terrorist-Hugging Law has been veering away from the US Constitution. Constitutionally speaking, Clinton should have been impeached over Chinagate, Waco, raiding the office of a 'suicide' victim under suspicious circumstances, etc. But the bar was held to needing 'legal proof' as though impeachment were a legal matter, rather than a Constitutional matter. Now, legalese is interfering with a war, when it is a constitutional matter.
The voters need not respect any laws interfering with our president's handling of the war. Perhaps we will be tricked into doing so. But we are allowed to question, ridicule, and disregard any absurd laws that are used to impeach a wartime president when it comes to telling our senators what we want done.
I'm not convinced that Bush has broken any terrorist-hugging laws. In fact, I wish he would break some. For example: I'd love to see some terrorist let out of prison on a technicality get sniped right outside the court room.
FRegards....
He is just stating a reply to "what if the President broke the Law", thats all. Not saying thay the Pres did although people will read more than whats there.
He knows Pres. Bush didn't break the Law.
While he is no friend of mine, and I would prefer he not be in the Senate, nevermind Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he may be getting a bad rap here. And I hate rap! ;)
the quo arrives as a dagger in your back.
No, the headline says that, but Specter was not critical of the Prez at all..........He was tricked into making a headline type statement.
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.