McClellan to Testify Before Judiciary Committee

[Guest American Woman]

True, but the threat of impeachment forced President Nixon to resign (Watergate). Hence the anti-Clinton slogan...

....."At Least Nixon Resigned"

Which is a pretty stupid slogan. But then, one only has to look at whose slogan it is .... I'm sure the "anti-Clinton" camp was hoping he'd be stupid enough to resign, but no one else thought he would be-- especially since over 80% of Americans didn't even think he should be impeached. The majority of Americans didn't think for a minute that Clinton would be removed from power. As for Nixon resigning before he was impeached, I'm guessing that's because he pretty much knew removal from office would likely follow his impeachment, so he didn't stick around to let that happen. In other words, Nixon had a damn good reason for resigning while Clinton had no reason to resign.

[g_bambino]

You're welcome-- and I thought that was what you meant. It can be a bit confusing-- a lot of people think impeachment means removal from office.

I did think that, yes. However, the point seems to remain that impeachments are so rare as to only occur under very drastic circumstances. Otherwise, a president seems to face little consequence for his actions in the four years between elections, unless there's something I'm missing. I've often thought the American executive to be rather untouchable, and hence, able to get away with things like authorising the random detention of "illegal combattants" and the use of torture, even when these things come to public light. It seems the members of the president's administration can, like Karl Rove, thumb their nose at congressional hearings and go about their business.

[bush_cheney2004]

I did think that, yes. However, the point seems to remain that impeachments are so rare as to only occur under very drastic circumstances. Otherwise, a president seems to face little consequence for his actions in the four years between elections, unless there's something I'm missing. I've often thought the American executive to be rather untouchable,

In reality, the Canadian PM has more unchecked power than a US president...it's just that he can't do much with it internationally. Nevertheless, the PM has attacked other nations without debate in Parliament.

and hence, able to get away with things like authorising the random detention of "illegal combattants" and the use of torture, even when these things come to public light. It seems the members of the president's administration can, like Karl Rove, thumb their nose at congressional hearings and go about their business.

This is by design.....see US Constitution. Transgressions are adjudicated by the USSC.

Edited June 11, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest American Woman]

I did think that, yes. However, the point seems to remain that impeachments are so rare as to only occur under very drastic circumstances. Otherwise, a president seems to face little consequence for his actions in the four years between elections, unless there's something I'm missing. I've often thought the American executive to be rather untouchable, and hence, able to get away with things like authorising the random detention of "illegal combattants" and the use of torture, even when these things come to public light. It seems the members of the president's administration can, like Karl Rove, thumb their nose at congressional hearings and go about their business.

I agree. And even attempts at impeachment can just get voted into committee-- ie: put in the closet where nothing will ever come of it, rendering the attempt useless. I have to say-- while the Republicans have too much gall, the Democrats don't have enough of a back bone. That the Republicans could successfully impeach Clinton for basically nothing while the Democrats don't even attempt to impeach Bush is mind boggling.

[bush_cheney2004]

That the Republicans could successfully impeach Clinton for basically nothing while the Democrats don't even attempt to impeach Bush is mind boggling.

That's because the Democrats are wimps....specially Kucinich!

[g_bambino]

In reality, the Canadian PM has more unchecked power than a US president...it's just that he can't do much with it internationally.

I've heard that before, but I'm not so sure about it; as I said earlier, the PM can be brought down by a vote in the House of Commons. A PM with a strong party majority behind him may not feel much heat, but he still can't go bonkers. Regardless, every time the media here - and, hence, the public - gets a whif of the government doing something wrong, the cabinet scrambles to action. It's always mostly damage control, but, still: they must be feeling threatened by some percieved consequences, whereas, from my watching of the proceedings south of the border, the Bush administration just shrugs and offers some completely hollow "explanation." It it just good ol' Canadian guilt that gets our ministers running around?

This is by design.....see US Constitution. Transgressions are adjudicated by the USSC.

Yes, I know the Supreme Court makes judgements on executive actions; but... they don't seem to have been very effective with things like Guantanamo Bay, the military tribunals therein, the interrogation tactics authorised, etc., etc.

[bush_cheney2004]

I've heard that before, but I'm not so sure about it; as I said earlier, the PM can be brought down by a vote in the House of Commons. A PM with a strong party majority behind him may not feel much heat, but he still can't go bonkers.

It goes far beyond that....the office isn't even documented in the constitution...just convention. You don't need a smart assed American to point out the broad sweeping (and unchecked) authority that a Canadian PM has.

Yes, I know the Supreme Court makes judgements on executive actions; but... they don't seem to have been very effective with things like Guantanamo Bay, the military tribunals therein, the interrogation tactics authorised, etc., etc.

That's because all may be legal....do you think there should be prior restraint in these cases? Isn't that hypocritical?

[g_bambino]

It goes far beyond that....the office isn't even documented in the constitution...just convention. You don't need a smart assed American to point out the broad sweeping (and unchecked) authority that a Canadian PM has.

Yes, I understand the nature of the Canadian constitution and the PM's place in it. In fact, it is that understanding that makes me question claims about the PM's "unchecked" power.

That's because all may be legal....do you think there should be prior restraint in these cases? Isn't that hypocritical?

Maybe it is all legal, by US law, and, when it comes to laws, what I think doesn't really matter; it's what I know, and about US law I don't know much. Regardless, it just seems that the Supreme Court has little sway over the President; but, remember, I'm only speaking as someone who gets my information on stuff like this from the news... and Jon Stewart.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, I understand the nature of the Canadian constitution and the PM's place in it. In fact, it is that understanding that makes me question claims about the PM's "unchecked" power.

It's not a new idea....others haver opined as much long before me.

Regardless, it just seems that the Supreme Court has little sway over the President; but, remember, I'm only speaking as someone who gets my information on stuff like this from the news... and Jon Stewart.

OK....but the USSC doesn't sway anything that doesn't have standing and is argued before the court. Congress makes the laws.

[Guest American Woman]

I've often thought the American executive to be rather untouchable, and hence, able to get away with things like authorising the random detention of "illegal combattants" and the use of torture, even when these things come to public light.

He's not all that untouchable after all since he has to abide by Supreme Court decisions regarding his actions. I'm really pleased to see this:

President Bush on Thursday strongly disagreed with a Supreme Court ruling that clears foreign terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.

In its third rebuke of the Bush administration's treatment of prisoners, the court ruled 5-4 that the government is violating the rights of prisoners being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba.

"We'll abide by the court's decision," Bush said during a news conference in Rome. "That doesn't mean I have to agree with it." link

Edited June 12, 2008 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

I find it interesting that there hasn't been one response to my post about the Supreme Court's ruling regarding Guantanamo Bay. There sure have been a lot of comments about the Bush Administration's holding people there indefinitely without council/charge, so it seems to me this would be good news; worth commenting about. I can see why Bush supporters would ignore it, but seems to me all those who have been so critical of the U.S. would be as pleased about this ruling as I am. Perhaps criticizing the U.S. is more to some people's liking.

[GostHacked]

I find it interesting that there hasn't been one response to my post about the Supreme Court's ruling regarding Guantanamo Bay. There sure have been a lot of comments about the Bush Administration's holding people there indefinitely without council/charge, so it seems to me this would be good news; worth commenting about. I can see why Bush supporters would ignore it, but seems to me all those who have been so critical of the U.S. would be as pleased about this ruling as I am. Perhaps criticizing the U.S. is more to some people's liking.

This is something I totaly support. I am really glad this is happening. And you are correct, people love (and I am guilty of it) hittin on Bush/US.

If this is a real War, the War on Terror, then these captured individuals are simply Prisoners of War POWs. Eventhough the US will only use the Geneva Convention when it suits them, this really complies with the Convention. At least now these captured individuals will be able to view the evidence against them that brought them there in the first place.

[Guest American Woman]

This is something I totaly support. I am really glad this is happening. And you are correct, people love (and I am guilty of it) hittin on Bush/US.

If this is a real War, the War on Terror, then these captured individuals are simply Prisoners of War POWs. Eventhough the US will only use the Geneva Convention when it suits them, this really complies with the Convention. At least now these captured individuals will be able to view the evidence against them that brought them there in the first place.

Thanks for your post and your support-- and for confirming that people like 'hittin on the US' more than they like giving the US credit. This was big news, and I was really disappointed in the almost complete silence in response.

As I said, I think this is great news. The captured have already gone far too long being held without charges and/or any access to legal counsel, but better late than never. I'm really pleased that the Supreme Court ruled the way it did. Perhaps this is the beginning of 'change' in the U.S.

[GostHacked]

Thanks for your post and your support-- and for confirming that people like 'hittin on the US' more than they like giving the US credit. This was big news, and I was really disappointed in the almost complete silence in response.

As I said, I think this is great news. The captured have already gone far too long being held without charges and/or any access to legal counsel, but better late than never. I'm really pleased that the Supreme Court ruled the way it did. Perhaps this is the beginning of 'change' in the U.S.

This is even good news to those that are held in the mainland US under the same conditions as those in Guantanamo. There are many held in the US that have not been charged. This will help to determine if the evidence against them is solid enough to keep them in custody.

But even then they can do another American thing and sue someones ass of after the fact.

[Topaz]

I find it interesting that there hasn't been one response to my post about the Supreme Court's ruling regarding Guantanamo Bay. There sure have been a lot of comments about the Bush Administration's holding people there indefinitely without council/charge, so it seems to me this would be good news; worth commenting about. I can see why Bush supporters would ignore it, but seems to me all those who have been so critical of the U.S. would be as pleased about this ruling as I am. Perhaps criticizing the U.S. is more to some people's liking.

If I remember, I think the US is going to close the Cuba prison soon because the US is / has build a new prison in Afghanistan on 40 acres, 40 miles north of Kabul at Bagram at the price of 60 Mil and will hold 600-1100 prisoner and they were transfer Cubans prisoners there. Out of the way, so anything will and can happen to those prisoners there.

[Guest American Woman]

If I remember, I think the US is going to close the Cuba prison soon because the US is / has build a new prison in Afghanistan on 40 acres, 40 miles north of Kabul at Bagram at the price of 60 Mil and will hold 600-1100 prisoner and they were transfer Cubans prisoners there. Out of the way, so anything will and can happen to those prisoners there.

So you have nothing to say about the Supreme Court decision? No thoughts on it?

You've basically proved what I said.