Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Monday, November 27, 2006

Impeachment: Excuses of Inaction, Delays

Read the feedback, then consider what the DoJ has been sitting on: Alot of evidence. The investigation isn't starting from square one.

* * *

The Many Excuses

The Kos article is more of the "let's wait" and "let's organize"-approach. Brilliant. Let's consider some of the gems which are surfacing, and contrast the comments with the discussions here and here.

The excuses for inaction aren't compelling.

* * *

As you read the following comments, I've attempted to generalize the concerns. There's no intent to target a specific blogger, or anyone at Kos. The links are merely for illustrative purposes.

As you read, recall the time it's taken to get people to awaken to the possibility of a State Proclamation: Almost a year. This doesn't mean that citizen action is futile; rather, it means that national leadership, if it were on the same page -- "let's have impeachment" -- would help mobilize the media.

As you review the comments, consider there needs to be back-up options; don’t throw all your eggs into the impeachment-option. State prosecutions are possible; war crimes prosecutors are possible; and there can also be state-level investigations as we've seen on the NSA, but targeting Government counsel.

* * *

Constitution vs. DNC-GOP Political Interests

Impeachment isn't a DNC-GOP-option/debate. The DNC is irrelevant on this issue. The question is what is best to assert the rule of law, protect the Constitution. It is of little interest whether the DNC does or doesn't feel like doing this. The fact that someone is mentioning what is or isn’t' in the interest of the DNC suggests the political factors, not the Constitutional issues are taking priority. This is a bad sign: The oath of office is taking second seat to political calculations. Ref

There's a line suggesting that if we debate impeachment we are falling into the "agenda" of someone else. Ref This misses the point: This is about the Constitution, abuse of power, and protection of our rights. If this Government won't protect this Constitution, then We the People need to create a New Constitution. It is ready, and it is irrelevant whether the 535 Members of Congress are ready or not: The New Constitution can be lawfully rammed down their throat and they can't do anything about it.

Notice the diversion from the President and his crime, and the interest in whether someone is for or against the DNC leadership. Ref Bush must be impressed: He's caused the problem, and the DNC is arguing over what the DNC should do to solve the President' mess in Iraq. The way forward is to focus on the problem driving Iraq: The President.

Excuses for Inaction and Delay: More NeoCon non-sense

Although there may be some well intentioned people in the Democratic Party saying these things, consider: If the GOP really believes that this is a "waste of time," wouldn't they want impeachment to begin immediately so that the evidence of innocence could show they are not guilty?

Delays are only supporting the GOP. The more time we the people have to review a single set of Committee reports, not many different committees reviewing separate aspects, the easier it will be to review the entire mess.

___ What's the basis to argue for "new legislation" on issues when there's been no fact finding to review what went wrong; or what the problems are which should be provide the basis for the 2008 Presidential election.

___ Once the process of examining the illegal conduct starts, what is your plan to measure whether the oversight is competent; or getting distracted by GOP red herrings? [ Here's a plan ]

* * *

Asking for legislation, and leadership Ref

___ How will you justify the new leaders' positions if they do not take the time to review what went wrong; or what types of modernizations they need to support?

Hoping to avoid revenge Ref

___ Why should anyone believe that "revenge" is a credible argument, when the evidence is clear: Failure to act could be a violation of the 5 USC 3331 obligations.

There are other issues that are more important Ref Ref

___ What will prevent the US government from handing more than one issue at a time? The US Constitution is designed to permit multi-government functions. The issues are not either or; other work can continue. This sounds like an excuse to justify delaying action and focus on something that resembles an elephant in the middle of a very small room. Please stop making excuses to avoid important issues. Also, I have yet to hear a credible argument that anything less than "Protecting the Constitution" is more important than the very document this Government has permitted to be trashed. Until we make this #1, nobody else will. The fact that many are giving excuses to not make this #1 is telling: Their job is the Constitution and that is their oath.

This will monopolize the agenda Ref or be consuming of time. Ref

___ Even if impeachment does take a while, wouldn't it be safe to say that it deserves that much attention? The worst thing to do would be to avoid the issues on the basis that they are consuming; then trudge forward on the basis of not knowing what went wrong. Perhaps there are some fundamental issues which need attention, and the solutions are within our power to transform the government. Is there a modernization needed of the way the US government functions to prevent this from recurring? We won’t have the information to support that assertion unless were are willing to explore the facts, and consider the alternatives of what structure might have effectively prevented the abuses to occur in the first place.

* * *

Flat out denial: Asserting that facing a problem will not solve the problem. Ref This is absurd; To solve a problem, you have to start.

The review has to start. Excuses for inaction do not solve the problem. Consider the language of the 1974 Grand Jury notices: Read more here.

* * *

This convoluted argument calling for inaction incorrectly asserts that investigation will have to start now. Rather, there's already secret Grand Jury evidence that's been reviewed; and the DOJ OPR and US Attorneys well know the legal requirements and the evidence. There's no basis to believe that the impeachment will start from square zero. Ref

* * *

Speculative threat of adverse consequences on the DNC for taking action. Ref. I've never felt this argument was credible: Consider the evidence before the 2006 election -- people didn't retaliate against the DNC for disclosures about the RNC abuses.

If properly investigated, and the charges were warranted, this would not inspire hatred, but respect by non-voters. It doesn't matter what the alleged co-conspirators in the DNC-GOP may be concerned with; the net gain is how many more new voters will support the US Government and participate in overseeing the US government.

Assessments about what may or may not happen based on speculative facts are only linked with ignorance, and not a credible basis for leadership or governance.

Rather, as the 1974 Grand Jury argued, if the government were to know something and have evidence, and not take action, this would be an adverse consequence against the entire US government.

* * *

Legal Media Strategy

After the lawyers make excuses to commit crimes, they start to lecture the world about how they should or should not conduct oversight. It is absurd for anyone to take seriously legal concerns as to whether there is or is not a proper form of something. Impeachment is not a strictly legal-tool, but a far different legislative tool. It is not appropriate to require the Legislature to meet irrelevant legal standards. Ref

Holding someone accountable means keeping the options on the table. One cannot talk about accountability, but play word games as to whether something is or isn't being done. Ref

* * *

The false appeal by the GOP to "reason." Ref After this many years of non-sense, its absurd for the GOP to argue that inaction is reasonable. This is merely an excuse for not doing what should be done: Facing reality.

* * *

Good Points

The DNC agenda, with or without reviewing the illegal Presidential conduct, requires Presidential approval. This President, after singing the law, doesn't enforce the laws.

___ What is to say the same won't happen with the new DNC agenda?

___ How are we going to credibly impalement an agenda related to "other things" if the person has a reputation for not enforcing the law, or not doing what must be done that is otherwise required to implement the "new agenda"? Ref

___ What skeletons does the DNC hope to hide by not reviewing the issues in an impeachment?

___ What incentive does the DNC have not to review the legal issues? Ref