Alleged War Criminals Invoke Absurdity To Justify Inaction
Fleeting absurdity to justify inaction on impeachment
Ref Ref The error is to equate Lincoln with an unchallenged leader; and Bush with Lincoln.
During the Civil War, Congress held hearings on Lincoln and the war. The GOP, unlike the civil war era, refused to do what should have been done: Debate.
Problems With the Lincoln Analogy
1. FISA requirements were different. They didn't exist then, they are the law of the land. Libby was convicted.
2. Lincoln did violate the law. Congress chose to do nothing about it. This did not make the illegal activity lawful.
3. The articles of impeachment might have been drawn up. Whether the US leadership does or does not hold the leader to account remains to be seen.
4. Refusing to do nothing -- not even start a review -- is the issue. The Congress of the Lincoln era did review matters.
5. Using absurdity does not inspire We the People to believe non-sense.
6. Congress declared war, this Congress declared open hunting season on American citizens: "Do nothing about illegal warfare."
7. Lincoln won, Bush is losing. Reckless maladministration is the basis to remove a head of state.
8. Fraud upon Congress is illegal. The issue isn't want the President said to the public. The law is the law.
9. The analogy of Lincoln does not address the legal requirements under the laws of war. It was the abuses Lincoln opposed at Antietam which inspired the Geneva Conventions.
10. Lincoln had a plan; Bush has a war crimes plan. Those are different.
11. It is not a dispute that Lincoln illegally refused to honor habeas.
12. Lincoln's activities were constrained by physical resources. Bush ignores the limits he knew existed, yet continues to expand.
13. Congress has the power to impeach a President during wartime; "war" in 2007 is not lawful, nor is it a declared war, but an authorization based on fiction.
Although entertaining, the narrative fails to defend the President against war crimes.