Note crossposting.

Mr Daneliuk seems to have me confused with another
author. Regardless:

OP stated that 'terrorists' are not protected by the Geneva
Conventions. I pointed out that _prisoners_ of a nation
other than their own, are always protected persons, though
that status does not preclude trial and punishment for crimes
comitted prior to their capture, such as fighting in civilian
disguise.

I cited the fourth article of the Fourth protocol of the 1949
Conventions and said that in the quoted text "the convention"
refers to the 1949 Convention in its entirety, not to any specific
protocol thereof. Mr Daneliuk disagreed as indicated below.
Upon review, I am less than certain as to whether the terms
"convention" and "protocol" are used synonymously. But
I remain convinced that the applicablity of the 1949 GCs
is not predjudiced by calling a prisoner a 'terrorist' even
if the appelation is justified by fact.

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
SNIP
From the Fourth Protocol, 1949:

Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who,
at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves,
in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to
the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.


Sorry Sparky, the 4th Protocol is specifically authored for *civilians*.
A person engaging in combat while dressed in civilian garb - i.e., No
distinguishable uniform is NO LONGER A CIVILIAN, and thus not protected
by this Geneva agreement. That's why we can legally hang spies, incarcerate
them without normal due process, and generally do (almost) anything
we want to them. The Geneva conventions (last I read them - perhaps
Barbara Streisand or Rosie O'Donnell have updated them with their
considerable intellectual abilities) make a clear distinction between
combatants/non-combatants/civilians. Too bad all the Lefties today
can't do the same thing ...
--

Mr Daneliuk is encouraged to cite the artilces in the GCs where he
read the "clear distinction between
combatants/non-combatants/civilians.
Regardless, there is no place in the GCs where a statement, let alone
a clear one, is made that any of the three are not protected persons,
by virtue of being one or more of the three.

While it is also true that the title of the Fourth Protocol refers
specifically
to civlilians, many clauses within the Fourth protocol refer to members

of the armed forces. So the notion that the "any person" as used in
the
Fourth protocol excludes persons who fail to conform to Mr Daneliuk's
definition of civlian, is because of that reference in the title, is
without
merit.

While terms of art such as "spy" and "sabotuer" may seem quaint
to our Attorney General the modern term 'terrorist' was not in vogue
in 1949. The defintions, however do not differ substantively. They
are all persons, who engage in hostilities while not in uniform. There
appears no reasonable basis to claim that the Fourth Protocol
provisions for spies and sabotuers are not as applicable to
'terrorists'.

The ICRC discusses these issues and others, concluding:

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/380-600007?OpenDocument

In short, all the particular cases we have just been
considering confirm a general principle which is embodied
in all four Geneva Conventions of 1949. Every person in
enemy hands must have some status under international
law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered
by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth
Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel
of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention.
There is no ' intermediate status'; nobody in enemy hands
can be outside the law. We feel that that is a satisfactory
solution -- not only satisfying to the mind, but also, and
above all, satisfactory from the humanitarian point of view.


Regarding

That's why we can legally hang spies, incarcerate
them without normal due process, and generally do
(almost) anything we want to them.

My first criticism is with the fundamental illogic of the
notion. It is the contrapositive of a circular argument.

Unless a person receives due process it can never
be known whether or not that person was entitled
to due process in the first place. Thus due process
can never be denied without the attendent risk that
it is being denied to one who is entitled to it.

Regarding the specific atrocities advocated above,
execution of spies without due process has been
contrary to the laws of war since at least the Hague
Conventions early in the 20th Century, and prohibitted
in the United States by implication of an Act of
the Contintental Congress since the 18th Century.
"Almost anything else" Mr Daneliuk might wish
to advocate is prohibitted by criminal statues that
do not include as a defense, a belief that the
victim was a spy, 'terrorist' or whomever.

The United States does not permit outlawry,
even for convicted crimnals.

Finally, the 1949 Geneva Conventions are not the
only treaties to which the US is signatory.
The Convention against Torture etc, permits no
exceptions.

In summary, my argument that all prisoners
captured in the course or armed conflict or
occupation by the United States and who are
not US citizens are from the moment of their
capture forward, protected persons according
to the 1949 Geneva Conventions is supported
by a plain reading of the Conventions themselves
and by the interpretations by the ICRC and USSC.

--

FF

"Tom Watson" wrote in message
...

"Those Who Would Sacrifice Liberty for Security Deserve Neither."


I never could quite figutre that one out.

So, those who sacrifice Security for Liberty, Die.

On Oct 6, 6:40 am, Tom Watson wrote:
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 21:06:14 -0500, Tim Daneliuk

wrote:
It is the very *defense* of Liberty that requires making these kinds of
hard decisions. You are severely kidding yourself if you think
the historic defenders of our Liberty did not make naughty choices
in said quest.

Weak.

Signing off now.

Regards,

Tom Watson

Hold that door...*grabbing the remainder of the single malt on the way
out*

r

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
[snipped for brevity, NOT for contextual distortion]

Let's remember how we got here, shall we. [snipped again, for the same reason]

Then Robatoy decided to slip in a political announcement complete with a
vulgar profanity *in the middle* of an on topic thread - in fact, he
inserted it in the middle of a *post* without bothering not note that he
was threadjacking (he has some aversion to marking his threads OT for
some reason). This was both cheap and inappropriate, and I responded.

*Gasping for air*..such vulgarity! Hey, bro', if Cheney can say ****,
*I* can say ****.

If you thought it was cheap and inappropriate, a simple statement to
that effect would have been sufficient.
Instead, you used the opportunity to get out your soapbox and to
propagrandize [sic] your delusions.
You took a page out of the neo-con book by overreacting well beyond the
required need.
But I won't feed you anymore bait, bro'...'cept one thing:

(your words, Tim)
you might want to explain how - if W and his bunch actually lied
and this were demonstrable - how it is he has not been impeached.

That is, by far, the stupidest question I have ever seen.
You know the answer.
What little credibility you had left, just blew out of your shorts.

.....here it comes again-------... you better duck.....****!

r

/I'll be here all week.
//move along, there's nothing to see here.

Doug Miller wrote:

Another option, I suppose, would be to raise the salaries of the President,
VP, House, and Senate to seven or eight figures -- that way, we might
attract candidates who are motivated by money rather than power. Not that
there's anything particularly good about that... but given the choice
between a man who simply seeks money, and a man who is motivated by the
desire to gain and hold power over other men, I'll pick the greedy man every
time.

When I was growing up in Kentucky ("The politics are the dammednest") the
saying was that given the choice between an idealist and a crook, pick the
crook. He could only steal so much and an idealist would try to run your
life :-).

--
It's turtles, all the way down

Morris Dovey wrote:

It would seem that you've not noticed the rather large number of men
and women who valued our principles more highly than their personal
survival - and the lesser (but still awesomely large) number who did
not, in fact, survive - all so that you and I might live in what you
so casually refer to as "fantasyland".

Well said. But to be fair it must be noted that the terrorists are also
willing to die for their principles - or at least for their religion. Ones
dedication to a principle does not necessarily prove the validity of that
principle.

--
It's turtles, all the way down

Robatoy wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
[snipped for brevity, NOT for contextual distortion]

Let's remember how we got here, shall we. [snipped again, for the same reason]

Then Robatoy decided to slip in a political announcement complete with a
vulgar profanity *in the middle* of an on topic thread - in fact, he
inserted it in the middle of a *post* without bothering not note that he
was threadjacking (he has some aversion to marking his threads OT for
some reason). This was both cheap and inappropriate, and I responded.

*Gasping for air*..such vulgarity! Hey, bro', if Cheney can say ****,
*I* can say ****.

And you are both appropriately described as low-class for doing so, noting that
Cheney did so more-or-less privately but you spewed in "public".

If you thought it was cheap and inappropriate, a simple statement to
that effect would have been sufficient.
Instead, you used the opportunity to get out your soapbox and to
propagrandize [sic] your delusions.
You took a page out of the neo-con book by overreacting well beyond the
required need.

You mean like the "simple statement" on the web site you so proudly
promoted that is filled with hatred, innendo, half-truths, and
bile? When you live next to a sewer, you smell like ... well
you know. You bathe in an intellectual sewer and I called you
out on it. The fact that you are incapable of responding
beyond the "neener, neener" level of discourse is your problem.
You might, perhaps, consider some adult education courses ...
assuming you meet the minimal definitions of "adult".

But I won't feed you anymore bait, bro'...'cept one thing:

(your words, Tim)
you might want to explain how - if W and his bunch actually lied
and this were demonstrable - how it is he has not been impeached.

That is, by far, the stupidest question I have ever seen.

It should thus be trivial to answer, but all we hear from you
is crickets.

You know the answer.
What little credibility you had left, just blew out of your shorts.

You have no idea how disturbing I find it that you don't consider
me credible.


....here it comes again-------... you better duck.....****!

r

/I'll be here all week.
//move along, there's nothing to see here.



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

In article , wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:

It would seem that you've not noticed the rather large number of men
and women who valued our principles more highly than their personal
survival - and the lesser (but still awesomely large) number who did
not, in fact, survive - all so that you and I might live in what you
so casually refer to as "fantasyland".

Well said. But to be fair it must be noted that the terrorists are also
willing to die for their principles - or at least for their religion. Ones
dedication to a principle does not necessarily prove the validity of that
principle.

If the terrorists want to die for their religion, so be it -- I'm all for
helping them to do so. It's their willingness to *kill* for it that makes them
dangerous.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Larry Blanchard (in ) said:

| Morris Dovey wrote:
|
|| It would seem that you've not noticed the rather large number of
|| men and women who valued our principles more highly than their
|| personal survival - and the lesser (but still awesomely large)
|| number who did not, in fact, survive - all so that you and I might
|| live in what you so casually refer to as "fantasyland".
|
| Well said. But to be fair it must be noted that the terrorists are
| also willing to die for their principles - or at least for their
| religion. Ones dedication to a principle does not necessarily
| prove the validity of that principle.

Of course - and yet the very existance of a principle as such
indicates that there is some strong cultural validation. When such a
situation arises, it would seem to me that both sides need to learn
more about the (other's) culture and the context in which that
validation took place.

(It is turtles all the way down - the question is where they come
from)

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

Morris Dovey wrote:
Tim Daneliuk (in ) said:

| Morris Dovey wrote:
||
|| I understand your desire for retribution for wrongs; as well as
|| your loathing of evil and your desire to eliminate it. I also
|| understand that you would impose your own personal notion of
|| justice (and perhaps your own personal definition of evil) on all
|| the rest of the world.
|
| Not the case, or at least not as you frame it. The only "evil" for
| which I see redress is that "evil" which causes harm to others. For
| instance, I think drug abuse is "evil" in that is causes great harm
| to the individual abusing the drug. But until/unless their drug
| abuse causes harm to others, I seek no legal (i.e., forceful)
| remediation. In the matter of geopolitics, I similarly do not see
| it as our (the democratic West) job to intervene until/unless the
| actions of other people or nations jeopardizes that democratic West.

That's a form of isolationism that I don't think will work.

It worked really well until 1899 when TR decided we needed to stick
our beak into everyone else's business. It's been downhill ever since.

Interventions are seldom welcome; and we would do well to participate
as members of a global community intervention team. Unilateral
interventions should only be done as a last ditch desperation effort.

Intervention in the terms I described - when necessary to remediate
threat against the democratic West - ought never to rarely to be
a group grope. The nations under threat should act as unilaterally as
they wish. The planet is not some Harvard debating society and
feeling good about how we're all one happy planet is not the point.


| The thing that makes the current situation difficult is that the
| threat is a gathering and growing one with very real potential for
| global nuclear holocaust. The moral question is analogous to this:
| If you're in a bar and someone threatens you, just *when* do you
| have the right to act forcefully? Assuming they have the means to
| carry out their threat ("threat" is only meaningful if the capacity
| to deliver the promise exists), do you wait until you've actually
| been struck by the beer bottle or can you act during the backswing?
| What is distressing about this entire debate is that the political
| Right wants to use this as an excuse to "deliver" the enemy into
| democracy, which clearly does not work. By contrast, the Left seems
| to want to wait until we're actually bleeding on the bar counter
| before acting, and in the mean time have some silly nuanced
| discussion about whether our domestic legal protections ought to be
| invoked. What is rarely discussed is the dimension of the
| asymmetric threat in a nuclear world connected by travel,
| transportation, and techology. In this case, the "beer bottle" once
| delivered will be devastating.

Your assessment seems to be unduly pessimistic; which doesn't mean
that you're necessarily wrong - but I just don't think the actual
threat level is really so high.

I repeat - the threat *today* is not that high. But the threat
*tomorrow* will be higher than at any time in human history for
a few simple reasons:

1) The suicidal eschatology of the Islamic radicals.

2) Technology, communications, and travel make the planet a
very small place.

3) The Islamification of Europe as the existing populations dwindle
having failed to reproduce effectively. This gives the radicals
a large land and population base (in the future) from which to
operate.

Combine those three, and add the availability of a nuclear weapon.
I repeat: You get the highest threat level known to mankind in all
of history. Even in the Cold War, the players - who had lots of
nukes - weren't suicidal maniacs. They wanted to survive. But when
you have a tribal culture of fairly low sophistication (which describes
a good part of the Islamic world), it's not hard to imagine nuclear
holocaust in the name of Jihad.


I don't go to bars - in part because I really don't enjoy being around
****faced people who can't control themselves. In the relatively few

Me either. I find drunks repulsive. I don't mind going into a bar,
I just leave when the stupidity begins.

real life fights I've been in, I've tried first to avoid a fight
altogether, taken the first and only blow from an oponent, and then

We cannot afford to take "the first blow" in the matters before us.
The first nuclear blow will be fatal because it will trigger responses
that will just escalate.

fought berserk. I've never fought to inflict pain - I fight to end the
fight as quickly and decisively as possible.



| Like you, I dislike much of what is going on at the moment, but what
| choice do we realistically have? Do we wait for an apocalyptic
| culture of suicidal maniacs to be armed to the point that we have
| no choice but to respond with nuclear weapons? In the real world
| the choice is not the Sunday School choice of simple Good vs. Bad.
| It is the choice between Bad and Worse.

We have a number of choices: We can become culturally aware, learn a
bit of world history, and recognize that all peoples have something to

Sorry, I don't buy this kind of multiculturalist sentiment. The only
thing the tribal savages of the Arab Penninsula and Africa have to teach
us is that tribalism kills remorselessly and for no particular purpose.

offer. We can be the kind of friend that no one wants to pick a fight

Please explain what reasonable/rational basis UBL and his followers
had for picking a fight with us? We helped them fight the Soviets
to get them out of Afghanistan. In the early 20th century, it was the
West that provided the capital and know how to extract the oil from their
stand that makes their nations so wealthy. It is sheer fantasy to believe
that we can act in manner so nicely as to discourage evil people from acting
against us. Evil has to be met with extreme prejudice and violence to be
quelled. There are no counterexamples.

with. We can look back at our own recent history and notice that power
flowed to us most rapidly when we empowered others; and drained away
most rapidly when we attempted to use our power to control others. We
can do a lot better job of listening to both friends and adversaries.

You are under the evil spell of the popular culture that says we
are someone trying to "control others". I don't see it that way.
Had the Islamic radicals not made war on us, especially on our own
soil, Bush and his advisors could *never* had made the case to
invade Afghanistan, let alone Iraq. I don't think most Americans
of any political persuasion want to "control" any other part of
the planet. We do, however, want to be left alone.


| The thing that makes this discussion so perverse is that the
| neo-cons have conflated defense and "bringing stability and
| democracy to the region". No wonder their critics shake their
| heads in dismay. But, that said, no matter how lousy the
| rationale', the general trajectory of stopping the disease before
| it is an epidemic is a sound one. Given any realistic and possible
| alternative, I'd support it, but I just don't see one.
| Lockeian/Jeffersonian Liberty is and always should be our
| inarguable guiding principle. But, it's not a suicide pact and
| ugly conditions demand ugly responses.

There are possible ways of slowing down and ultimately stopping the
"disease"; but we'll first need to decide that's what we really want
to do...

|| I've seen this before - and don't need more.
|
| I understand and share your angst for exactly the same reasons, I
| suspect. But I find it telling that the relatively minor sins of the
| West in these matters get magnified out of all proportion but the
| very real and far more serious abuses of the asymmetric warriors
| get's only a brief glance in the popular debate. As I've said
| previously, one of the (many) reasons I've become so completely
| disaffected with the political Left is that they have utterly
| failed in their role as the "loyal opposition". Instead of
| dissecting every small failing of the Bush administration, the US
| Left should have been acting quietly and diplomatically within the
| halls of power to steer a course everyone could live with. They
| haven't. They've taken the stance that *anything* W and his crew
| does is wrong with hope against hope they can regain majority
| power. Their political ambition trumps the good of democracy.They
| are contemptible for this. (N.B. That the neo-cons, however wrong
| you think they are, have *not* done this. They have taken a
| position and stuck to it in the face of great political pressure
| and possible loss of power.) Unfortunately, this means that, at
| least for now, the neo-cons get it all their way. I find this
| chilling, but not as chilling as doing nothing while we argue about
| whether US Code applies to Jamal The Suicide Bomber ...

The sins of the West are "relatively minor" only to westerners. There
are cultural issues at play with no shortage of ignorance and
misunderstanding at any side.

Our sins are minor by any objective scale. The human rights abuses
and generally awful behavior in a good part of the rest of the world
make our sins vanish into the rounding error. The fact that some
tribal religious nut wants to magnify them to get people to not
notice his own murderous behavior does not change this.


One of the difficulties we've made for ourselves is that we've allowed
political and economic stakeholders to fabricate "wedge issues" to
polarize our thinking. We really need to rediscover our center - to
focus on what we have in common and the amazing kinds of things we can
do when we work together to get problems solved. That doesn't mean
that disagreements vanish - but it does mean that we see differences
of opinion as indicators of opportunity to engage in constructive
dialog to work out better solutions.

A pox on both the left _and_ the right! Let's get back to the center.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto




--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Tim Daneliuk wrote:


(your words, Tim)
you might want to explain how - if W and his bunch actually lied
and this were demonstrable - how it is he has not been impeached.

That is, by far, the stupidest question I have ever seen.

It should thus be trivial to answer, but all we hear from you
is crickets.

Okay then...answer it. Why hasn't W been impeached?

Doug Miller wrote:
In article .com, wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:
In article ,

wrote:
...

Once you throw out the Geneva convention, you have lost any
moral authority and you are no better than the scum you're combating. If
you
cease to remain civilized, the terrorists have won.

Terrorists aren't covered by the Geneva Convention, which sets forth
specific
conditions that must be met in order to be covered. Armed men captured on
the
field of battle while wearing neither military uniform nor insignia don't
meet
those conditions.

That's a damn lie.

No, Fred, it's the truth.

Someone who has been captured by persons
other than his own countrymen becomes a protected person.
That a protected person can be tried and punished for crimes
comitted prior to capture, such as fighting in civilian disguise,
does not change the fact that the person is protected.

Wrong. Fighting in civilian disguise changes everything.

Citation?

The Geneva Conventions. You don't seem to have read them very carefully.

You do not cite anything in the GCs themselves to support your
assertion.

"Changes everything", and "changes nothing" are both incorrect.
What does not change, and the GCs address this directly is that
a captive is a protected person regardless of the accusation against
him.


I refer you to Tim Daneliuk's posts in this thread, in which he has already
pointed out your errors in detail, with greater eloquence than I am capable
of.


http://groups.google.com/group/misc....9fd31cb197fd79
or
http://groups.google.com/group/misc....e=source&hl=en

I do not consider name-calling and using made-up words to be
eloquence.

I repeat the statement by the ICRC, from near the end of their
discussion
of the definition of "protected persons."

"There is no ' intermediate status'; nobody in enemy hands
can be outside the law. "

I agree with them.

--

FF

Robatoy wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

(your words, Tim)
you might want to explain how - if W and his bunch actually lied
and this were demonstrable - how it is he has not been impeached.
That is, by far, the stupidest question I have ever seen.
It should thus be trivial to answer, but all we hear from you
is crickets.

Okay then...answer it. Why hasn't W been impeached?


Because there is no/insufficient evidence to bring charges of
impeachment against him. There is only the hot air coming from
the wide open orifices of his political opponents. Even though
an impeachment would not succeed because of the Republican control
of the Congress, merely bringing credible charges against him
would be a huge political victory for his opponents. But they
have not done so *because they have no credible case to make*.
"Bush Lied" is just political posturing to appeal to the feeble
minded Sheeple... When/if real evidence of malfeasance on his
part could be shown, the breathless gasbags of the Left will
trip all over themselves to be first in line to bring charges.
If such credible evidence is ever demonstrated, I will be right
behind them demanding an impeachment. Somehow, I rather doubt
I'll ever be in that position...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

When Fox re-aired the segment later in the day the incorrect
graphic was removed. NOT corrected, there was no graphic
correctly identifying Foley as a Republican.
FF


As one whom does not watch FOX 24 hours a day I'd not assume to know when or
if a correction was ever made but I suppose you can make any such assumption
....nonetheless I'd suggest by now (if ever) "nobody" thinks Folly was or is
a Dem. Nor would I consider FOX so stupid that they would think a small
insignificant "typo" could turn the tide of public opinion one way or the
other.

Misdirection.

It is not the effectiveness of the act that is in question, but the
motivation.

Within a few days after the statement was made, (almost) no one
believed that Clinton did not have sex with that woman, Monica
Lewinsky.
Does that mean it was OK for him to deny it?

--

FF

Leon wrote:
"Tom Watson" wrote in message
...

"Those Who Would Sacrifice Liberty for Security Deserve Neither."


I never could quite figutre that one out.

So, those who sacrifice Security for Liberty, Die.

No, neither precludes the other. Simultaneously
preserving both requires a modicum of intellignce and
wisdom, however.

--

FF

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

(your words, Tim)
you might want to explain how - if W and his bunch actually lied
and this were demonstrable - how it is he has not been impeached.
That is, by far, the stupidest question I have ever seen.
It should thus be trivial to answer, but all we hear from you
is crickets.

Okay then...answer it. Why hasn't W been impeached?


Because there is no/insufficient evidence to bring charges of
impeachment against him.

If there is insufficient evidence it may be because there
is insufficent support in the House of Representatives for
impeachment hearings. Sufficient evidece to support
an impeachment of Richard Nixon did not appear until
after the impeachment hearing had begun.

--

FF

wrote:

Misdirection.

It is not the effectiveness of the act that is in question, but the
motivation.

Exactly. So, is there any credible evidence that FOX did this on purpose as
opposed to it being mistake? When this happened during the news coverage,
was there also an attempt to state that the Foley-creep was a Democrat?
During the coverage of William Jefferson's (D-Louisiana) investigation by
the FBI, what was the motivation when NBC and CBS always failed to note the
"D" in the title graphic?

Folks have way too much time on their hands when stuff like this gets turned
into frothing-at-the-mouth rants about conspiracies.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Interesting that you noticed a "mistake" by 2 different networks when the
issue concerned a Democrat but you call it "frothing-at-the mouth rants
about conspiracies" when something brings up the actions of the Fox network.

If it wasn't done on purpose at Fox, why do you assert by implication that
it was done on purpose at CBS and NBC?

Too much time or too little discernment, maybe both.

John E.

"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...
wrote:

Misdirection.

It is not the effectiveness of the act that is in question, but the
motivation.

Exactly. So, is there any credible evidence that FOX did this on purpose
as
opposed to it being mistake? When this happened during the news coverage,
was there also an attempt to state that the Foley-creep was a Democrat?
During the coverage of William Jefferson's (D-Louisiana) investigation by
the FBI, what was the motivation when NBC and CBS always failed to note
the
"D" in the title graphic?

Folks have way too much time on their hands when stuff like this gets
turned
into frothing-at-the-mouth rants about conspiracies.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

wrote:

If there is insufficient evidence it may be because there
is insufficent support in the House of Representatives for
impeachment hearings. Sufficient evidece to support
an impeachment of Richard Nixon did not appear until
after the impeachment hearing had begun.

Actually, Nixon resigned PRIOR to the House even beginning to consider the
merits of the articles of impeachment. So there was no impeachment hearing.
Articles of Impeachment have to have a valid basis for consideration *prior*
to presenting them to Congress. This means that there must be evidence in
existence. The basis for Impeachment must already be in-place.

If there is evidence that "Bush Lied", and if the lie is considered by
members of Congress to rise to the level of Treason, Bribery, or Other
Crimes or Misdemeanors, then the basis and facts supporting an impeachment
are drawn up into Articles of Impeachment. Any group of congressfolk can do
this. Democrats can do so right now, if they have the facts to support the
Articles.

The Articles are then presented to the House of Representatives for
acceptance and passage by a simple majority. This is where a Republican
controlled house can quash an impeachment of Bush, regardless of how
compelling the facts in evidence are. However, if the facts *are not* in
evidence, not even a Democrat controlled House would likely risk the rath of
the electorate and public opinion when it becomes clear -- during televised
proceedings -- that the Democrats are trying to cover up a lack of factual
evidence with a witch-hunt for unknown and hoped-for evidence.

If the Articles pass the House, an Impeachment has occured. The Articles
would then go to the Senate to try Bush on the charges. Testimony and
evidence presented during the trial will be the basis for the Senate to
decide if the impeachment should lead to a conviction. Once the trial is
complete, two-thirds of the Senate must vote to convict. Conviction would
automatically remove Bush from office.

So, yes, sufficient evidence *must* be in place prior to presenting the
Articles to the House.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

John Emmons wrote:

Interesting that you noticed a "mistake" by 2 different networks when
the issue concerned a Democrat but you call it "frothing-at-the
mouth rants about conspiracies" when something brings up the actions
of the Fox network.

Sorry you missed the context. I thought when I wrote "Folks have way too
much time on their hands when stuff *like this*
gets turned into frothing-at-the-mouth rants about conspiracies", after
mentioning both the Fox and the NBC/CBS examples, it was clear I wasn't
taking a side. Let me make it clearer for you. Spending any amount of time
worrying about the conspiratorial nature of superimposed graphics on the
tube -- in either instance -- is evidence of having too much time on one's
hands.

If it wasn't done on purpose at Fox, why do you assert by implication
that it was done on purpose at CBS and NBC?

Your "implication detector" is a tad too sensitive, as I implied nothing of
the kind.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Dave Bugg wrote:
wrote:

If there is insufficient evidence it may be because there
is insufficent support in the House of Representatives for
impeachment hearings. Sufficient evidece to support
an impeachment of Richard Nixon did not appear until
after the impeachment hearing had begun.

SNIP

So, yes, sufficient evidence *must* be in place prior to presenting the
Articles to the House.


All of which points out one of my central contentions: The Bush critics
largely just hate him so much that any argument, any method, or any
approach is OK so long as it diminishes the administration in some way
(not unlike the Right that hated Clinton with equal ferocity, though
arguably with a more clear basis).

The Bush-haters argue on the one hand that he is a "lying liar who lied
about everything" but when challenged with the evidence that would
support his humiliation and even impeachment, they retreat to "it's ...
because there is insufficient support ... to impeach him", utterly
sidestepping the point that even a failed impeachment would be a source
of considerable humiliation and loss of power for W (assuming there
was some shred of credible evidence to support it).

Similarly, they argue that what he wants to do is "illegal". But when
confronted with the murky language of the Geneva Conventions, they try
and transform the debate into why what we're doing to foreign combatants
does not meet the (far stricter) rules of our *domestic* laws. The next
line of retreat is "well, nice people don't do those kinds of things" or
"we're sacrificing *our* Liberty to get the illusion of safety" even
though the current conflict is (arguably) all about *preserving* our
Liberty.

So long as the central debate is about who will win the political
conflict and thus not about how we will preserve the republic, we are
doomed. There are a few reasoned voices from the Left I admire -
Christopher Hitchens leaps to mind, so does Joe Lieberman. But since
they fail the "we must win at any cost" litmus test, they are dismissed
and marginalized by their own camp. And this is tragic. Hitches,
particularly, makes some of the most thoughtful and reasoned arguments
about why, for instance, "torture" ought not to be a part of our
arsenal. He does this without appealing to US Code, the Geneva
Conventions, or any of the other fictitious fabric found in most of the
rest of the Left. He makes his argument based on *what is good for the
nation*. It's too bad more people don't think that way. I am, and
remain, highly critical of the Right, but at least they argue for their
positions based on what they see as good for the free West, not on the
basis of how lousy their opponents ideas are. They could be right or
wrong, but at least their motivation seems decent ... I think I'll go
listen to Howard Dean scream one more time now ...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Dave Bugg wrote:
wrote:

If there is insufficient evidence it may be because there
is insufficent support in the House of Representatives for
impeachment hearings. Sufficient evidece to support
an impeachment of Richard Nixon did not appear until
after the impeachment hearing had begun.

Actually, Nixon resigned PRIOR to the House even beginning to consider the
merits of the articles of impeachment. So there was no impeachment hearing.

To be precise, the House Judiciary comittee held hearings on the
Watergate break in and cover up and thereby discovered the
evidence needed to support articles of impeachment. While no
'impeachment hearings' oper se were held, articles of impechment
had been introduced and had Nixon not resigned, one or more would
surely have been pased by the comittee. E.g. no 'impeachment
hearing' per se would have been held.

Articles of Impeachment have to have a valid basis for consideration *prior*
to presenting them to Congress. This means that there must be evidence in
existence. The basis for Impeachment must already be in-place.

Could you cite somethign to support this? I am unaware of
any requirement stated in or implied by the Constitution that
prohibits the House from investigating allegations and discovering
evidence of an impeachable offense on its own intitiative. Indeed,
historically, that seems to have been the norm. Prior to the
creation of the Office of the Independent Counsel, which no longer
exists, impeachment investigations were conducted by the House
independently of any criminal investigations on the part of the
Justice Department.


If there is evidence that "Bush Lied", and if the lie is considered by
members of Congress to rise to the level of Treason, Bribery, or Other
Crimes or Misdemeanors, then the basis and facts supporting an impeachment
are drawn up into Articles of Impeachment. Any group of congressfolk can do
this. Democrats can do so right now, if they have the facts to support the
Articles.

They don't even have to be Congress folk nor do they need a factual
basis. But to be acted upon by the Congress an article of impeachment
must first be introduced into the House or Representatives by a member
of the House. That is probably what yo meant, but keep in mind that
the Senate has no authority to impeach, only the House.


The Articles are then presented to the House of Representatives for
acceptance and passage by a simple majority. This is where a Republican
controlled house can quash an impeachment of Bush, regardless of how
compelling the facts in evidence are.

That is but one such opportunity. The House Republicans, and this is
precisely the point I was making, have the power to quash any
investigation
by the House that might produce evidence of an impeachable offense by
first voting against holding a hearing that might produce such evidence
and then by voting against calling witnesses who might reveal such
evidence at any hearings that are held.

Finally, and this is something I had never heard of prior to the
present
administration, the Republicans can (and have) voted to allow witnesses
to 'testify' while NOT under oath or affirmation.


So, yes, sufficient evidence *must* be in place prior to presenting the
Articles to the House.


I modify my point slightly:

If there is insufficient evidence to support the introduction
of articles of impeachment it may be because there
is insufficent support in the House of Representatives
to conduct the hearings that could discover that
evidence.

However, I do not claim that there is insufficient evidence to
support articles of impeachment, quite the contrary.

--

FF

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 11:08:00 -0500, "Morris Dovey" wrote:

Larry Blanchard (in ) said:

| Morris Dovey wrote:
|
|| It would seem that you've not noticed the rather large number of
|| men and women who valued our principles more highly than their
|| personal survival - and the lesser (but still awesomely large)
|| number who did not, in fact, survive - all so that you and I might
|| live in what you so casually refer to as "fantasyland".
|
| Well said. But to be fair it must be noted that the terrorists are
| also willing to die for their principles - or at least for their
| religion. Ones dedication to a principle does not necessarily
| prove the validity of that principle.

Of course - and yet the very existance of a principle as such
indicates that there is some strong cultural validation. When such a
situation arises, it would seem to me that both sides need to learn
more about the (other's) culture and the context in which that
validation took place.


Well, from their "holy" book, here is the negotiating position that the
Jihadis offer:
In order to avoid future attacks, you can make one of the following 3
choices:
1) Convert to islam. They are will then welcome you as a brother among
themselves.
2) Acknowledge your defeat, pay them the head tax (jizya) and they will
allow you to live in your "false" faith as a second class citizen under
their rule. Be well assured, you will be a second class citizen, subject
to the whim of their faith. The bleating from the left about the "fascist"
Bush is absolutely silly -- these folks are for real. Try finding the
First Baptist Church of Mecca, or Holy Cross Lutheran Church in Medina.
Look at the laws in places like Indonesia and others controlled by these
people.
3) Refuse to bow to their will; they are then free to kill you, anywhere,
anytime.

OK, now, what is your counter-offer? Oh, and just to make it
interesting, realize that lying to "khafirs" (infidels) is not only
accepted and sanctioned, it is advocated in their religious teachings. So,
any agreements or contracts you sign with these people is subject to
revocation at their whim. So, your counter-offer and your decision
regarding the "solemn agreement" they will make with you?

Realize that for the people committing these acts and the countries that
harbor them or are controlled by them, islam is more than just a religion;
it *is* their whole culture and way of life. From enslaving their women in
the hajib and burka to the rejection of all things islam to the way they
treat their criminals. The sharia law is their whole goal and the spread of
islam to the entire world is their raison' de' etre'. Unfortunately,
unlike orthodox Christianity in its evangelism, islam is founded on
spreading by the sword and killing those who fail to convert is absolutely
condoned. [yeah, I know about the inquisition --- that does *not* count as
orthodox Christianity, there was nothing scriptural about that activity].
Take a look at the current islamic rise in France and England; once these
groups get power in small regions to implement sharia, they will spread and
attempt to implement that in larger regions as well. Note that in those
countries, the groups aren't calling for equal rights, they are calling for
extra rights and the ability to live outside of the rest of the cultural
norm.

The silence from the "moderate" muslims condemning these acts is
deafening. While there are a few moderate voices, they are few and far
between and very often accompanied by a whole bunch of "but monkeys". i.e.
"but you have to understand ... " "but you don't realize their ... " etc.

There is a clash of cultures coming, the question is how long are we
going to delay that clash and what will be the penalties for so doing.



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

wrote in message
ups.com...

Leon wrote:
"Tom Watson" wrote in message
...

"Those Who Would Sacrifice Liberty for Security Deserve Neither."


I never could quite figutre that one out.

So, those who sacrifice Security for Liberty, Die.

No, neither precludes the other. Simultaneously
preserving both requires a modicum of intellignce and
wisdom, however.


Basically I have always seen that statement as being moot.

wrote:
Dave Bugg wrote:
wrote:

If there is insufficient evidence it may be because there
is insufficent support in the House of Representatives for
impeachment hearings. Sufficient evidece to support
an impeachment of Richard Nixon did not appear until
after the impeachment hearing had begun.

Actually, Nixon resigned PRIOR to the House even beginning to
consider the merits of the articles of impeachment. So there was no
impeachment hearing.

To be precise, the House Judiciary comittee held hearings on the
Watergate break in and cover up and thereby discovered the
evidence needed to support articles of impeachment. While no
'impeachment hearings' oper se were held, articles of impechment
had been introduced and had Nixon not resigned, one or more would
surely have been pased by the comittee. E.g. no 'impeachment
hearing' per se would have been held.

But that wasn't your point. You stated that evidence to support an
impeachment did not appear until *after* the impeachment hearing began. You
were incorrect. The hearings of the judiciary committees WERE NOT an
impeachment hearing. My point still stands that Articles of Impeachment must
contain relevant facts and evidence to support itself when presented to the
House for passage.

Articles of Impeachment have to have a valid basis for consideration
*prior* to presenting them to Congress. This means that there must
be evidence in existence. The basis for Impeachment must already be
in-place.

Could you cite somethign to support this?

Look at the Constituitonal description of Impeachement.

I am unaware of
any requirement stated in or implied by the Constitution that
prohibits the House from investigating allegations and discovering
evidence of an impeachable offense on its own intitiative.

That was not what I said, nor is it what you stated. You stated that
Articles of Impeachment could be a period of evidenturary discovery, which
of course, they cannot be. The Articles of Impeachment must contain the
rationale -- through facts in evidence -- to provide support for bring a
motion of impeachment before the House. To arrive at the facts in evidence
to develop the Articles, fact finding hearings and other methods of
discovery are usually undertaken. But, unlike what you had stated, discovery
of facts are not undertaken *after* the Articles are presented to the House.
After the Articles are presented, the facts in evidence are judged by the
House members to either support or not support impeachment.

Indeed,
historically, that seems to have been the norm. Prior to the
creation of the Office of the Independent Counsel, which no longer
exists, impeachment investigations were conducted by the House
independently of any criminal investigations on the part of the
Justice Department.

You seem to lack knowledge of what Articles of Impeachment are and the
purpose that they serve. Any investigation to determine if facts are in
evidence is put into play PRIOR to the Articles being drafted, because the
Articles are all about facts in evidence to support the alleged reasons for
impeachment.

If there is evidence that "Bush Lied", and if the lie is considered
by members of Congress to rise to the level of Treason, Bribery, or
Other Crimes or Misdemeanors, then the basis and facts supporting an
impeachment are drawn up into Articles of Impeachment. Any group of
congressfolk can do this. Democrats can do so right now, if they
have the facts to support the Articles.

They don't even have to be Congress folk nor do they need a factual
basis. But to be acted upon by the Congress an article of impeachment
must first be introduced into the House or Representatives by a member
of the House. That is probably what yo meant, but keep in mind that
the Senate has no authority to impeach, only the House.

No, facts in evidence do not have to come from congressfolk. That's not what
I was talking about. But it would take a member of the House to form the
evidence into Articles of Impeachment, which is what I *was* talking about.
And if you would have taken the time to read my post prior to responding,
you would have seen that I properly covered who has responsibility to
determine impeachment vs which house is responsible for the trial.

The Articles are then presented to the House of Representatives for
acceptance and passage by a simple majority. This is where a
Republican controlled house can quash an impeachment of Bush,
regardless of how compelling the facts in evidence are.

That is but one such opportunity. The House Republicans, and this is
precisely the point I was making, have the power to quash any
investigation
by the House that might produce evidence of an impeachable offense by
first voting against holding a hearing that might produce such
evidence
and then by voting against calling witnesses who might reveal such
evidence at any hearings that are held.

Please cite the House rules which allow the majority to do this. Quite the
contrary, the minority has procedural abilities to conduct whatever hearings
and factfinding is necessary in cases of misdeeds by the Executive branch.

Finally, and this is something I had never heard of prior to the
present
administration, the Republicans can (and have) voted to allow
witnesses
to 'testify' while NOT under oath or affirmation.

This has happened during many administrations and regardless of who holds
power in Congress. Usually it is proffered when the scope of an
investigation is not the witness called.

So, yes, sufficient evidence *must* be in place prior to presenting
the Articles to the House.


I modify my point slightly:

If there is insufficient evidence to support the introduction
of articles of impeachment it may be because there
is insufficent support in the House of Representatives
to conduct the hearings that could discover that
evidence.

However, I do not claim that there is insufficient evidence to
support articles of impeachment, quite the contrary.

I'm listening; go ahead and state the evidence and those provable facts.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 02:32:24 -0400, wrote:

Typical moonbat contradictions
Tim Daneliuk said:

nothing any well paid shill wouldn't say.

I regrettably stumbled onto this post, and after laughing for 30
minutes, decided to address the oppressive blather.


Oh good, we can hardly wait for the writings from the maniacal

It is not. In the early days of what would become WWII, the Left argued
as you have - "There's no serious threat to us. It's just asinine to
worry about it." Fast forward 15 years. Hitler and Stalin are
responsible for something on the order of 100 *million* deaths in total.
History is full of other such examples of what happens when you
ignore evil.

And in what possible way does this relate to an impotent US sock
puppet like Saddam Hussein? Or are you setting the stage for a dialog
on the invasion of Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, or perhaps Canada.


Well let's see, Saddam was oppressing his people, doing great evil,
killing the opposition and [reallly] torturing his prisoners. i.e, if you
are going to call waterboarding or sleep deprivation "torture", I'm sure
you would most certainly agree that sawing peoples' arms off with a Sawzall
(OBWW), breaking their arms for failing a mission, or cutting out the
tongues of dissidents with pliers and exacto knives would definitely fit
the definition. So, by deposing Saddam, evil was defeated. [This is
important relative to the paragraph below]


We shouldn't ignore evil? What about Darfur, et al.?
Funny, I don't see any Warships racing towards Africa - or DC.


Gee, you're PO'd because we deposed someone perptetuating evil, now
you're PO'd because we haven't sent the military to quell another evil. So,
which is it, should be be defeating evil or not? Or, do you only agree to
deploying troops to a) places where evil exists and we haven't gone, and/or
b) deploying troops to places where we have no strategic national
interests?

Methinks it's just another moonbat bit of hysteria, you'd be just as
riled if Bush had sent troops to Darfur claiming it was just another
example of western domination in another country's internal problems.


Today's threat isn't just an Islamist Terrorist threat per se.
Today's asymmetric warriors are testing the waters to see if they can
bring down a superpower. What ties them together far more than religion
is their tribalist mentality - of which there is plenty to go around on
the planet. The combination of a suicidal eschatology and a tribal
mentality, fertilized with global communications, transport, and
technology, will inevitably follow the same course as pre-war Hitler and
Stalin. The task today is to prevent the snowball from rolling down the
hill before it gets so big it cannot be stopped.

Your arguments over minutia are irrelevant in light of the fact that
we invaded a sovereign country that in no way threatened the US or its
neighbors, to overthrow a leader who had been propped up by decades of
support from the both the magnanimous right and the quivering left.

So, which is it, we should be taking down evil, or we shouldn't? What
about Darfur?


.... rest of moonbat hysteria snipped -- life is too short and I've got
woodworking to get back to


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Dave Bugg wrote:
wrote:
Dave Bugg wrote:
wrote:

If there is insufficient evidence it may be because there
is insufficent support in the House of Representatives for
impeachment hearings. Sufficient evidece to support
an impeachment of Richard Nixon did not appear until
after the impeachment hearing had begun.

Actually, Nixon resigned PRIOR to the House even beginning to
consider the merits of the articles of impeachment. So there was no
impeachment hearing.

To be precise, the House Judiciary comittee held hearings on the
Watergate break in and cover up and thereby discovered the
evidence needed to support articles of impeachment. While no
'impeachment hearings' oper se were held, articles of impechment
had been introduced and had Nixon not resigned, one or more would
surely have been pased by the comittee. E.g. no 'impeachment
hearing' per se would have been held.

But that wasn't your point. You stated that evidence to support an
impeachment did not appear until *after* the impeachment hearing began. You
were incorrect. The hearings of the judiciary committees WERE NOT an
impeachment hearing.

Yes, and I remind you that I corrected that error myself above.

My point still stands that Articles of Impeachment must
contain relevant facts and evidence to support itself when presented to the
House for passage.

I agree that they should. 'Must' is too strong a term as the House
_may_ pass whatever they wish, no matter how absurd it may be.


Articles of Impeachment have to have a valid basis for consideration
*prior* to presenting them to Congress. This means that there must
be evidence in existence. The basis for Impeachment must already be
in-place.

Could you cite somethign to support this?

Look at the Constituitonal description of Impeachement.

I am unaware of
any requirement stated in or implied by the Constitution that
prohibits the House from investigating allegations and discovering
evidence of an impeachable offense on its own intitiative.

That was not what I said, nor is it what you stated. You stated that
Articles of Impeachment could be a period of evidenturary discovery, which
of course, they cannot be.

No, I did not. Nor can I parse your statement in such a way as
to produce anything intelligible. I think that we both have been
hasty and written sentences with such bad syntax as to obscure
whatever it was we wished to communicate.



The Articles of Impeachment must contain the
rationale -- through facts in evidence -- to provide support for bring a
motion of impeachment before the House. To arrive at the facts in evidence
to develop the Articles, fact finding hearings and other methods of
discovery are usually undertaken. But, unlike what you had stated, discovery
of facts are not undertaken *after* the Articles are presented to the House.
After the Articles are presented, the facts in evidence are judged by the
House members to either support or not support impeachment.

I did not state that "discovery of facts are undertaken *after* the
Articles are presented to the House. " Nor did I state anything that
reasonably could be interpretted as such. Moreover the historical
example I presented, that of the House Judiciary Comittee's Watergate
hearings, is an example of Articles of Impeachment being introduced
after evidence was discovered, not befor


Indeed,
historically, that seems to have been the norm. Prior to the
creation of the Office of the Independent Counsel, which no longer
exists, impeachment investigations were conducted by the House
independently of any criminal investigations on the part of the
Justice Department.

You seem to lack knowledge of what Articles of Impeachment are and the
purpose that they serve. Any investigation to determine if facts are in
evidence is put into play PRIOR to the Articles being drafted, because the
Articles are all about facts in evidence to support the alleged reasons for
impeachment.

You seem to have not read my example of how the House Judiciary
Comittee did just that, in that order.


If there is evidence that "Bush Lied", and if the lie is considered
by members of Congress to rise to the level of Treason, Bribery, or
Other Crimes or Misdemeanors, then the basis and facts supporting an
impeachment are drawn up into Articles of Impeachment. Any group of
congressfolk can do this. Democrats can do so right now, if they
have the facts to support the Articles.

They don't even have to be Congress folk nor do they need a factual
basis. But to be acted upon by the Congress an article of impeachment
must first be introduced into the House or Representatives by a member
of the House. That is probably what yo meant, but keep in mind that
the Senate has no authority to impeach, only the House.

No, facts in evidence do not have to come from congressfolk. That's not what
I was talking about. But it would take a member of the House to form the
evidence into Articles of Impeachment, which is what I *was* talking about.

That's wrong. Anyone can author an Article of Impeachment. Only
a member of the House of representatives can introduce that Article
of Impeachment. Senators and Congressmen seldom ar the actual
authors of the legislation they introduce.

And if you would have taken the time to read my post prior to responding,
you would have seen that I properly covered who has responsibility to
determine impeachment vs which house is responsible for the trial.

The Articles are then presented to the House of Representatives for
acceptance and passage by a simple majority. This is where a
Republican controlled house can quash an impeachment of Bush,
regardless of how compelling the facts in evidence are.

That is but one such opportunity. The House Republicans, and this is
precisely the point I was making, have the power to quash any
investigation
by the House that might produce evidence of an impeachable offense by
first voting against holding a hearing that might produce such
evidence
and then by voting against calling witnesses who might reveal such
evidence at any hearings that are held.

Please cite the House rules which allow the majority to do this. Quite the
contrary, the minority has procedural abilities to conduct whatever hearings
and factfinding is necessary in cases of misdeeds by the Executive branch.

Please cite the House Rules that allow a minority on a committee
to conduct hearings before a House committee, when the majority
of committee members vote against doing so.

Please cite the House Rules that allow a minority on a committee
to subpeaona a witness to testify before that committee when the
majority of committee members vote against doing so.

Please cite the House Rules that allow a minority on a committee
to require that a witness testify under oath before that committee
when the majority of committee members vote against doing so.

...


--

FF

Dave Bugg wrote:
wrote:

Misdirection.

It is not the effectiveness of the act that is in question, but the
motivation.

Exactly. So, is there any credible evidence that FOX did this on purpose as
opposed to it being mistake?

Like what, a confession?

When the episode was rebroadcast, the incorrect graphic had
been removed, which is indicative that someone had caught the
error. But no graphic correctly identifying Foley as a Republican
had been substituted.

Ergo, on its face it would appear that the persons responsible for
removing the graphic misidentifying Foley as a Democrat chose
to NOT identify him as a Repblican in the 'corrected' broadcast.

When this happened during the news coverage,
was there also an attempt to state that the Foley-creep was a Democrat?
During the coverage of William Jefferson's (D-Louisiana) investigation by
the FBI, what was the motivation when NBC and CBS always failed to note the
"D" in the title graphic?

Was there a "D" in the title graphic?

If so, then he was never misidentified as a Republican right?

So what's your point and why are you frothing at the mouth
about it?

--

FF

Mark & Juanita wrote:

The*silence*from*the*"moderate"*muslims*condemning *these*acts*is
deafening.**While*there*are*a*few*moderate*voices, *they*are*few*and*far
between and very often accompanied by a whole bunch of "but monkeys". i.e.
"but you have to understand ... " "but you don't realize their ... " etc.

That is indeed the most troubling fact associated with Islam. There seems to
be no loud dissenting voices to the radicals. Some of that may be due to
fear, but I'd still like to see some stronger indication that they disagree
as to the nature of Islam.

--
It's turtles, all the way down

wrote:
Dave Bugg wrote:
wrote:
Dave Bugg wrote:
wrote:

If there is insufficient evidence it may be because there
is insufficent support in the House of Representatives for
impeachment hearings. Sufficient evidece to support
an impeachment of Richard Nixon did not appear until
after the impeachment hearing had begun.

Actually, Nixon resigned PRIOR to the House even beginning to
consider the merits of the articles of impeachment. So there was no
impeachment hearing.

To be precise, the House Judiciary comittee held hearings on the
Watergate break in and cover up and thereby discovered the
evidence needed to support articles of impeachment. While no
'impeachment hearings' oper se were held, articles of impechment
had been introduced and had Nixon not resigned, one or more would
surely have been pased by the comittee. E.g. no 'impeachment
hearing' per se would have been held.

But that wasn't your point. You stated that evidence to support an
impeachment did not appear until *after* the impeachment hearing
began. You were incorrect. The hearings of the judiciary committees
WERE NOT an impeachment hearing.

Yes, and I remind you that I corrected that error myself above.

My point still stands that Articles of Impeachment must
contain relevant facts and evidence to support itself when presented
to the House for passage.

I agree that they should. 'Must' is too strong a term as the House
_may_ pass whatever they wish, no matter how absurd it may be.


Articles of Impeachment have to have a valid basis for
consideration *prior* to presenting them to Congress. This means
that there must
be evidence in existence. The basis for Impeachment must already be
in-place.

Could you cite somethign to support this?

Look at the Constituitonal description of Impeachement.

I am unaware of
any requirement stated in or implied by the Constitution that
prohibits the House from investigating allegations and discovering
evidence of an impeachable offense on its own intitiative.

That was not what I said, nor is it what you stated. You stated that
Articles of Impeachment could be a period of evidenturary discovery,
which of course, they cannot be.

No, I did not.

You did when you stated "Sufficient evidece to support an impeachment of
Richard Nixon did not appear until after the impeachment hearing had begun".
To me this indicated that you thought that discovery could be conducted
during the actual impeachment hearing.

Nor can I parse your statement in such a way as
to produce anything intelligible. I think that we both have been
hasty and written sentences with such bad syntax as to obscure
whatever it was we wished to communicate.

Sorry, too much time spent empaneled on Grand Juries. Evidenturary discovery
is the investigative period needed to gather evidence of wrong doing.

The Articles of Impeachment must contain the
rationale -- through facts in evidence -- to provide support for
bring a motion of impeachment before the House. To arrive at the
facts in evidence to develop the Articles, fact finding hearings and
other methods of discovery are usually undertaken. But, unlike what
you had stated, discovery of facts are not undertaken *after* the
Articles are presented to the House. After the Articles are
presented, the facts in evidence are judged by the House members to
either support or not support impeachment.

I did not state that "discovery of facts are undertaken *after* the
Articles are presented to the House. " Nor did I state anything that
reasonably could be interpretted as such.

When you stated "Sufficient evidece to support an impeachment of Richard
Nixon did not appear until after the impeachment hearing had begun", I
reasonably interpreted such.

Moreover the historical
example I presented, that of the House Judiciary Comittee's Watergate
hearings, is an example of Articles of Impeachment being introduced
after evidence was discovered, not befor

But, Articles of Impeachment were NOT introduced to the House. Nixon
resigned prior to that event

Indeed,
historically, that seems to have been the norm. Prior to the
creation of the Office of the Independent Counsel, which no longer
exists, impeachment investigations were conducted by the House
independently of any criminal investigations on the part of the
Justice Department.

You seem to lack knowledge of what Articles of Impeachment are and
the purpose that they serve. Any investigation to determine if facts
are in evidence is put into play PRIOR to the Articles being
drafted, because the Articles are all about facts in evidence to
support the alleged reasons for impeachment.

You seem to have not read my example of how the House Judiciary
Comittee did just that, in that order.

I did, but I think you need to re-read the thread.

If there is evidence that "Bush Lied", and if the lie is considered
by members of Congress to rise to the level of Treason, Bribery, or
Other Crimes or Misdemeanors, then the basis and facts supporting
an impeachment are drawn up into Articles of Impeachment. Any
group of congressfolk can do this. Democrats can do so right now,
if they
have the facts to support the Articles.

They don't even have to be Congress folk nor do they need a factual
basis. But to be acted upon by the Congress an article of
impeachment must first be introduced into the House or
Representatives by a member
of the House. That is probably what yo meant, but keep in mind
that
the Senate has no authority to impeach, only the House.

No, facts in evidence do not have to come from congressfolk. That's
not what I was talking about. But it would take a member of the
House to form the evidence into Articles of Impeachment, which is
what I *was* talking about.

That's wrong. Anyone can author an Article of Impeachment. Only
a member of the House of representatives can introduce that Article
of Impeachment. Senators and Congressmen seldom ar the actual
authors of the legislation they introduce.

Point taken.

And if you would have taken the time to read my post prior to
responding, you would have seen that I properly covered who has
responsibility to determine impeachment vs which house is
responsible for the trial.

Please cite the House rules which allow the majority to do this.
Quite the contrary, the minority has procedural abilities to conduct
whatever hearings and factfinding is necessary in cases of misdeeds
by the Executive branch.

Please cite the House Rules that allow a minority on a committee
to conduct hearings before a House committee, when the majority
of committee members vote against doing so.

....snip of requests for citations

Sure. I'll show you mine when you show me yours.


--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

wrote:

When the episode was rebroadcast, the incorrect graphic had
been removed, which is indicative that someone had caught the
error.
.....snip of stuff

As I said, some folks have too much time on their hands. This whole thing is
petty and ridiculous and so not important in the entire scheme of things.


--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Dave Bugg wrote:
wrote:

If there is insufficient evidence it may be because there
is insufficent support in the House of Representatives for
impeachment hearings. Sufficient evidece to support
an impeachment of Richard Nixon did not appear until
after the impeachment hearing had begun.

SNIP

So, yes, sufficient evidence *must* be in place prior to presenting the
Articles to the House.


All of which points out one of my central contentions: The Bush critics
largely just hate him so much that any argument, any method, or any
approach is OK so long as it diminishes the administration in some way
(not unlike the Right that hated Clinton with equal ferocity, though
arguably with a more clear basis).

The Bush-haters argue on the one hand that he is a "lying liar who lied
about everything" but when challenged with the evidence that would
support his humiliation and even impeachment, they retreat to "it's ...
because there is insufficient support ... to impeach him", utterly
sidestepping the point that even a failed impeachment would be a source
of considerable humiliation and loss of power for W (assuming there
was some shred of credible evidence to support it).

Rather you dismissed two clear examples of deliberate deception
as 'error', an argument I rebutted he

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.p...e=source&hl=en

To elaborate further:

The administration 'erred' by describing the 81 mm Medusa missile
tubes as suitable for Uranium enrichment centrifuges the same way
the tobacco company executives 'erred' when they said nicotine was
not addictive and smoking was not proven to cause lung cancer. In
both cases expert advice was obtained and then statements made that
flatly contradicted the conclusions of their own experts.

The Bush administration did manage to find some people who
said the tubes could be used for Uranium enrichment, only those
people lacked the expertise of those who gave the administration
an answer they didn't like.

By your standards of what constitutes 'error' the Bush adminstration
would be in error, not lying, if they consulted with experts at the
USNO, NOAA and the Flat Earth Society, and then announced that
the Earth is flat.


Similarly, they argue that what he wants to do is "illegal". But when
confronted with the murky language of the Geneva Conventions, they try
and transform the debate into why what we're doing to foreign combatants
does not meet the (far stricter) rules of our *domestic* laws.

Neither the USSC, which has the final authority to interpret treaties
for the US, nor the ICRC which is the international body tasked with
monitoring compliance with the GCs, found the language to be 'murky'.

No attempt has been to tranform 'the debate' from the Geneva
Conventions
to US laws. Those are separte independent arguments.

The Bush adminstration, however, prepetually tries to tranform the
debate from respect for the rule of law, to "protecting the American
People". The need for the latter has never been disputed, yet the
Bush adminisiration acts as if debate over what is necessary and
proper to accomplish that, is tatamount to treason.

--

FF

Dave Bugg wrote:
wrote:
Dave Bugg wrote:
wrote:
Dave Bugg wrote:
wrote:

If there is insufficient evidence it may be because there
is insufficent support in the House of Representatives for
impeachment hearings. Sufficient evidece to support
an impeachment of Richard Nixon did not appear until
after the impeachment hearing had begun.

Actually, Nixon resigned PRIOR to the House even beginning to
consider the merits of the articles of impeachment. So there was no
impeachment hearing.

To be precise, the House Judiciary comittee held hearings on the
Watergate break in and cover up and thereby discovered the
evidence needed to support articles of impeachment. While no
'impeachment hearings' oper se were held, articles of impechment
had been introduced and had Nixon not resigned, one or more would
surely have been pased by the comittee. E.g. no 'impeachment
hearing' per se would have been held.

But that wasn't your point. You stated that evidence to support an
impeachment did not appear until *after* the impeachment hearing
began. You were incorrect. The hearings of the judiciary committees
WERE NOT an impeachment hearing.

Yes, and I remind you that I corrected that error myself above.

My point still stands that Articles of Impeachment must
contain relevant facts and evidence to support itself when presented
to the House for passage.

I agree that they should. 'Must' is too strong a term as the House
_may_ pass whatever they wish, no matter how absurd it may be.


Articles of Impeachment have to have a valid basis for
consideration *prior* to presenting them to Congress. This means
that there must
be evidence in existence. The basis for Impeachment must already be
in-place.

Could you cite somethign to support this?

Look at the Constituitonal description of Impeachement.

I am unaware of
any requirement stated in or implied by the Constitution that
prohibits the House from investigating allegations and discovering
evidence of an impeachable offense on its own intitiative.

That was not what I said, nor is it what you stated. You stated that
Articles of Impeachment could be a period of evidenturary discovery,
which of course, they cannot be.

No, I did not.

You did when you stated "Sufficient evidece to support an impeachment of
Richard Nixon did not appear until after the impeachment hearing had begun".
To me this indicated that you thought that discovery could be conducted
during the actual impeachment hearing.

It doesn't matter what "Sufficient evidece to support an impeachment of

Richard Nixon did not appear until after the impeachment hearing
had begun". meant to you. I did NOT state that "Articles of
Impeachment
could be a period of evidenturary discovery,"


Nor can I parse your statement in such a way as
to produce anything intelligible. I think that we both have been
hasty and written sentences with such bad syntax as to obscure
whatever it was we wished to communicate.

Sorry, too much time spent empaneled on Grand Juries. Evidenturary discovery
is the investigative period needed to gather evidence of wrong doing.

I don't see how that addresses the bad syntax of the statement I did
not
make.

Regardless, it appears that you are aguing that one or more Articles of
Impeachment must be introduced before the House could hold hearings
to investigate allegation of impeachable acts.

That is just plain wrong.

The House could, and should, investigate and gather evidence before
any Articles of Impeachment are introduced. Indeed, that is just
what the House Judiciary Committee did during Watergate.


... But, unlike what
you had stated, discovery of facts are not undertaken *after* the
Articles are presented to the House. After the Articles are
presented, the facts in evidence are judged by the House members to
either support or not support impeachment.

I did not state that "discovery of facts are undertaken *after* the
Articles are presented to the House. " Nor did I state anything that
reasonably could be interpretted as such.

When you stated "Sufficient evidece to support an impeachment of Richard
Nixon did not appear until after the impeachment hearing had begun", I
reasonably interpreted such.

That interpretation is unreasonable because it presuposes that Articles
of Impeachment MUST be introduced before the House could hold hearings
to investigate allegations of impeachable acts.

My statement was erroneous, because the House never conducted
'impeachment hearings' per se, for the impeachment of Richard Nixon.
E.g. I incorrectly called the Watergate hearings, Impeachment hearings.
I corrected that error in my next article, and then in the next article
after
that pointed out to you that I had done so. Here we are three (3)
articles
later and you are still writing as if I had never corrected that error.

Regardless, had Nixon not resigned, the House Judiciary Committee
undoubtrable would have voted to send one or more Articles of
Impeachment
to the House for debate.

Even if Nixon had not resigned and had been impeached, there is no
reason to suppose that 'impeachment hearings' would ever have been
held. The Watergate hearings were sufficient to produce the evidence
needed for Articles of Impeachment.


Moreover the historical
example I presented, that of the House Judiciary Comittee's Watergate
hearings, is an example of Articles of Impeachment being introduced
after evidence was discovered, not befor

But, Articles of Impeachment were NOT introduced to the House. Nixon
resigned prior to that event

Three articles were introduced into the committee, without 'impeachment
hearings' per se, being held. There is no reason to suppose that the
committee would have adjourned the Watergate investigation and then
held impeachment hearings before sending the Articles to the House
for debate.

The sequence of events was:

Watergate hearings by the House judiciary committee.

Articles of Impeachment introduced into the House Judiciary Committee

Nixon resigned.

Had Nixon not resigned then the follwoing sequence is likely:

Articles of Impeachment sent from teh Judiciary Committee to
the floor of the House for debate.

One or more Articles of Impeachment passed by the House.

No 'impeachment hearings' per se.

Articles of Impeachment do not precede investigation, they are written
(or not) based on evidence developed during the investigation.


Indeed,
historically, that seems to have been the norm. Prior to the
creation of the Office of the Independent Counsel, which no longer
exists, impeachment investigations were conducted by the House
independently of any criminal investigations on the part of the
Justice Department.

You seem to lack knowledge of what Articles of Impeachment are and
the purpose that they serve. Any investigation to determine if facts
are in evidence is put into play PRIOR to the Articles being
drafted, because the Articles are all about facts in evidence to
support the alleged reasons for impeachment.

You seem to have not read my example of how the House Judiciary
Comittee did just that, in that order.

I did, but I think you need to re-read the thread.

Perhaps you need to do so, noted where I admitted having
incorrectly referred to the Watergate Hearings as impeachmetn
hearings.

...
And if you would have taken the time to read my post prior to
responding, you would have seen that I properly covered who has
responsibility to determine impeachment vs which house is
responsible for the trial.

I thought "congressfolk" was ambiguous.


Please cite the House rules which allow the majority to do this.
Quite the contrary, the minority has procedural abilities to conduct
whatever hearings and factfinding is necessary in cases of misdeeds
by the Executive branch.

Please cite the House Rules that allow a minority on a committee
to conduct hearings before a House committee, when the majority
of committee members vote against doing so.

...snip of requests for citations

Sure. I'll show you mine when you show me yours.


Mine is consistent with the general principle of majority rule.

Yours is consitent with, what?

A minority can meet in caucus and conduct 'hearings' of their own
and indeed, the Democrats have done just that. But those hearings
are no way comparable to hearings held by House committees.

--

FF

Dave Bugg wrote:
wrote:

When the episode was rebroadcast, the incorrect graphic had
been removed, which is indicative that someone had caught the
error.
.....snip of stuff


Amusingly enough, the "stuff' that was snipped was:

Ergo, on its face it would appear that the persons responsible for
removing the graphic misidentifying Foley as a Democrat chose
to NOT identify him as a Republican in the 'corrected' broadcast.

Not unlike the "snipping" Fox did...

As I said, some folks have too much time on their hands. This whole thing is
petty and ridiculous and so not important in the entire scheme of things.

It's only petty if you consider accusing a man of being
an internet pervert is somehow worse than accusing him
of being a Democrat....

--

FF

In article . com, wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:
In article ,

wrote:
...

Once you throw out the Geneva convention, you have lost any
moral authority and you are no better than the scum you're combating.
If
you
cease to remain civilized, the terrorists have won.

Terrorists aren't covered by the Geneva Convention, which sets forth
specific
conditions that must be met in order to be covered. Armed men captured
on
the
field of battle while wearing neither military uniform nor insignia
don't
meet
those conditions.

That's a damn lie.

No, Fred, it's the truth.

Someone who has been captured by persons
other than his own countrymen becomes a protected person.
That a protected person can be tried and punished for crimes
comitted prior to capture, such as fighting in civilian disguise,
does not change the fact that the person is protected.

Wrong. Fighting in civilian disguise changes everything.

Citation?

The Geneva Conventions. You don't seem to have read them very carefully.

You do not cite anything in the GCs themselves to support your
assertion.

If you had read it, you wouldn't need the cite. Again, I refer you to
Daneliuk's post, in which he details your error.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Dave Bugg wrote:
wrote:

If there is insufficient evidence it may be because there
is insufficent support in the House of Representatives for
impeachment hearings. Sufficient evidece to support
an impeachment of Richard Nixon did not appear until
after the impeachment hearing had begun.
SNIP
So, yes, sufficient evidence *must* be in place prior to presenting the
Articles to the House.

All of which points out one of my central contentions: The Bush critics
largely just hate him so much that any argument, any method, or any
approach is OK so long as it diminishes the administration in some way
(not unlike the Right that hated Clinton with equal ferocity, though
arguably with a more clear basis).

The Bush-haters argue on the one hand that he is a "lying liar who lied
about everything" but when challenged with the evidence that would
support his humiliation and even impeachment, they retreat to "it's ...
because there is insufficient support ... to impeach him", utterly
sidestepping the point that even a failed impeachment would be a source
of considerable humiliation and loss of power for W (assuming there
was some shred of credible evidence to support it).

Rather you dismissed two clear examples of deliberate deception
as 'error', an argument I rebutted he

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.p...e=source&hl=en

To elaborate further:

The administration 'erred' by describing the 81 mm Medusa missile
tubes as suitable for Uranium enrichment centrifuges the same way
the tobacco company executives 'erred' when they said nicotine was
not addictive and smoking was not proven to cause lung cancer. In
both cases expert advice was obtained and then statements made that
flatly contradicted the conclusions of their own experts.

The Bush administration did manage to find some people who
said the tubes could be used for Uranium enrichment, only those
people lacked the expertise of those who gave the administration
an answer they didn't like.

By your standards of what constitutes 'error' the Bush adminstration
would be in error, not lying, if they consulted with experts at the
USNO, NOAA and the Flat Earth Society, and then announced that
the Earth is flat.

OK, for argument's sake, let's say everything happened just the
way you describe. Do you seriously consider this an impeachable
level of lying? That is, does it meet the "high crimes and misdemeanors"
level of prevarication? Inquiring minds wanna know.


Similarly, they argue that what he wants to do is "illegal". But when
confronted with the murky language of the Geneva Conventions, they try
and transform the debate into why what we're doing to foreign combatants
does not meet the (far stricter) rules of our *domestic* laws.

Neither the USSC, which has the final authority to interpret treaties
for the US, nor the ICRC which is the international body tasked with
monitoring compliance with the GCs, found the language to be 'murky'.

Sez you. But, back on Planet Earth, there is real debate without
trivial answers as to just how these rules are to be applied
when the subject is not specifically in one of the named protected
classes. You are holding your breath and turning blue because
you want everyone to buy that your *interpretation* has no legitimate
counter. It is political sleight-of-hand, because you *know*
that a legitimate debate exists. What's fascinating about this
is that I am personally mostly opposed to physical coercion
beyond some basic level of psychological pressure. But the
idea that we are forbidden from doing so with people caught
red handed in civilian clothing while fighting our troops
is laughable. You might as well suggest that the answer to
the current global conflict is to get W and UBL on a room for
a couple of loud verses of Kumbaya - that has about as much merit.


No attempt has been to tranform 'the debate' from the Geneva
Conventions
to US laws. Those are separte independent arguments.

But are conveniently conflated when it suits your rhetorical purposes.
You wandered on and on about just *who* was entitled to the
privileges of our system and just *what* actually constituted
our social/legal contract (and idea embedded in the very fabric
of our founding philosophers). You did so in the middle of this
very debate: What shall we do with non-uniformed combatants?
Context is everything, and the context of your commentary on
the matter of our domestic law very reasonably can be inferred to
mean that you think it has at least some applicability. It doesn't
and never will.


The Bush adminstration, however, prepetually tries to tranform the
debate from respect for the rule of law, to "protecting the American
People". The need for the latter has never been disputed, yet the
Bush adminisiration acts as if debate over what is necessary and
proper to accomplish that, is tatamount to treason.

So, again, if this is so indisputably obvious, and the issues are so cut
and dried (and here I thought Lefties specialized in "nuanced" thinking)
why not embarrass the President by getting the Demo whiner contingent to
get the impeachment ball rolling? After all, it's *obvious* you're
right, and even if you can't win impeachment, the weight of your
considerable "proof" for these claims will certainly undermine the power
and prestige of this President.

Or ... maybe just maybe, it's just all partisan hot air - the exact same
hot air that the Right spewed as it dwelt on Clinton's pathetic love
life (anyone married to Hilary should be exempt from the Commandment on
adultery - anything else would just be cruel) and ignored his
considerable endangerments of the republic on other front. Yes indeedie,
craven political ambition, and the corresponding ability to jam your
ideology down the country's throat is so much more important than
defending our borders and freedoms...




--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

wrote:


Regardless, it appears that you are aguing that one or more Articles
of Impeachment must be introduced before the House could hold hearings
to investigate allegation of impeachable acts.

No, that's not what I am saying.

That is just plain wrong.

The House could, and should, investigate and gather evidence before
any Articles of Impeachment are introduced.

That is what I said.

Indeed, that is just
what the House Judiciary Committee did during Watergate.

Yes. But again you had stated, "Sufficient evidece to support an impeachment
of Richard Nixon did not appear *until after the impeachment hearing had
begun"*.




... But, unlike what
you had stated, discovery of facts are not undertaken *after* the
Articles are presented to the House. After the Articles are
presented, the facts in evidence are judged by the House members to
either support or not support impeachment.

I did not state that "discovery of facts are undertaken *after* the
Articles are presented to the House. " Nor did I state anything
that reasonably could be interpretted as such.

When you stated "Sufficient evidece to support an impeachment of
Richard Nixon did not appear until after the impeachment hearing had
begun", I reasonably interpreted such.

That interpretation is unreasonable because it presuposes that
Articles
of Impeachment MUST be introduced before the House could hold hearings
to investigate allegations of impeachable acts.

No, it implied that you believed investigations and fact-finding were part
of an impeachment hearing.

My statement was erroneous, because the House never conducted
'impeachment hearings' per se, for the impeachment of Richard Nixon.
E.g. I incorrectly called the Watergate hearings, Impeachment
hearings.
I corrected that error in my next article, and then in the next
article after
that pointed out to you that I had done so. Here we are three (3)
articles
later and you are still writing as if I had never corrected that
error.

You may have thought you corrected the error, but it didn't read that way.
Now I see that.

Regardless, had Nixon not resigned, the House Judiciary Committee
undoubtrable would have voted to send one or more Articles of
Impeachment
to the House for debate.

Even if Nixon had not resigned and had been impeached, there is no
reason to suppose that 'impeachment hearings' would ever have been
held. The Watergate hearings were sufficient to produce the evidence
needed for Articles of Impeachment.

Sigh... Articles of Impeachment ARE what impeachment hearings are based on.
There is NO impeachment unless the Articles of Impeachment are heard in the
House, and the House members vote, by a simple majority, to *accept* the
Articles of Impeachment.

Moreover the historical
example I presented, that of the House Judiciary Comittee's
Watergate hearings, is an example of Articles of Impeachment being
introduced
after evidence was discovered, not befor

But, Articles of Impeachment were NOT introduced to the House. Nixon
resigned prior to that event

Three articles were introduced into the committee, without
'impeachment hearings' per se, being held. There is no reason to
suppose that the committee would have adjourned the Watergate
investigation and then
held impeachment hearings before sending the Articles to the House
for debate.

What don't you get about the fact that there IS no impeachment hearing UNTIL
Articles of Impeachment are filed into the House.



The sequence of events was:

Watergate hearings by the House judiciary committee.

Articles of Impeachment introduced into the House Judiciary Committee

Wrong. Articles of Impeachment were NEVER introduced into the House
Committee.

Nixon resigned.

Right. He resigned prior to any Articles being developed.

Had Nixon not resigned then the follwoing sequence is likely:

Articles of Impeachment sent from teh Judiciary Committee to
the floor of the House for debate.

One or more Articles of Impeachment passed by the House.

No 'impeachment hearings' per se.

Huh? Do the Articles just hang around? After Articles are introduced, there
HAS to be a hearing in order for the House to procede to a vote on the
matter.

Articles of Impeachment do not precede investigation, they are written
(or not) based on evidence developed during the investigation.

Now you are trying to lecture me on what I have already told you.





Indeed,
historically, that seems to have been the norm. Prior to the
creation of the Office of the Independent Counsel, which no longer
exists, impeachment investigations were conducted by the House
independently of any criminal investigations on the part of the
Justice Department.

You seem to lack knowledge of what Articles of Impeachment are and
the purpose that they serve. Any investigation to determine if
facts
are in evidence is put into play PRIOR to the Articles being
drafted, because the Articles are all about facts in evidence to
support the alleged reasons for impeachment.

You seem to have not read my example of how the House Judiciary
Comittee did just that, in that order.

I did, but I think you need to re-read the thread.

Perhaps you need to do so, noted where I admitted having
incorrectly referred to the Watergate Hearings as impeachmetn
hearings.

...
And if you would have taken the time to read my post prior to
responding, you would have seen that I properly covered who has
responsibility to determine impeachment vs which house is
responsible for the trial.

I thought "congressfolk" was ambiguous.


Please cite the House rules which allow the majority to do this.
Quite the contrary, the minority has procedural abilities to
conduct whatever hearings and factfinding is necessary in cases of
misdeeds
by the Executive branch.

Please cite the House Rules that allow a minority on a committee
to conduct hearings before a House committee, when the majority
of committee members vote against doing so.

...snip of requests for citations

Sure. I'll show you mine when you show me yours.


Mine is consistent with the general principle of majority rule.

Yours is consitent with, what?

Executive Branch oversight by congress.

A minority can meet in caucus and conduct 'hearings' of their own
and indeed, the Democrats have done just that. But those hearings
are no way comparable to hearings held by House committees.

Correct, and that is what I am referring to. Regardless, they can still
develop the facts and evidence needed as the basis for Articles of
Impeachment. So, nothing is stopping the Democrats from developing the
evidence they need for impeachment, except for the fact that they don't have
a rational basis of fact. If they did, they would procede.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

wrote:

It's only petty if you consider accusing a man of being
an internet pervert is somehow worse than accusing him
of being a Democrat....

That's a nice try at trying to side-step into another reality. However, my
comments were based on buffoons who seem to think that some sorta graphic
title screw-up is a conspiracy rather than accepting that it is just a
screw-up. Whether it is ABC, NBC or FOX or republican or democrat. Any of it
is petty.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Dave Bugg wrote:
wrote:


Regardless, it appears that you are aguing that one or more Articles
of Impeachment must be introduced before the House could hold hearings
to investigate allegation of impeachable acts.

No, that's not what I am saying.

That is just plain wrong.

The House could, and should, investigate and gather evidence before
any Articles of Impeachment are introduced.

That is what I said.

Yet you contradict that below, when you say that impeachment
hearings follow the introduction of Articles of Impeachment.


Indeed, that is just
what the House Judiciary Committee did during Watergate.

Yes. But again you had stated, "Sufficient evidece to support an impeachment
of Richard Nixon did not appear *until after the impeachment hearing had
begun"*.

And, for the fourth time, I state that I mistakenly referred to the
Watergate
hearings as impeachment hearings.

I should have written:
Sufficient evidece to support an impeachment
of Richard Nixon did not appear until after the watergate hearings had
begun.





... But, unlike what
you had stated, discovery of facts are not undertaken *after* the
Articles are presented to the House. After the Articles are
presented, the facts in evidence are judged by the House members to
either support or not support impeachment.

I did not state that "discovery of facts are undertaken *after* the
Articles are presented to the House. " Nor did I state anything
that reasonably could be interpretted as such.

When you stated "Sufficient evidece to support an impeachment of
Richard Nixon did not appear until after the impeachment hearing had
begun", I reasonably interpreted such.

That interpretation is unreasonable because it presuposes that
Articles
of Impeachment MUST be introduced before the House could hold hearings
to investigate allegations of impeachable acts.

No, it implied that you believed investigations and fact-finding were part
of an impeachment hearing.

No ****! And you don't?

Investigation and fact-finding are (ostensibly) the function
of all Congressional hearings.

Seriously, why do you suppose the House commitees hold
hearings and call witnesses to testify if not to investigate and
find facts?

BTW,
I mistakenly referred to the Watergate
hearings as impeachment hearings.

I should have written:
Sufficient evidece to support an impeachment
of Richard Nixon did not appear until after the watergate hearings had
begun.


My statement was erroneous, because the House never conducted
'impeachment hearings' per se, for the impeachment of Richard Nixon.
E.g. I incorrectly called the Watergate hearings, Impeachment
hearings.
I corrected that error in my next article, and then in the next
article after
that pointed out to you that I had done so. Here we are three (3)
articles
later and you are still writing as if I had never corrected that
error.

You may have thought you corrected the error, but it didn't read that way.

It still appears that you didn't read it at all.

I mistakenly referred to the Watergate
hearings as impeachment hearings.

I should have written:
Sufficient evidece to support an impeachment
of Richard Nixon did not appear until after the watergate hearings had
begun.

Now I see that.

You see what, exactly?

I hope you see:

I mistakenly referred to the Watergate
hearings as impeachment hearings.

I should have written:
Sufficient evidece to support an impeachment
of Richard Nixon did not appear until after the watergate hearings had
begun.

But since three times were not sufficient to get that through to you,
I have repeated it four more times.

Do you get it yet?


Regardless, had Nixon not resigned, the House Judiciary Committee
undoubtrable would have voted to send one or more Articles of
Impeachment
to the House for debate.

Even if Nixon had not resigned and had been impeached, there is no
reason to suppose that 'impeachment hearings' would ever have been
held. The Watergate hearings were sufficient to produce the evidence
needed for Articles of Impeachment.

Sigh... Articles of Impeachment ARE what impeachment hearings are based on.
There is NO impeachment unless the Articles of Impeachment are heard in the
House, and the House members vote, by a simple majority, to *accept* the
Articles of Impeachment.

What do you mean by heard?

Are you seriously suggesting that if the House Judiciary committee
had voted to send Articles of Impeachment to the floor the House
would have sent them back to committee for more hearings?
Why would they not have proceeded to debate the Articles based
on the evidence developed durig the Watergate hearings?


Moreover the historical
example I presented, that of the House Judiciary Comittee's
Watergate hearings, is an example of Articles of Impeachment being
introduced
after evidence was discovered, not befor

But, Articles of Impeachment were NOT introduced to the House. Nixon
resigned prior to that event

Three articles were introduced into the committee, without
'impeachment hearings' per se, being held. There is no reason to
suppose that the committee would have adjourned the Watergate
investigation and then
held impeachment hearings before sending the Articles to the House
for debate.

What don't you get about the fact that there IS no impeachment hearing UNTIL
Articles of Impeachment are filed into the House.

What do mean by 'filed'?

One of the many things you don't get, is that hearings of any sort
are not required. It is possible for an Article of Impeachment to be
introduced to the floor of the House, the measure debated, and
then passed, without ever any hearings being held. Hell, even
debate is optional, if no one in the House cares to speak on the
matter it could go straight to a vote. Depending on the rules of
procedure, a vote per se may not even be needed. The person
introducing the Article of Impeachment could request that it
be passed by unanimous consent, and if no one objects,
it would. Unwise and improbable, but possible.

However if hearings are held, they are held to develop the evidence
upon which Articles of Impeachment are based. The Articles
of Impeachment are developed during or after the hearings, not
before.




The sequence of events was:

Watergate hearings by the House judiciary committee.

Articles of Impeachment introduced into the House Judiciary Committee

Wrong. Articles of Impeachment were NEVER introduced into the House
Committee.

We disagree. Three Articles of Impeachment were intoduced into the
House Judiciary Committee, debated and passed by that Committee
by votes of 27-11, 28-10, and 27-17, respectively.

The full text may be read he
http://watergate.info/impeachment/im...articles.shtml


Nixon resigned.

Right. He resigned prior to any Articles being developed.

What do you mean by 'developed'?

Three Articles of Impeachment were passed by the House Judiciary
Committee.

I don't know if being passed by the committe qualifies as
being heard, filed, or developed, nor do I care. They were passed
by the committee and sent to the floor of the House for
debate.


Had Nixon not resigned then the follwoing sequence is likely:


Actually, I was wrong again, that which follows below DID happen.

Articles of Impeachment sent from teh Judiciary Committee to
the floor of the House for debate.

THEN Nixon resigned mooting the issue
prior to the House intiating the debate.


One or more Articles of Impeachment passed by the House.

No 'impeachment hearings' per se.

Huh? Do the Articles just hang around? After Articles are introduced, there
HAS to be a hearing in order for the House to procede to a vote on the
matter.

Wrong. Once a measure is on the floor the time for hearings
has ended and the time for debate has begun. The House
COULD send the matter back to committee which then COULD
hold more hearings but that would be the exception and not
at all likely in the posited hypothetical.

Why would one set of hearings be held to develop the evidence
needed to write the Aritcles of Impeachment and then a second
set of hearings held to re-confirm that same evidence?


Articles of Impeachment do not precede investigation, they are written
(or not) based on evidence developed during the investigation.

Now you are trying to lecture me on what I have already told you.

That is because you keep contradicting yourself.




...

Please cite the House rules which allow the majority to do this.
Quite the contrary, the minority has procedural abilities to
conduct whatever hearings and factfinding is necessary in cases of
misdeeds
by the Executive branch.

Please cite the House Rules that allow a minority on a committee
to conduct hearings before a House committee, when the majority
of committee members vote against doing so.

...snip of requests for citations

Sure. I'll show you mine when you show me yours.


Mine is consistent with the general principle of majority rule.

Yours is consitent with, what?

Executive Branch oversight by congress.

How so?


A minority can meet in caucus and conduct 'hearings' of their own
and indeed, the Democrats have done just that. But those hearings
are no way comparable to hearings held by House committees.

Correct, and that is what I am referring to. Regardless, they can still
develop the facts and evidence needed as the basis for Articles of
Impeachment.

They cannot subpoena witnesses nor compel testimony under oath.

THAT is the difference between conducting an investigation and
blowing smoke.

--

FF

PS, in case you didn't notice:

I mistakenly referred to the Watergate
hearings as impeachment hearings.

I should have written:
Sufficient evidece to support an impeachment
of Richard Nixon did not appear until after the watergate hearings had
begun.

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 04:03:27 -0500, "Morris Dovey"
wrote:

Snip

I don't go to bars - in part because I really don't enjoy being around
****faced people who can't control themselves. In the relatively few
real life fights I've been in, I've tried first to avoid a fight
altogether, taken the first and only blow from an oponent, and then
fought berserk. I've never fought to inflict pain - I fight to end the
fight as quickly and decisively as possible.

Insightful and well-reasoned posts as always, Morris.

This rings true for me as well, though I must confess to having fought
quite often as teenager before I knew any better. What really
unnerves me about our current actions in Iraq is a similar analogy-
though I'll call it a playground rather than a bar.

Imagine a fifth-grade kid on a playground full of first-grade
students- he's bigger, smarter and stronger, and probably feels like
the boss. Let's call him America. While he may be fundimentally a
good kid, and desires to be a fair mediator amongst his younger
companions, the very attributes which make him a natural source of
leadership also make him much more potentially dangerous than the
others.

Now, if this kid is standing around looking after the others, and one
sneaky little fellow with fast hands yanks down his pants and knocks
him over to his great embarassment and minor personal injury, I would
imagine that he wants some vengence. If he knows who the kid was, no
problem- revenge can be taken in a targeted and precise manner. But
this isn't what happens- the sneaky fellow hides in a crowd of his
peers, and now the big guy has no specific target.

He has two choices- he can let it go, and try to earn the respect of
the other children so that he might be warned of future outrages
against his dignity in advance and head them off with a proper level
of discretion, or he can start beating the others willy-nilly and
exacting revenge aginst all of them- while they may not have been
parties to the original offence, he doesn't want them getting the idea
that he is weak and vulnerable. Now, not all of those kids are going
to be nice- some might not play well with the others, smell funny, or
have strange habits like eating the paste. So the big guy smacks them
around first, justifying his actions by claiming that while they may
not have been the one who yanked his shorts down, they had it coming
anyway.

Most of the others will cower. Others, as a result of direct assult
or observation that the strong man gets his way on the playground,
will develop a flawed mindset that encourages them to escilate the
violence that has already occured so they may be the king of the hill.
Maybe the next week, three of the first-graders whack the big guy on
the back of the knees with a bat and then hide in the bushes. So the
same thing happens again- crushing retaliation against those who have
witnessed his shame, without certain knowledge of who has commited the
acts which set him off. This continues for months, maybe years-
eventually, one of those first-grade kids will get his dad's gun, and
come in shooting. Or maybe all those kids get the big guy in a
secluded corner and beat him to death. No more big guy- and what
started as a bloody knee becomes a homicide.

I'm not afraid of "terrorists". They're first-grade kids who don't
know any better. Right now, there's a handful of them, and they gave
us a good punch in the nose. We can survive punches in the nose- more
than a few, really. It might hurt, and it sure stings the pride, but
it is not fatal to our body as a whole. I know it hurts the families
of those who die in terrorist attacks- and my heart goes out to them,
but I will not support the idea that a family's pain justifies the
destruction of a nation. But if we continue beating on them all, we
will turn otherwise decent people who have done little or nothing to
us into enraged psychopaths who are willing to die to knock us down.
No one at all is safe from a man who is willing to die to kill them.

You want the terrorists to "win"? Keep manufacturing new recruits and
allies for them. They'll do nothing but thank you for it.

In all the fights I've ever been in, only one earned me any respect-
after a misunderstanding with a guy I considered my friend, he punched
me in the face as hard as he could. This was a big guy, and most
others were afraid of him. He was my friend, so I stood steady,
looked him in the eyes, and asked him if he was finished through my
dislocated jaw- never raising my voice or my fists. I don't know who
would have won that fight if it had continued- I've never been hit so
hard in my life. But I do know this- every time I beat another person,
whether it was justified or not, it led to another fight with a person
who was stronger than the last one. After I took that blow and
shrugged it off, I never had to fight again- instead of thinking I was
afraid or weak, it seems others thought I was invulnerable. Sure, a
punch in the face hurts- but it's easier to stand firm against one or
two than it is to trade a thousand destructive blows that leave both
sides battered and broken. They have discharged their poison, and
others see that it had no effect.

I know some of my statements have lead some or even perhaps all of you
to consider me a raving leftist, and I do agree with some of their
principles- just as I agree with some of the right's. But setting
labels aside, I was born into and groomed in a culture of extrordinary
violence and I know how it works. I have seen feuds started and
finished, and I have watched gallons of blood shed without even
leaving my neighborhood. My life is a million miles from that now,
but there is nothing new under the sun. Once again, I can only state
clearly and unequivocally that poorly targeted violent reactions to
violent actions can only breed more violence- if you're really afraid
of terrorists, we need to take a different course. They are not an
invading government- they are sneaky little worms who have only the
power our own rage grants them and encourages.

I know some of you will claim that a schoolyard is not a global
struggle against the forces of evil and "Islamo-facism(tm)". But
people are people, no matter what language they speak or in which
geographical area they reside. And despite what we'd all like to
hope, most never do progress much beyond those earliest days on the
playground- some will share willingly, some force their power on
others, some hide in the corner keep to themselves. We're not what we
tell each other we are- we are what we actually are. And what we
actually are is human, with all the bumps and warts that that entails.
And a human child is just a miniature adult who has not yet developed
a sophisticated shell of accumulated bull****. Scrape the **** off,
and you'll find most folks are overgrown children with complex
defenses. So let's be the tough but fair teacher that the kids
respect- not the raving bully the other kids fear.

Snip

A pox on both the left _and_ the right! Let's get back to the center.

I second that- and note that halfway between the current pseudo-left
and the current ultra-right isn't our traditional center.