Court Of Impeachment And War Crimes: NO MAN IS ABOVE THE LAW...NO ONE!
Loading...

Click for a full report.

Imbush Peach

An interview with Naomi Wolf about the 10 steps from democracy to dictatorship!

Stop The Spying Now

Stop the Spying!

Tuesday, February 6, 2007

NO MAN IS ABOVE THE LAW...NO ONE!






The fundamental legal and moral premise of this Blog Room is that: “No one is above the law…no one!” That belief; that commitment…stands!

Let’s get serious. Some of you have tried valiantly to get around every one of my arguments, and though I am struggling to be reasonable and respectful of your views; I cannot; I will/cannot ignore the fact that you have avoided any discussion of the pertinent/applicable law in the matter of impeachment.

I understand that you would like me to accept at some level your rationale for not impeaching this gaggle of criminal Fascists as a matter of practical pragmatism. “They have only two more years”; “We’ve never had a world like this with the terrorist threats we face”; “We’ll be left with Cheney”, etc., etc. Well I simply can’t do that either as I have fully outlined the procedural process for impeaching the entire mob simultaneously.

With the employment of a facilitating special prosecutor to bring all the products of investigation and hearings to the House there will be minimal disruption of the legislative process and the Senate will receive as a complete package, content style and form the final enactments of the House as regards Impeachment for their final consideration and disposition.

And yes, I am fully aware that we can “Impeach” and/or take civil action against these criminals after they have left office or employment. Such a course of action would clarify the historical record and all other penalties of pension, etc., would be applicable and not of an expost facto nature.

The problem with that scenario is that it does not put an end to the corrosive contagion of corruption eating away at the essence of this nation that defines us as a people.

It does not stop the assault on our democratic institutions well under way.

It does not stem the hemorrhaging of our national treasury.

It does not provide the stage necessary to spotlight the infections of legal abuse that otherwise would stand out so vividly as to demand and permit immediate redress, correction.

This is not a simple matter of desiring an historical recording of guilt and a punitive imposition of the permissions of the justice system; it is about undoing the damage that been done rather than letting it become a permanent set in stain on the fabric of our nation.

Let me just deal with that in the tiniest additional detail and touch on a matter I have been avoiding for simplicity sake. With a special prosecutor one document can be brought before the House with all charges, evidence conclusions and recommendations for levels of impeachment and/or civil charges. Now that which I have avoided, At that point, after debate, the House would be in a position of acting upon the entire package as presented and/or amended by themselves, except, and as a matter of practical political fact, I am sure the House will opt for a seriatim consideration, dividing each guilty party off for a final self-serving speaking opportunity and individual vote.

That will only lengthen the process time wise, but not to the extent of having the House perform the entirety of the investigative process, the largest portion of time being utilized for their own TV performances. We don’t need that.

I am not going to revisit the exhaustive examination of the law already explored, but in a more summary manner akin to the responses I have received from those who are in disagreement with me; this issue is not one of pragmatic convenience, or situational ethics or relativism. I guess it boils down to where I have to ask you the reader in disagreement with me a few questions.

When is right not right? When is wrong not wrong? When is legal not legal? When is illegal not illegal? When is moral not moral? When is immoral not immoral? When is Constitutional not Constitutional? When is unconstitutional not unconstitutional? When is truth not truth not truth? When is lying not lying? When is the law the law and not the law? And if you are right and I am wrong; I would like to know what laws I have the right to break, disobey or disregard? What crimes am I allowed to commit without jeopardy of justice. What rights of others do I have the right to trample on invade, abridge or deny?

And if I am not to be afforded any such exemptions, waivers or privileges; I feel the need to ask the question: “Why not you or me?” I find no legally codified provisions for such exclusions from having to observe the law, not do I find any religious document that provides the latitude to pick and choose in Chinese menu style those moral or legal tenants one will obey or has the option to disobey/ignore?

These questions are neither rhetorical morsels served up for an exercise in debate, nor are they hypothetical fodder or bait for those in disagreement with my position. They are serious questions, every one of which has been posed at one time or another in the hallowed chambers of The United States Supreme Court.

Assuming that their will be readers of this post who are thoughtful individuals as opposed to those purely blind partisan sycophant supporters of the administration willing to accept
all manner of evils, abuse of power, criminal acts, and the premeditated destruction of The Bill of Rights, the negation of the Congress and ignorance of the Supreme Court and all laws, those of this nation as well as accepted International Codes to which we are an agreed party; I need an answer to at least one question: just how in the hell does anyone justify what this President and this administration has done and continues to do?



No comments: