My Neck On The Block
It’s not often that I go out on a limb, but the actions of a particular senator has got me thinking. It’s obvious that Senator Durbin feels no shame and no regret for the comments he made on the floor of the Senate on 14 June where he equated our troops to Nazis, Soviet brutes, and Khmer Rouge thugs. He won’t apologize, and his party is giving him a pass. I don’t think I need to remind our readers of the amount of people outraged in the United States over these comments; many of them have sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, husbands, and wives serving in the military right now, and they’re none too happy with him at all.
The talk about him right now is focusing on censure. That’s a nice idea, but I don’t think it’s enough. We’ve heard and watched far too many of our elected representatives impugning our troops in harm’s way, and frankly folks, I’m sick of it. It’s time to send a clear, concise message that we’re not going to tolerate this sort of behavior from an elected representative any longer.
Now, Marcie and I have called for him to resign. He isn’t going to do it. The Democrats in the Senate aren’t going to take his leadership position away, and they’re not going to apply pressure to force his resignation from his leadership position. And barring a ballsy attorney to step up and file charges of treason on him, there seems to be no other recourse than censure. That was until this morning when a thought crept into my head that woke me from my slumber.
We all know this move. We know the word well. Say it with me: Impeachment.
Yes, I said impeachment. Sen. Durbin can be impeached.
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.—US Constitution, Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 & 7.
Impeachment at the federal level can apply only to those accused of "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." Now, I’m sure a number of people are scratching their heads as to what charge Durbin would be charged with. Easy. US Title Code 18, Section 2381 holds the answer.
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. (Emphasis mine)
Within hours of his statements, al-Jazeera network in the Middle East ran with them. We know that al-Jazeera routinely acts as a propaganda arm for our enemies over there, and their reports occasionally cause violence over there—especially increased violence against our troops and the civilians we’re protecting. This could be deemed as "adherence" to our enemies. The statements could also be construed as "aid and comfort"; a concept few are disavowing, unless you’re a Democrat protecting this piece of slime.
Impeachment of federal officers isn’t a new concept. Clinton endured it, as have a number of federal judges. And it’s not a "new" thing for an elected representative from Congress to be impeached. The only time it occurred was for one Senator William Blount, in 1799. Blount was impeached by the House when it was discovered he attempted to incite Creek and Cherokee Indians to aid the British in conquering the Spanish territory of West Florida. The key to the case was a letter that came into the possession of President John Adams, written by Blount, and alluding to the plan. Adams promptly turned over the letter to the Senate, which five days later, on 3 July, 1797, expelled him from the Senate on a vote of 25 to 1. The Senate ended the House’s impeachment proceedings in 1799, as it was stated—clearly in the Constitution—that "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor." The Senate had already done such, so the impeachment was a moot point.
But it has been done, and it can be done again. It doesn’t matter if he meant what he said or not. He said it, our enemies have picked it up and used it, and the damage—for now—has been done. The repercussions have yet to come.
The problem with impeachment doesn’t come from the House. There’s a two-thirds majority there that will impeach him. The problem lies in the Senate. There is no two-thirds majority either way. And depending on the attitudes of the senators there is whether his removal can go forward. If it were to be assumed that every Republican senator would vote in favor of removal, they still come up five votes shy of the two-thirds needed. And if he isn’t going to be removed, then there’s no need to even mount the effort. It was idiotic to impeach Clinton, and know that his removal wasn’t assured. (Thank God he wasn’t. Did anyone really want a President Al Gore? I didn’t think so.)
I don’t want Congress wasting the time or the money on an effort doomed to failure. So, here’s what has to be done. The GOP in the Senate need to first address the thirteen senators up for reelection in 2006. (Akaka, Bingaman, Byrd, Cantwell, Carper, Clinton, Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Sarbanes, Stabenow, Kennedy, and Jeffords. I know Jeffords is an independent, but he votes with the Dems, and jumped in 2000 to give the Dems their majority control.) I know there’s a couple there that won’t budge. (Those would be Byrd, Clinton, and Kennedy) But there are a couple that may be able to be swung over to the side in favor of impeachment. Five of those thirteen have served in the military (Akaka, Carper, Jeffords, Kennedy, and Bill Nelson), and those five should be lobbied hard. (Carper was a Navy Flight Officer in Vietnam—hit him up.)
The argument to all the ones that are seeking reelection should be that they, as fellow Democrats, should be denouncing Durbin’s comments. His comments go beyond what is considered, "acceptable, polite" speech on the floor of the Senate. His comments are unforgivable, and are grotesquely misrepresentative of our troops. The argument to those that have served in the military is simple and to the point: "How would you feel if a sitting US senator had impugned you and your servicemen when you were in the military? Wouldn’t you be a bit peeved, too, and want reciprocity?"
Granted, this idea is a crap-shoot at best. But his comments are inexcusable, and America wants more than a slap on the wrist, which is what censuring him is. He will still hold his seat, his leadershiop position, his seat on committees, be able to speak, and be able to vote. Nothing comes from censuring him. It’s a "formal reprimand", nothing more. I don’t want him reprimanded. How many times do you scold a child for doing something wrong before he gets the swat on the butt? That’s what I’m calling for. I’m calling for the "swat on the butt"; the man needs to be disciplined.
And this will also send a clear message to those in Congress that they had better mind their "manners", and mind what they say. As the old World War II slogan goes, "loose lips sink ships". If the lips in Congress were any looser, the place would be a whorehouse. (Yes, I know a few people think it is, but it’s not. It’s a place of honor, and the status quo has stunk it up long enough.)
It’s time WE, the people, hold these representatives accountable. It’s fairly obvious that their parties won’t anymore.
Publius II
Addendum: This idea is all mine. This is my wackiness you have read. I do not--in anyway--for this to reflect badly on Marcie. She doesn't even know this is up yet. So don't blame her, or take issue with her. Take it up with me. Address any and all comments to me, whether they be in the comments section or via E-mail. This is my own frelled-up, repugnant thinking, not hers. (I doubt she'd even go along with such a crazy idea in the first place.)
It’s not often that I go out on a limb, but the actions of a particular senator has got me thinking. It’s obvious that Senator Durbin feels no shame and no regret for the comments he made on the floor of the Senate on 14 June where he equated our troops to Nazis, Soviet brutes, and Khmer Rouge thugs. He won’t apologize, and his party is giving him a pass. I don’t think I need to remind our readers of the amount of people outraged in the United States over these comments; many of them have sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, husbands, and wives serving in the military right now, and they’re none too happy with him at all.
The talk about him right now is focusing on censure. That’s a nice idea, but I don’t think it’s enough. We’ve heard and watched far too many of our elected representatives impugning our troops in harm’s way, and frankly folks, I’m sick of it. It’s time to send a clear, concise message that we’re not going to tolerate this sort of behavior from an elected representative any longer.
Now, Marcie and I have called for him to resign. He isn’t going to do it. The Democrats in the Senate aren’t going to take his leadership position away, and they’re not going to apply pressure to force his resignation from his leadership position. And barring a ballsy attorney to step up and file charges of treason on him, there seems to be no other recourse than censure. That was until this morning when a thought crept into my head that woke me from my slumber.
We all know this move. We know the word well. Say it with me: Impeachment.
Yes, I said impeachment. Sen. Durbin can be impeached.
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.—US Constitution, Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 & 7.
Impeachment at the federal level can apply only to those accused of "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." Now, I’m sure a number of people are scratching their heads as to what charge Durbin would be charged with. Easy. US Title Code 18, Section 2381 holds the answer.
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. (Emphasis mine)
Within hours of his statements, al-Jazeera network in the Middle East ran with them. We know that al-Jazeera routinely acts as a propaganda arm for our enemies over there, and their reports occasionally cause violence over there—especially increased violence against our troops and the civilians we’re protecting. This could be deemed as "adherence" to our enemies. The statements could also be construed as "aid and comfort"; a concept few are disavowing, unless you’re a Democrat protecting this piece of slime.
Impeachment of federal officers isn’t a new concept. Clinton endured it, as have a number of federal judges. And it’s not a "new" thing for an elected representative from Congress to be impeached. The only time it occurred was for one Senator William Blount, in 1799. Blount was impeached by the House when it was discovered he attempted to incite Creek and Cherokee Indians to aid the British in conquering the Spanish territory of West Florida. The key to the case was a letter that came into the possession of President John Adams, written by Blount, and alluding to the plan. Adams promptly turned over the letter to the Senate, which five days later, on 3 July, 1797, expelled him from the Senate on a vote of 25 to 1. The Senate ended the House’s impeachment proceedings in 1799, as it was stated—clearly in the Constitution—that "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor." The Senate had already done such, so the impeachment was a moot point.
But it has been done, and it can be done again. It doesn’t matter if he meant what he said or not. He said it, our enemies have picked it up and used it, and the damage—for now—has been done. The repercussions have yet to come.
The problem with impeachment doesn’t come from the House. There’s a two-thirds majority there that will impeach him. The problem lies in the Senate. There is no two-thirds majority either way. And depending on the attitudes of the senators there is whether his removal can go forward. If it were to be assumed that every Republican senator would vote in favor of removal, they still come up five votes shy of the two-thirds needed. And if he isn’t going to be removed, then there’s no need to even mount the effort. It was idiotic to impeach Clinton, and know that his removal wasn’t assured. (Thank God he wasn’t. Did anyone really want a President Al Gore? I didn’t think so.)
I don’t want Congress wasting the time or the money on an effort doomed to failure. So, here’s what has to be done. The GOP in the Senate need to first address the thirteen senators up for reelection in 2006. (Akaka, Bingaman, Byrd, Cantwell, Carper, Clinton, Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Sarbanes, Stabenow, Kennedy, and Jeffords. I know Jeffords is an independent, but he votes with the Dems, and jumped in 2000 to give the Dems their majority control.) I know there’s a couple there that won’t budge. (Those would be Byrd, Clinton, and Kennedy) But there are a couple that may be able to be swung over to the side in favor of impeachment. Five of those thirteen have served in the military (Akaka, Carper, Jeffords, Kennedy, and Bill Nelson), and those five should be lobbied hard. (Carper was a Navy Flight Officer in Vietnam—hit him up.)
The argument to all the ones that are seeking reelection should be that they, as fellow Democrats, should be denouncing Durbin’s comments. His comments go beyond what is considered, "acceptable, polite" speech on the floor of the Senate. His comments are unforgivable, and are grotesquely misrepresentative of our troops. The argument to those that have served in the military is simple and to the point: "How would you feel if a sitting US senator had impugned you and your servicemen when you were in the military? Wouldn’t you be a bit peeved, too, and want reciprocity?"
Granted, this idea is a crap-shoot at best. But his comments are inexcusable, and America wants more than a slap on the wrist, which is what censuring him is. He will still hold his seat, his leadershiop position, his seat on committees, be able to speak, and be able to vote. Nothing comes from censuring him. It’s a "formal reprimand", nothing more. I don’t want him reprimanded. How many times do you scold a child for doing something wrong before he gets the swat on the butt? That’s what I’m calling for. I’m calling for the "swat on the butt"; the man needs to be disciplined.
And this will also send a clear message to those in Congress that they had better mind their "manners", and mind what they say. As the old World War II slogan goes, "loose lips sink ships". If the lips in Congress were any looser, the place would be a whorehouse. (Yes, I know a few people think it is, but it’s not. It’s a place of honor, and the status quo has stunk it up long enough.)
It’s time WE, the people, hold these representatives accountable. It’s fairly obvious that their parties won’t anymore.
Publius II
Addendum: This idea is all mine. This is my wackiness you have read. I do not--in anyway--for this to reflect badly on Marcie. She doesn't even know this is up yet. So don't blame her, or take issue with her. Take it up with me. Address any and all comments to me, whether they be in the comments section or via E-mail. This is my own frelled-up, repugnant thinking, not hers. (I doubt she'd even go along with such a crazy idea in the first place.)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 1:04 PM
1 Comments:
I will support any idea that would remove senator dubin from the seat he occupies. As I have said before, this is about America, not politics. He shamed this country, our troops, living and dead, his state and the senate. He's a disgrace. He intentionally gave aid and comfort to the enemy. That cannot be condoned and longer. A person must take responsibility for their conduct. I believe that there's a rule that permits the senate to remove. I believe the first step is with the senate ethics committee and at the same time an impeachment committee in the house. Let's roll! Rawriter.
Post a Comment
<< Home