Official White House photo
For a while, a variety of voices on the right raised the specter of impeaching President Obama over all sorts of things -- immigration policy, czars, recess appointments, DOMA, Benghazi, legislative gridlock, Syria, and job offers, among other things. But in time, the talk faded away, and the right's attention turned elsewhere.
It was, alas, a brief reprieve.
Just over the last few weeks, one Republican congressman talked about possibly impeaching the president over executive orders that don't exist, another Republican congressman raised impeachment over gun control, and a third Republican congressman wants to make budget deficits an impeachable offense.
And then there's Marc Thiessen, one of two George W. Bush speechwriters hired to write Washington Post columns, who hopes to revive interest in leaks surrounding the Stuxnet cyberattack against the Iranian nuclear program. According to Thiessen, "This is big."
If the president authorized the disclosure of national security secrets that exposed a covert action and undermined a U.S. ally in an effort to gain a political advantage in his reelection campaign, that would be a scandal of gigantic proportions.
Thiessen seems quite excited, using phrases like "impeachable offense" and "the president ... on trial."
You may be thinking, "Wasn't this a two-day story back in June that Republicans pretended to find outrageous?" And if so, you're correct. But apparently, old habits die hard, and the drive on the part of some Republicans to inject the "I" word into the public conversation continues unabated.
I'm reminded of this Paul Waldman piece from last year on the GOP's "scandal envy."
Republicans are indescribably frustrated by the fact that Barack Obama, whom they regard as both illegitimate and corrupt, went through an entire term without a major scandal. They tried with "Fast and Furious," but that turned out to be small potatoes. They tried with Solyndra, but that didn't produce the criminality they hoped for either. Obama even managed to dole out three-quarters of a trillion dollars in stimulus money without any graft or double-dealing to be found.
Nixon had Watergate, Reagan had Iran-Contra, Clinton had Lewinsky, and Barack Obama has gotten off scott-free. This is making them absolutely livid, and they're going to keep trying to gin up a scandal, even if there's no there there.
If that means recycling old controversies when newer ones fail, so be it.
In the meantime, stories that actually might be the subject of legitimate inquiry -- legally dubious drone strikes, for example -- go ignored on the right, largely because Republicans approve of the controversial policy.
Leave a Comment:
Humorous that a Little George alcolyte is overlooking the Valorie Plame issues of the Bush criminal enterprise.
Overlooking? Oh, no. This is part of what scandal envy is all about. You resent a scandal involving your boy and you look for an "everybody does it" example. It seems that the argument back then was that if the President (or VP) approve the leak, it isn't really classified.
I am so late to the discussion. I thought the Cheney outing of a covert CIA agent to get a war going was actually traitorous. I must have lost perspective--my bad.
mr paul12,
There must have been some "interesting" discussions in the Bush family household when Cheney did that. Since HW was head of the CIA and protected them as if they were his actual family, something about neutering comes to mind.
Oddly they ignore this administrations use of drones to kill US citizens as a potential impeachable offense. Perhaps the only valid one of the bunch and they look the other way… why? Because it aligns with their idea of how a President should prosecute the war on terror.
Nuts.
Some GOP senators appear to have some backbone.
Mike Lee (R-Utah), Susan Collins (R-Maine), and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) signed a letter yesterday, joining 8 Dem Senators threatening to block Brennan's nomination if he does not release DOJ documents outlining the president's legal argument for the constitutionally of extra-judicial killings of Americans. (image of letter here)
When we say U.S. citizens, were saying U.S. Citizen right? One guy? When that guy is clearly at war with the U.S. , we cannot get to him, he will not surrender, he is an enemy combatant. I dont see the issue in taking this guy out.
No. Plural. His son was American and killed in a separate attack.
Purportedly there were Americans in some other strikes who were not the target of the attacks. To say nothing of the other people in the kill zone who may have had no knowledge that the person was a terrorist. A cafe certainly doesn't give any evidence of a war zone, and terrorists aren't known for advertising the extent of their nefarious plans. It may have been no secret their hostility to the US, but those sentiments are unfortunately not at all unusual in the world. So what exactly is the standard you are expecting the innocents around the terrorist target to uphold?
How about the shoe on the other foot question. Say you are doing NGO work as a Doctor in the republic of Georgia. A Russian drone fires a missle and you are dead. Little did you know the person being treated in the adjacent tent was suspected by the KGB of possible future plots against targets in Russia? Is it tough luck for anyone who dares to leave the US to do work in countries with sufficient civil strife that a segment of the population is motivated to pursue violent solutions? Because due to the ubiquity of drone technology, you are at risk not just from Russias or Chinas, but any tin pot dictator with even a tiny military budget.
Returning to the question of the American terrorist killed, What is the objection to having the US announce that this well known leader in Al Quaeda was on the kill list but had the option of surrending to authorities in a western country?
How much Due Process is a US citizen on foreign soil entitled to under our laws is the real issue. American citizens who go to a foreign country (except in some military situations) understand that they are outside the jurisdiction of the US and subject to foreign laws without the protection of US law. During war, it is very possible that US citizens will be accidentally hurt by an action from our military. Does that mean that citizen is entitled to Due Process also before we take military action? How much Due Process is a US citizen committing treason on foreign soil entitled to under our law? Is that person entitled to a jury trial when the person is not amenable to arrest and the US court's jurisdiction? These are new legal issues that are being raised as a result of our technological advances in the military and by the nature of these wars without geographical boundaries. What makes these issues even murkier is the concept of what constitutes an end to the war. I don't know that we can ever come up with any precise answer to these issues. At best we can deal in legal generalities. But we understand that once we leave the territorial borders of the US, our laws are very limited in scope. It would be a significant expansion of our legal jurisdiction to say that every US citizen on foreign soil is entitled to their full Constitutional rights. And I don't think other countries are going to go along with that legal theory under international law.
Come on Mike, we aren't talking about actions by foreign governments, there is no such cancellation of the US government's constraints to respect the constitutional rights of citizens regardless where they are in the world. That is well established principle. The question has to do with the definition of war zones where there are questions of the extent of a citizen's rights.
Putting the legal questions to the side, the US government has a responsibility to inform US citizens of some rough guidelines. For example, the US government effectively considers anyone within a hellfire blast radius around a targetted terrorist to be in a war zone. Without releasing the list of targetted terrorists, The US government could state the list of countries such "war zones" might exist.
By the Isikoff memo, this appears to be countries who are uncooperative with US anti-terrorist efforts. This does not put the US in the unacceptable position of explicitly declaring it is prepared to carry out drone strikes in a long list of countries. The US can publish in a decoupled way a list of countries whose anti terrorist efforts it finds wanting, then refer the US advisory to that list of uncooperative states. There are many other ways of communicating the warning to US citizens in a way that has plausible deniability concerning inferences of covert drone activity/ insults to sovereign states we are attempting to curry favor with.
We are not talking about cancellation of rights; it is a question of expansion of our legal jurisdiction. An act that is committed in a foreign country may be illegal under US law but legal in the foreign country and we do not have jurisdiction, e.g. gambling. If we argue that our laws are extraterritorial we are inviting foreign countries to do likewise no matter how silly or onerous a law. And that invites the possibility of an expansion of international law beyond a government binding itself under its own laws. What if a country demands extradition because a foreigner in our territory committed adultery which is a crime under the other country's laws?
With respect to the US informing citizens guidelines about countries, we already do that through the State Department and that includes unstable governments or dangerous for US citizens. Those advisories are issued for various reasons. Google is your friend.
There are 5 objections:
Regarding State department guidelines. There is no way to know which countries I am in danger of drone attack from my own government. With the proposed base in Congo, should aid workers consider themselves safe from US air attack in Rwanda?
Terrorists who are Americans do not belong to a military in a formal sense so there is no reason why they should be treated as other than saboteurs who have committed treason. We cannot treat them as enemy military for which they would be entitled to certain rights under international law. Therefore, a legal justification may exist to support that the US Code does not apply. The only real issue is how we get to the legal classification of a saboteur or terrorist. And that is where Due Process would attach. But I do not think such a person would be entitled to a trial or jury when they have taken themselves out of US territory. How much Due Process are they entitled and who makes the classification? I don't think the President has sole authority, but he does have power as commander in chief. This is an issue for Congress to set up the procedures if they give the president authority to act. In this case, the president was given power to act and it makes no mention about the issue. Thus far, Congress has deferred to the president. I don't think courts are going to specify such procedures and they certainly do not want to get involved in a constitutional issue about presidential authority. The issue belongs to the SCOTUS to decide.
I would further remind you about the extradition fight with the UK where the US wants a British citizen expedited to the US for computer hacking. I don't know what the result of that case has been decided by the House of Lords. But the UK citizen was never in the US despite our claim the crime was committed in the US. This is a really murky issue that international needs to step up and create rules about jurisdiction. So, yes the location of a crime can be important in determining jurisdiction.
Well, we agree that the President does not sole authority to make the determination. I would think that the kill list order is something that a panel of judges must decide on, and that the requirements of evidence be substantial. I agree the courts are likely not going to establish these standards on their own and that Congress must be explicit in the guidance.
For an exhaustive list of US code regarding criminal law which enjoys extraterritorial application, see page 40 of this Congressional Research Service report on the subject. (fas.org PDF)
Congress has a huge problem when it wants to go after Obama...Congress.
They would seriously have a very difficult time trying to nail him for anything without implicating themselves for complicity.
Even for things that he is responsible for like National Security and Foreign Policy issues either their finger prints are all over it or they skipped the briefings and would have to try and defend not having done their jobs.
The best they can hope for is to try and keep the base seething mad so that they can at least pretend it's a distraction.
How come the right in America didn't become incensed about Dick Cheney releasing classified material to bolster the 935 Big Bush Lies about Iraq? Oh, wait. I know. It's because Cheney was [a] a Republican, [b] a warmonger and [c] white.
(PS - For some reason, the blog won't let me log in via Facebook. I've tried doing it every which way but loose and it still won't work. Is it the MSNBC system or Facebook?)
This loss of people’s rights with allowing a sitting President to just use any excuse to kill an American Citizen is tragic. Because you know somewhere a long the line you will have a sitting President kill innocent people, since all he or she is doing is power craving, corrupt, arrogant, a hypocrite, greedy, and deceiving. And too easily a sitting President can just dislike someone and have that desire to get rid of that person without a just cause and that goes against everybody’s civil rights. Bush, Chenney and their cronies caused this mess and all it has caused is a erosion of our Democracy, while pushing our country into some unwanted and undesired place to live. You see already how deceptively we have gotten into these wars in Afghanistan and Iraq plus all these senseless guns and weapons on the streets for rich bastards and Drug Lords. And as if things cannot get any worse, you probably can just as well find that somewhere a long the line Drug Lords definitely paid big money just to help get what they wanted from politicians.
So this writer wants Obama impeached over his drone strike policy?
More like that.
I'm with SadOldVet - this little gremlin wasn't crowing when they outted Valerie Plame, so please stop with the FAUX outrage. You want outrage let's start with the lies that took this nation into Iraq? Or how about that secret spying on Americans without proper authority? Or how about the authorization of torture? Or how about those drone strikes? Someone, anyone?
Crickets, just as I thought!
I agree Zora, but just as it should be actual factual evidence for someone to be killed and not falsified evidence. Our erosion of our Democracy has been going on for too long now and mainly caused by Republicans, but some Democrats do need to questioned just as much as a Republican. Are we indeed going to have fair play and everyone follow those laws and regulations or double standard again? So far all it has been is to benefit some rich bastards, regardless if they are criminals or not. And way too many of these rich bastards have been outright criminals.
I wonder if there are any reports of George Bush's use of Stuxnet.
Well why of course the "I" word is out that's the teapublicans second term word.
if we can not make him a one term president then we have to impeached!
if the ballots can not do it, by god impeachment will.
Shorter GOP:
A few misguided Americans voted for Obama last year. We need to correct this childish mistake!
I agree with Deb. This sort of extrajudicial stuff starts with just the "evil doers" then progresses to "really bad criminals" and then "criminals" and then "people who don't agree with me." I believe this should be pursued in the courts, though any SCOTUS that approves torture and warrantless wiretaps is unlikely to cavil at a little discrete murder overseas.
Sigh. I never thought I'd see the day when I would write these sentences....
I'll keep it short and sweet.
I wish these mofos WOULD try and impeach President Obama.
let.them.try
Will the lunatic right be "distracted" by real issues?
Take those raised by the Michael Isikoff memo raised and pursued by constitional groups like the Center for Constitutional Rights- Will these uber patriots raise questions about unfettered presidential power to kill by air? Clever operatives may think they are serving some high purpose by chumming for the Tea Party to pursue true constitutional issues. Certainly, it would be a significant to get the far Right to acknowledge limits to our endless war (not that they will remember it during a GOP administration), and get those limits codified into Law that will bind future presidents.
Ironically, the phone of an american enjoys more protection than the life of an american. That is, the president has to go to a judge to tap that American's phone. It's easier to simply kill the American because that doesn't require the court's involvement.
Maybe that needs to change- not just in the case of Americans, but in the case of people of all nationalities. Further- in the push button world where computer game jockeys are eager to release their weapons and do some business, lack of having real adults in the room makes it all to easy to assassinate those who are not on the kill list.
That's how the American son of the terrorist al-Awlaki was killed. The intended target of the attack was not even there.
This is utterly out of control and its time for Congress to start doing its job. Maybe Congress can be chummed into doing it, but it is morally bankrupt if that is the intention of the administration. If it is illegitimate for Lt. Calley to argue that he was under orders, then it is illegitimate for the President to argue that he is bound by duty as commander in chief to take all means at his disposal to protect the US. There is no refuge in the idea it is constitutional to absolve oneself of responsibility as the courtroom advocate of one side of an argument does. This is not about adversarial litigation.
This is about innocent people getting killed due to orders of highly questionable legitimacy issued by Barack Obama.
These idiots really do want to become a minority party.
Quick quiz what happened to most of the MOFOs who lead the Clinton impeachment effort? Don't know? Well most of them disappeared into thin air, their careers shattered. Gingrich became a national joke loved only by the beltway pundits and Calista. His congressional career was over.
Ah, the lovely Callista ... poster child for the Stepford Wives Auxiliary of the Taliban/Teaparty. I forget, is she the Mark II or Mark III?
We would all do a bit better with life, the universe and everything if we all got together and demanded the GOP change its moniker from the thoughtful and never forgetful elephant to the moniker that fits it to a T, like a glove, as if one size fits all, and that moniker is one already introduced by Ms. Maddow herself - the HONEY BADGER!
Yes, Republicans can't hide behind an elephant in the room anymore as they don't care about the elephant. All they want is to get at that sweeeeet impeeeeachment! -Kevo
Ever since Nixon was forced from office, the Republicans have thrown around impeachment as a constant threat. It's as if they want payback for Nixon. Of course they tend to forget that when Barry Goldwater and the Republicans, back then, had had enough of Nixon is when Nixon was forced to resign.
Then in recent history we get Pelosi with "impeachment is off the table" and Obama agreeing from day one that he wouldn't go after anyone in the Bush administration for what were very likely impeachable war crimes.
Obama's actions set up two horrible precedents.
- It potentially justifies Presidents in the future from taking the same actions that Bush took, such as nullifying a treaty (or specifically the Geneva Conventions).
- It sets up the US as violating the World Court on war crimes. This puts the court in the position of being able to arrest and try any of the Bush administration they can get their hands on. It falls under the idea/provision that if people commit war crimes and their home country doesn't bring them to justice, the World Court can do so. (Pinochet and Chile as an example.)
Obama has long been convicted in a court of conservative commenters, which has nothing to do with justice, nor real journalism, nor real evidence, nor due process, nor anything else of substance. It's pedaling propoganda for a paycheck.
You Tube and the "935 Lies!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffBEdy9pvUEhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffBEdy9pvUE
"If the president authorized the disclosure of national security secrets ....."
If a frog had wings, he'd fly.
Aside from the little detail that, according to the Republican doctrine of "unitary executive," the President has the power to do anything under the Executive's authority. And it's the Executive Branch that classifies (and declassifies) "national security secrets."
IOKIYAR
Idle hands and all that.
The House really doesn't have much actual work to do. Blocking legislation coming from the Executive or the Senate is pretty routine. Holding show hearings only takes a few Congressmembers, and then only part-time. It's doesn't take much time, either, to have another (what is it? 35th?) vote to repeal Obamacare or Social Security, and after a bit it gets boring.
Which leaves Republicans in the House with nothing to do while pretending to work. And given the egos involved and the fact that there's another Congressional election coming up where there's a serious need to get their names and faces in the news, well, why not do something different? Like get the House Majority together to pass a Bill of Impeachment?
It passes the time, anyway.
I would guess that private drones would be used to defend the 2nd Amendment, would that increase the NRA's kill ratio? One death every 15 minutes, only WWII and the Civil War was higher?
Just to be clear I don't like war, but understand that there is a need for it. On the world stage there is no 911 where a country can call law enforcement to protect that country from enemies. I said that to say this. We are at war with a non-traditional enemy. I believe President Obama uses the drones to minimize our casualties without giving much thought to the casualties resulting from the drone strikes. However, I understand why. When "enemy combatants" were captured and housed at Guantanamo, Americans complained. When trying these "enemy combatants" in New York was considered, Americans complained about that. If no drones were used, and we were attacked again, there would be endless complaints. (Re: Benghazi). The Obama administration understands that no matter what they do, some Americans will complain. And the fantastic part about America is that it's perfectly okay to complain.
I believe we are naive to think that the U.S. can simply "arrest" U.S. enemies who are living in Middle Eastern countries whose populations are hostile towards the U.S. Case in point, bin Laden. If we were going to try to have Pakistan help us "arrest" bin Laden, we would still be waiting. If arrests were so simple, Afghanistan would have given the U.S. bin Laden back in 2001 or 2002. They knew he was there. I believe it would be just as difficult to arrest a U.S. citizen who is conspiring to harm Americans and who happen to live in one of the Middle Eastern countries that is hostile to the U.S. Simply stated, countries in the Middle East aren't quick to help the U.S. because the U.S. is hated in that part of the world.
It appears that Anwar al-Awlaki was an American by name only. He was an American simply because his foreign born mother happened to be present in the U.S. the day he was born. He demonstrated that he considered the U.S. an enemy country when he chose to set up shop in another country to recruit and train foreigners to attack the U.S. and its citizens. He basically declared his own personal war with the U.S. (Reminder the underwear bomber was one of his trainees). Yes, it would have been better to put him on trial, but what's the likelihood that an arrest could have been made. I think not likely. He probably was provided a safe haven by the locals as in the case with bin Laden.