Some of us might not "like" our President. Some of us might think he is a criminal. But, at least he's not a rapist...

Rape charge for Israeli president

Murderer, rapist, what's the difference...

(ok, stop -- I said that just for shock value)

I give Israel credit for making efforts to prosecute their Presidents. How many other countries would have just looked the other way?

I know of one....

Teddy Kennedy was never the president.

and you cannot make out any plausible case that GWB has committed a crime

think he's stupid? fine
think he's arrogant? fine
think he's stubborn? fine

but criminal??

Thank God for that!!!!!!!!

Are you seriously going to bring this up again??? Didn't we already discuss the Echelon system that was in place under all of the last 10 presidents?

see that's a mixed bag: his warrantless wiretaps in the national defense arena are completely constitutional. the latte-sipping beatnik liberal crowd chooses to ignore this.

the issue is if this wiretapping can cross into domestic law enforcement and this is a tricky line (which is why i simply want the congress to set some parameters).

I think you misunderstood - I said a plausible case that GWB committed a crime.

Cynthia McKinney can sponsor a resolution declaring that the Falcons are the Super Bowl champions, but that doesn't make it true.

I think this President could be impeached...the Clinton impeachment has set a standard on what it takes these days to impeach a President...a bitterly partisan House...

Should President Bush be impeached. NO.

rainier, he has a point there: all it takes is hyperpartisanship to impeach a president. good show, GOP! way to set precedent!

Oh, please. Ron, if you did what Clinton did (I mean lying in testimony under oath, not the other thing), you'd be suspended or disbarred. I think I probably would not have voted to impeach under the circumstances, but comparing the conduct for which Clinton was impeached to GWB's conduct is apples to oranges. First and foremost, Clinton didn't have any national interest at heart when he had sex with the hired help and then lied to cover it up. GWB may be wrong and may be pushing the limits in what he's doing, but at least he thinks he's doing it for the good of the country and its within the scope of stuff he's supposed to be doing.

Didn't Oliver North originate the "Sure I subverted the constitution and broke a small trailer-load of laws, but I had a really good reason" defense?

Maybe, but that doesn't have anything to do with this. North knowingly violated the law (as did Clinton). Bush believes he is operating within the bounds of the law. Maybe he's right or maybe not - that's ultimately up to a court to decide. But let's say the Supreme Court holds that some part of the national security surveillance operations is unconstitutional. Should he be impeached for that? Should we remove all the Senators and Reps who voted in favor of the campaign finance legislation that was held unconstitutional?

correct me if i am wrong, but the lying under oath was about the philandering. otherwise "high crimes and misdemeanors" means lying about sex. ridiculously petty and partisan imo.

and i am not an 'impeach' W guy. i'm a 'wake up and smell the coffee you conservative sheep! the guy's decision-making SUCKS' guy.

Interesting belief to have when the FISA law requires a warrant, and his directive to the NSA was to operate without one (or several.)

Not knowing right from wrong... ah, the insanity defense...

the argument here is that the law that would hamstring the president's power as CiC is what would be unconstitutional.

I like that approach. 'Officer, I know I broke the law, but ultimately it will be found to be unconstitutional, so you can let me go this time.'

The President has the duty to act as commander in chief and certain powers that inherently flow from that duty. He cannot go to a court for an advisory opinion as to whether a law unconstitutionally restricts his ability to carry out his CIC duties. He can either ask Congress to change or clarify the law, obey it at the risk of not fully carrying out his CIC duties, make the determination that the law does not actually apply to the type of activity that he's doing, or simply violate the law.

If he does either of the last two things, he runs the risk that the issue will be raised in court and he will lose. But you know what? Every president (directly and/or through their various agencies) has made that calculation and pushed constitutional or statutory limits countless times. Sometimes the court rules that the President is right and Congress is wrong; sometimes the court rules that Congress is right and the President is wrong. It's how our system works.

- United States Constitution, Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1.

Where does the wiretapping ability come from? The CiC clause? Well...now ain't that a liberal interpretation of our Constitution.

Not really. For many years, the prevailing view was that the President had the inherent Constitutional power to do warrantless wiretaps in connection with domestic or foreign national security threats. The Supreme Court essentially held that the fourth amendment supercedes the President's inherent authority with regard to domestic security issues, but there has never been a real judicial examination of the President's inherent authority to do warrantless wiretaps related to foreign security threats, even if the wiretaps are in the US.

"It might very well be that warrantless surveillance of this type, while unconstitutional in the domestic situation, would be
constitutional in the area of foreign affairs. This possible
distinction is largely due to the President's long-recognized,
inherent [ constitutional ] power with respect to foreign relations." U.S. v. Smith, 321 F.Supp 424 (C.D. Cal. 1971).

". . . we do not read the section as forbidding the
President, or his representative, from ordering wiretap
surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence in the national
interest. . . . No one would seriously doubt in this time of
serious international insecurity and peril that there is an
imperative necessity for obtaining foreign intelligence
information, and we do not believe such gathering is forbidden by
the Constitution." U.S. v. Clay, 430 F.2d 165, 172 (5th Cir. 1970).

It's odd that this discussion has only focused on illegal wiretaps and the FISA law. Any discussion of violations of law by this administration would have to include violation of the US anti-torture statute Anti-torture statute

as well as violation of the Geneva Convention and violation of the constitutional right to trial and legal representation to American citizens in custody.

We've been through this before - any attempt to impeach Bush would be pointless - but there are certainly better grounds than just wiretapping.