AN ENTIRELY NEW IMPEACHMENT CASE
Dr. Jai Maharaj
By Nat Hentoff
The Washington Post
March 6, 1999
Last November more than 400 American historians placed a full-page
ad in the New York Times. Calling themselves Historians in Defense
of the Constitution, they fiercely opposed the impeachment of the
president. Organized by professors Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and the
James Carville of academia, Sean Wilentz, the historians claimed
that if the president were convicted, the presidency would be
"permanently disfigured," thereby "undermining the Constitution."
People for the American Way tells me it acted as a facilitator for
the concerned historians, getting a public relations firm to
further spread their urgent warning to Congress and the nation.
Also, it enabled the list price of the ad, $75,948, to be reduced
to $56,000.
I recognize some of the signers of the ad as expert chroniclers of
the framing of the Constitution. Reading them through the years, I
had learned that one cannot know with certainty what precisely the
Framers meant by "high crimes and misdemeanors." Yet in that ad,
these scholars instructed us unequivocally that they did indeed
know the real meaning of those crucial words.
Maybe, I thought, even these distinguished academics were so
fearful of Republicans taking over the White House and the Supreme
Court that they shaded their previous interpretations for the
greater good of the nation.
Not widely known, however, is that more than 240 American
historians have come forth with a call for impeachment -- on
different grounds.
The new petition declares: "Impeach Bill Clinton for the Right
Reasons: Not for Lewinsky, but Rather for the Illegal Bombing of
Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan." This proposed indictment was first
circulated during the Jan. 7-10 meeting of the American Historical
Association in Washington.
Subsequently, the petition was published in the Nation and In These
Times as well as on various Web sites on the continually churning
Internet. According to one of the originators, Jesse Lemisch -- a
professor of history at John Jay College of Criminal Justice at New
York's City University -- additional historians as well as social
scientists and graduate students keep coming aboard. He welcomes
more.
At that January meeting of the American Historical Association, the
signers of the new petition made clear that they "strongly oppose
the removal of Bill Clinton for the offenses for which he is on
trial in the Senate." But they argue that he has so abused his
presidential powers in the bombing of those countries that he
should be removed from office.
The petition cites a violation of the War Powers Clause of the
Constitution (Article I, Section 8). Although Congress "shall have
Power to . . . declare War," Clinton only marginally consulted a
few of its leaders and did not go through the required stages of
meaningful consultation as mandated by the War Powers Resolution of
1973.
Also violated, according to these historians, was Executive Order
12.333, Sec. 2-305, which prohibits assassination or conspiracy to
assassinate human foreign targets.
That executive order, issued by President Gerald Ford in 1975,
says: "No person employed by, or acting on behalf of the United
States Government, shall engage in, or conspire to engage in,
assassination."
Following the August raid on Afghanistan, administration officials
denied for months that a purpose of the bombing was to kill alleged
master terrorist Osama bin Laden. However, when the CIA determined
that bin Laden would be at a camp in Afghanistan, more than 70
cruise missiles were aimed at him and his colleagues in that very
camp.
In the Nov. 14 New York Times, reporter James Risen quoted Defense
Secretary William Cohen as saying that the United States had been
"going after" bin Laden and his associates. The lead to Risen's
story declared: "One of the clear but unstated objectives of last
August's raid on Afghanistan was to kill Osama bin Laden and as
many of his associates as possible, Administration officials now
acknowledge."
The Times report cited various administration legal
rationalizations for "going after" bin Laden, including the "any
means necessary" provision of the 1996 anti-terrorism act. Why,
then, did the Clinton administration deny for months that the
bombing was intended to kill bin Laden?
Though not explicit in the historians' January petition, it has
been widely conjectured that the bombing raids on all those
countries were ordered by the president primarily to distract
attention from his travails in Congress.
Meanwhile, an American air and missile strike on Feb. 25 attacked
targets 30 miles from downtown Baghdad, and the Iraqi government
claims that once again civilians were killed. Innocent civilians.
Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the
educational purposes of research and open discussion.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Also posted Saturday at Hentoff: An Entirely New Impeachment Case
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a36e124ab2ee0.htm
Posted by: The Raven 3/09/99 15:50:28 PST
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> To: The Raven
So what if a few war crimes are committed every now and then? As,
apparently, Monica testifies in her book, having people killed
abroad makes the Prez... horny...
> From: A Vast RightWing Conspirator 3/09/99 15:57:41 PST
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> To: A Vast RightWing Conspirator
Oh, just can't help from disclosing this vital piece of
information: I saw Monica's Story deeply discounted
$13.-- at... ______ - it's true!!!
Does anyone know if her book is selling?
> From: A Vast RightWing Conspirator 3/09/99 16:00:19 PST
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> To: The Raven
Don't you know that making war is like eating? No...sorry that's
sex is like eating...or if it's Monica, sex IS eating...
> From: Eagle Eye 3/09/99 16:05:13 PST
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> To: Eagle Eye
It's important to get Clinton out of the White House because he is
unraveling fast. He obviously has no concern whatsoever as to what
is best for this country. He bombs innocent civilains. He has
commited perjury and obstrucion of justice. And a rapist in the
White House? And the Senate silent about it? It's beyond outrage.
Now he frantically running around the world spending our resources
as fast as he can for a few photo ops or simply to get reenge on
this country. And the there is Chinagate. In additions, any person
so stupid and lacking in common sense, no matter what their IQ, to
get involved with a freak such as Monica might well cause
irrepariable harm to this country.
> From: Dante3 3/09/99 16:23:02 PST
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> To: A Vast RightWing Conspirator
Clinton reminds me of the TV movie "Shogun" where a poor bloke from
the american side was boiled alive so the oriental leader could
sexually get off by the screams . It seems alot of husbands have
gone on to another life at the same time Bill attacks their wifes.
> From: Newskeeper 3/09/99 16:23:15 PST
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> To: The Raven
Last November more than 400 American historians placed a full-page
ad in the New York Times. Calling themselves Historians in Defense
of the Constitution, they fiercely opposed the impeachment of the
president. Organized by professors Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and the
James Carville of academia, Sean Wilentz, the historians claimed
that if the president were convicted, the presidency would be
"permanently disfigured," thereby "undermining the Constitution."
As R. J. Rummel has said, these statist butt kissers are
functioning as nothing more than the 'clergy of oppression'. The
Constitution - and everything it stands for - is nothing more than
butt-wipe to these fools...
> From: noumenon 3/09/99 16:38:09 PST
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> To: A Vast RightWing Conspirator
Book on the top sellers list. American's are coming into take a
look at the book but NOT buying. So who is buying the book? Hope
democrats are not using our tax dollars to buy this book because
she is covering for Clinton. Last year the democrats took our tax
dollars and paid for their new radio equipment, it wouldn't
surprise me if they use our tax dollars to help Monica and buy her
book.
> From: rebapiper 3/09/99 17:00:43 PST
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> To: The Raven
"Last November more than 400 American historians placed a full-page
ad in the New York Times. Calling themselves Historians in Defense
of the Constitution, they fiercely opposed the impeachment of the
president."
And they refused to indicate in their ad whether they had voted for
Clinton. Thus, anyone who put stock in that ad was bamboozled. On
purpose.
> From: Clarity 3/09/99 17:05:58 PST
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> To: The Raven
However, when the CIA determined that bin Laden would be at a camp
in Afghanistan, more than 70 cruise missiles were aimed at him and
his colleagues in that very camp
Let's see, 70 missiles x $1.2 million/missile = $80+ million
dollars wasted in the commission of a crime, at least according to
this article. How much money is it that so many on the left claim
Judge Starr has spent? Regardng Monica's book, maybe Jim Wright
will buy them in bulk and distribute them to his friends.
> From: Cautor 3/09/99 17:11:16 PST
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Source of the above and more news and discussion:
http://www.freerepublic.com/
Click on the "Latest on Clinton" link at
http://www.flex.com/~jai
Rich Egan
Rich
rose...@idt.net
>Yes !!! we've had enough practice now lets do it right this time !!
> Rich
Failing doesnt take a lot of practice.
ramk...@imap3.asu.edu
then state the reasons they feel he should go than getting into 'ifs' and
'buts' or right and wrong reasons to throw him out of the office.
That's a very academic/'theoretical' approach that doesn't(didn't) work in
'practise' ;-)
Dr. Jai Maharaj
(address....@web.site)
wrote: : HENTOFF - AN ENTIRELY NEW IMPEACHMENT CASE
: By Nat Hentoff
: The Washington Post
: March 6, 1999
: Last November more than 400 American historians placed a full-page
: ad in the New York Times. Calling themselves Historians in Defense
: of the Constitution, they fiercely opposed the impeachment of the
: president. Organized by professors Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and the
: James Carville of academia, Sean Wilentz, the historians claimed
: that if the president were convicted, the presidency would be
: "permanently disfigured," thereby "undermining the Constitution."
...
: Not widely known, however, is that more than 240 American
: historians have come forth with a call for impeachment -- on
: different grounds.
: The new petition declares: "Impeach Bill Clinton for the Right
: Reasons: Not for Lewinsky, but Rather for the Illegal Bombing of
: Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan." This proposed indictment was first
: circulated during the Jan. 7-10 meeting of the American Historical
: Association in Washington.
: Subsequently, the petition was published in the Nation and In These
: Times as well as on various Web sites on the continually churning
: Internet. According to one of the originators, Jesse Lemisch -- a
: professor of history at John Jay College of Criminal Justice at New
: York's City University -- additional historians as well as social
: scientists and graduate students keep coming aboard. He welcomes
: more.
: At that January meeting of the American Historical Association, the
: signers of the new petition made clear that they "strongly oppose
: the removal of Bill Clinton for the offenses for which he is on
: trial in the Senate." But they argue that he has so abused his
: presidential powers in the bombing of those countries that he
: should be removed from office.
...
Dr. Jai Maharaj
ramk...@imap3.asu.edu posted:
>
> Why can't these stupid(IMO) Historians agree first that he
> should go and then state the reasons they feel he should go
> than getting into 'ifs' and 'buts' or right and wrong reasons
> to throw him out of the office. That's a very academic/
> 'theoretical' approach that doesn't(didn't) work in
> 'practise' ;-)
As long as partisan politicians are
charged with the responsibility of
throwing him out office, the guilty
man without a conscience will remain
in office.
Jai Maharaj
http://www.flex.com/~jai
Om Shanti
> Dr. Jai Maharaj
> (address....@web.site)
> wrote: : HENTOFF - AN ENTIRELY NEW IMPEACHMENT CASE
>
> : By Nat Hentoff
> : The Washington Post
> : March 6, 1999
>
> : Last November more than 400 American historians placed a full-page
> : ad in the New York Times. Calling themselves Historians in Defense
> : of the Constitution, they fiercely opposed the impeachment of the
> : president. Organized by professors Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and the
> : James Carville of academia, Sean Wilentz, the historians claimed
> : that if the president were convicted, the presidency would be
> : "permanently disfigured," thereby "undermining the Constitution."
>
> ....
>
> : Not widely known, however, is that more than 240 American
> : historians have come forth with a call for impeachment -- on
> : different grounds.
>
> : The new petition declares: "Impeach Bill Clinton for the Right
> : Reasons: Not for Lewinsky, but Rather for the Illegal Bombing of
> : Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan." This proposed indictment was first
> : circulated during the Jan. 7-10 meeting of the American Historical
> : Association in Washington.
>
> : Subsequently, the petition was published in the Nation and In These
> : Times as well as on various Web sites on the continually churning
> : Internet. According to one of the originators, Jesse Lemisch -- a
> : professor of history at John Jay College of Criminal Justice at New
> : York's City University -- additional historians as well as social
> : scientists and graduate students keep coming aboard. He welcomes
> : more.
>
> : At that January meeting of the American Historical Association, the
> : signers of the new petition made clear that they "strongly oppose
> : the removal of Bill Clinton for the offenses for which he is on
> : trial in the Senate." But they argue that he has so abused his
> : presidential powers in the bombing of those countries that he
> : should be removed from office.
>
> ....
NoSpamlchow
: By Nat Hentoff
: The Washington Post
: March 6, 1999
: Last November more than 400 American historians placed a full-page
: ad in the New York Times. Calling themselves Historians in Defense
: of the Constitution, they fiercely opposed the impeachment of the
: president. Organized by professors Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and the
: James Carville of academia, Sean Wilentz, the historians claimed
: that if the president were convicted, the presidency would be
: "permanently disfigured," thereby "undermining the Constitution."
[delete]
: Not widely known, however, is that more than 240 American