(no subject)

[shadowkat]

1. "Them's Fighting Words!"

I'm not a fan of censorship of any kind. In Constitutional Law - there are instances of speech that are not necessarily protected under the First Amendment. Any speech that can be prove to incite a riot, mass violence, or destruction. (Example? Shouting Fire in a Crowded Theater - comes to mind.) Hate speech is both protected and not protected -- depending on what actions it incurs and whether it results in well, see the previous point. Pornography is often not allowable, but again it depends. If it can be considered art - such as say Mapplethorp's work or nude drawings or the sculptures of Michangelo...then not pornography. But if you are showing someone in a objectified manner primarily for titillation purposes - than yes pornography. Playgirl and Playboy aren't necessarily considered porn under the law or not illegal, but a child pornography site is.

The problem with free speech or any freedom for that matter -- is if I want the freedom to say something that offends you, than I have to put up with you saying something that offends me. Tolerance has to go both ways. Granted in polite company, it's probably not acceptable to go around calling each other things like cunt, dick, prick, asshole, fucker, cocksucker, etc. There are degrees. Also there are words that one group can say with immunity and another cannot. Take for example the word "Niggah" -- this word I hear all the time on the streets of New York and occasionally at work or in films, and a lot in rap music, hip-hop, and in books written by African-Americans -- but ONLY between black people or African-Americans.
And they use it in reference to each other. If I hear a white person say it -- it's offensive. Why? The meaning changes depending on who uses it.

Then there are words that have over time fallen into the common vernacular and well have been since pointed out to be "offensive" to a specific ethnic and/or disenfrancised group and should be done away with entirely. In short don't say them any longer ever. The problem with this -- is the English language likes to change the meaning of words, often turning a word that means one thing into something else and without warning. And over time the original meaning or derivation of the word is lost. So, when you inform people -- wait don't use that word any longer, it has this negative connotation -- they may ignore you out of confusion.

Then again, there are words that have gone the same route and are rather obvious in their negative connotations and we just need to stop.

Recently I say an article posted on FB by a social media/fandom friend Learning to Unsay the R-Word


As we drove to her high school one morning not long ago, I asked my daughter Sophie what words she’d use to describe herself.

“Cute, funny, smart, hard working,” she says.

“Anything else?”

“Lovable.”

Sophie did not use the word retarded, though some people might. I’ve never heard her say it. She’s never heard me say it, either. I don’t use it. Anymore.

To be totally honest, I miss the word.

I imagine it’s a little like how a smoker feels once she’s quit. Relieved to be rid of cigarettes, disgusted that she ever used them. Healthy, now. A better person for it. But sometimes, there’s that sense that nothing else will ever deliver quite the same satisfaction. Years later, I still find myself craving the r-word.

I went cold turkey in 2003, the year Sophie, my second daughter, was born. In the recovery room post C-section, I forced my drugged eyes open long enough to ask my husband Ray, “What are you doing?” and closed them again when he told me he was measuring the placement of Sophie’s ears, a marker of Down syndrome.

I kept my eyes closed for as long as I could—which wasn’t long. I had to figure out how to take care of this baby, how to be her mother. I had never met a person with Down syndrome. Nothing in life had prepared me for this, including more than a decade as a journalist covering social justice issues.

In those first hazy days, I had to admit to myself that I’d never written about intellectual disability because it made me uncomfortable. I was that person who changes lines in Safeway to avoid the bagger with Down syndrome.
I thought a lot about the damage we might do by eliminating the use of certain words, even the most offensive ones.

I held my tiny baby girl and cried and told Ray, “I’ve ruined our lives.” I asked my mother if she felt like we should change Sophie’s name, since it means wisdom in Greek. And I thought about all the times I’d used the word retarded.

As you might imagine, I was pretty disgusted with myself. There was so much I couldn’t ever fix, but I vowed to change my language. I never used the word retarded again to describe someone who was annoying or in any way “less than.” But I still used it, for a while anyway. It’s there in some of my early writing about Down syndrome. Sixteen years ago, “mental retardation” was the preferred medical term for a person with an IQ below 70.

I think it will always be my preferred term. From French, the word retard means “to slow,” and as my daughter grew, achieving many things other kids did, but not as quickly or completely—it felt like a really apt and gentle description. I imagine that for Sophie, it’s like she’s moving through Jell-O, that extra 21st chromosome making it more difficult to do everything from walking to speaking to doing algebra.

The truth is that if you’re going by the numbers, retarded isn’t the worst thing you can call a person with an intellectual disability. There are so many words that can describe a person of lesser intelligence, and earlier in the 20th century the terminology was actually broken down by IQ point: moron (50-69), imbecile (20-49) and idiot (below 20).

I try not to, but sometimes I slip and use those words. You probably do, too.

But I never use the r-word.

From Sophie’s earliest days, I couldn’t bear to hear it. I flinched every time and almost always, I called the user out—interrupting conversation at a nearby restaurant table to show the offending diner a photo of baby Sophie, or stopping a friend midsentence at a party to shake my finger in her face.

Like a smoker who quits and can smell second-hand smoke a block away, I couldn’t stand to be around that word. I had become the language police—not a good look for a First Amendment-loving journalist who insists on her right to use the word fuck, but I couldn’t stop.

The world followed suit.

In 2009, Special Olympics launched a campaign called “Spread the Word to End the Word.” The following year, President Obama signed Rosa’s Law, barring the use of the term mentally retarded in federal documents. I still see “mental retardation” on outdated forms at the pediatrician’s office and sometimes I hear teenagers call each other retards. But I don’t encounter the r-word nearly as much as I used to.

That doesn’t mean that life is necessarily better for people with intellectual disabilities (the preferred term—of the moment). Language changes so quickly these days, faster than ever before thanks to call-outs on Twitter, conversations on Facebook, the 24-hour news cycle. Since Sophie was born I’ve seen the term “special needs” come in and out of vogue and watched debates over the relative value of “differently abled” versus “disabled.”

I think it’s wonderful that so many people are making so much effort to use correct language. I spent the summer of 2018 editing the style guide for the National Center on Disability and Journalism, which is housed at the Cronkite School for Journalism and Mass Covmmunication at Arizona State University, in my home town, Phoenix.

I learned a lot from that editing project—like that it’s always best to ask the person how they’d like to be described. That it’s important to use “person first” language, such as “a girl who has Down syndrome” rather than “Down syndrome girl” but that some people with autism would rather be called autistics, and most people in the deaf community want to be called deaf or hard of hearing. I’ll never use the term “wheelchair-bound” again.

And I thought a lot about the damage we might do by eliminating the use of certain words, even the most offensive ones.

The National Disability Style Guide recommends that no one ever use the word retarded—either as a slur or to describe a medical condition. I have a personal caveat. I don’t like the idea of erasing history, of never acknowledging how and why that word can be so hurtful.


I think this is truth about a lot of words in our language. The word "gypped" for instance, which I did not know the origins of until about ten years ago. I grew up using it. It's another way of saying "swindled" but I felt softer. The origin is Gypsy. So breaking the habit proved difficult, also since I didn't know anyone who could be considered a gypsy, where was the harm? But on the internet -- we interact with billions of folks from all over...so yes there is harm. But, at the same time we can't quite erase it.

Another example? Indian Corn. Which my brother leaped down my throat for using. I grew up calling a certain type of decorative corn -- Indian Corn. That's what it was called. It seemed harmless. I knew Native Americans who had no issue. Then later in a discussion with my niece, I learned that many Native Americans preferred to be called American Indians, because calling them Native Americans removed their identity and white-washed or erased the painful history. They were reclaiming the term American Indian.

Then there's the term Queer -- which to a degree has been reclaimed. One lesbian friend insists that only Queers can use it. Except I personally know people online and off who use the word Queer as a synonyme for bisexual or to mean bisexual.

The problem with language is we don't all mean the same thing when we use a word, so misunderstanding's arise. And we all don't read carefully or listen carefully. We just see the word. How many readers, I wonder, will only see the words I have above and nothing else? How dare you even say that word! "Them's fighting words!"



2. In furtherance of the censorship thing...I don't like it when people censor art just because it doesn't support their political world view or sensibility. Does art work that further's the alt-right piss me off? Yes. But I won't censor it.

Like I stated above, if I want the freedom to express myself, I need to tolerate the other guy's freedom to do it too.

I also have issues with myopic interpretations of art, where the critic perceives the art in one way and critiques it to further his or her own political agenda, when conflicting interpretations do and can exist. In other words, I feel they come across as a bit self-righteous in their world-view, and didactic. I don't like being told how to view a piece of art or work of art or told how to view it. It gets my back up.

"I think the impact of superheroes on popular culture is both tremendously embarrassing and not a little worrying. While these characters were originally perfectly suited to stimulating the imaginations of their twelve or thirteen year-old audience, today’s franchised übermenschen, aimed at a supposedly adult audience, seem to be serving some kind of different function, and fulfilling different needs. Primarily, mass-market superhero movies seem to be abetting an audience who do not wish to relinquish their grip on (a) their relatively reassuring childhoods, or (b) the relatively reassuring 20th century. The continuing popularity of these movies to me suggests some kind of deliberate, self-imposed state of emotional arrest, combined with an numbing condition of cultural stasis that can be witnessed in comics, movies, popular music and, indeed, right across the cultural spectrum. The superheroes themselves – largely written and drawn by creators who have never stood up for their own rights against the companies that employ them, much less the rights of a Jack Kirby or Jerry Siegel or Joe Schuster – would seem to be largely employed as cowardice compensators, perhaps a bit like the handgun on the nightstand. I would also remark that save for a smattering of non-white characters (and non-white creators) these books and these iconic characters are still very much white supremacist dreams of the master race. In fact, I think that a good argument can be made for D.W. Griffith’s Birth of a Nation as the first American superhero movie, and the point of origin for all those capes and masks."

-Alan Moore.

This annoyed me. Mainly because I've read Alan Moore's comics and he comes across as just a tad hypocritical and self-righteous.

Also, I don't entirely agree. There's quite a lot of depth in the Iron Man films and the Captain America ones -- both of which can be interpreted as anti-gun, anti-weapon, and anti-fascist films. And Avenger's Endgame and Avenger's Infinity War definitely could be interpreted as anti-war and anti-fascist. As too, could Wonder Woman. Less so Superman, Justice League, and the Nolan films -- although those too did have an anti-violence message in them.

And this is coming from a White Englishman, which you don't get more privileged than that. Sorry, you don't. I get where he's coming from, of course. But I don't think you can compare DW Griffith's Birth of a Nation to well Superman. You can try. He did say all this in a rather forthright manner in The Watchmen, which was my difficulty with the Watchmen.

Anyhow...it's not just Moore. I've seen similar arguments online and elsewhere. Where reviewers, amateurs usually, will attempt to kill or censor a work of art that they interpret as not furthering their personal political worldview, whatever that may be. If the work is considered by them to be disagreeable they will attempt to shut it down en mass. It's becoming the norm on social media platforms.

And I find it rather bothersome. Is suppressing art truly the answer? No, I think not. I think art needs to be interacted with. And I do to a degree agree with my brother who feels all art is interaction. That art in of itself has no true purpose until we relate to, interpret and interact with it -- often changing it in the process.

One person may view something as brilliant and enriching, while another may be deeply affronted and offended and want to remove it from view. Both have a right to their feelings about it -- and both alter the work by their interactions, adding something to the piece.

For example? One person may look at Avengers Infinity War and Endgame as a wish fulfillment white guy superhero fantasy piece, and another as an anti-war piece about female and minority inclusion and empowerment. Both interpretations are possible, depending on where your focus lies. And both are needed, neither should be censored.

We must embrace other interpretations, not shut them down, and by the same token, I think, resist the need to censor as opposed to merely question and critique them.
While I may not agree with Mr. Moore regarding his analysis of the American Superhero Trope...I do support his right to provide that analysis and can learn something from it in the very process of disagreeing with it.

The ability to civilly disagree or agree to disagree -- and allow debate to flourish is rapidly becoming a lost art in these noisy times. We are all permitted our opinions, what we are not permitted is to silence the opinions of others. We can so much from those who we don't agree with -- I think. Not the least of which is patience and tolerance.



3. Regarding the Impeachment Hearings -- which I knew would eventually happen after the Doofus got elected, just not when -- I've grown frustrated with how the media often portrays them (outside of the NY Times which for the most part is doing an unbiased analysis that I can read without wanting to throw a temper-tantrum).

One of my biggest frustrations is well, that nobody seems to understand that "Due Process" is not a requirement here. It's not. This isn't a criminal trial. Due Process only comes into play if you are on trial for a crime under the criminal justice system. The Senate is not a traditional court, and the House isn't one at all. All this is - is depositions. Collecting evidence. Which isn't the same.
There's no due process in a Civil Trial either. This is why OJ Simpson lost in the Civil Trial and not the Criminal, different laws apply.

I found a decent article that attempts to explain the whole thing -- which is confusing:


Impeachment Process


"What Is Impeachment?

Impeachment is to official misconduct what an indictment is to crime: a statement of charges leading to a trial. The procedure for congressional impeachment of Executive branch officials (including but not limited to the president) was spelled out in some detail in the U.S. Constitution, as the official House of Representatives history observes:

Impeachment comes from British constitutional history. The process evolved from the 14th century as a way for parliament to hold the king’s ministers accountable for their public actions. Impeachment, as Alexander Hamilton of New York explained in Federalist 65, varies from civil or criminal courts in that it strictly involves the “misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” Individual state constitutions had provided for impeachment for “maladministration” or “corruption” before the U.S. Constitution was written. And the founders, fearing the potential for abuse of executive power, considered impeachment so important that they made it part of the Constitution even before they defined the contours of the presidency.

Impeachment is not, to be clear, the removal of corrupt presidents or other officials, but simply the adoption of charges by the House, triggering a trial in the Senate. So Johnson and Clinton were impeached, as the House passed articles of impeachment against them; though they were subsequently acquitted by the Senate, the term still applies. The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate to consummate an impeachment with removal from office, but the document is otherwise silent about procedures."

In other words it is a gathering of evidence in order to determine if there should be a trial. It's not a removal, it's not a conviction. It's an indictment leading to a trial in the Senate. The Senate can and often does acquit which it did in the case of Clinton and Johnson. Nixon resigned before it got that far.

What Are Grounds for Impeaching a President?

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution specifically mentions “treason” and “bribery” as grounds for impeachment, but it also stipulates that “other High Crimes and Misdemeanors” are sufficient. It’s important to understand that when the Constitution was adopted, the term “misdemeanors” had not assumed its later meaning as a type of criminal offense. According to the most common interpretation of this language, impeachment does not require the allegation of a crime, but simply some grave act or pattern of misconduct deemed by Congress as necessitating this radical remedy.

Under House rules and long-standing practice, the House lays out the grounds for impeachment, then holds a simple majority vote. If the articles of impeachment are approved, they’re then presented to the Senate for further action.

In 1868, the House approved 11 articles of impeachment against President Johnson, mostly revolving around his defiance of the (quite possibly unconstitutional) Tenure of Office Act, which restricted the president’s power to dismiss Cabinet members (the underlying “offense” was clearly Johnson’s efforts to obstruct congressional Reconstruction of the former Confederate States).

In 1998, the House approved just two articles of impeachment against Clinton: one alleged that he committed perjury in grand jury testimony when questioned about his sexual relationship with intern Monica Lewinsky, and the second alleged obstruction of justice to hide evidence in that case. It was a highly legalistic argument, which helped buttress the false public impression that without “crimes” there can be no impeachment.

So, see...it's not hard to "impeach".

The trial and the Senate's conviction is another story.. the rest of the article is depressing.

Comments

[cjlasky7]

Moore is full of crap.

Great writer, but full of crap.

A blanket statement, devoid of nuance, and he deliberately, almost defiantly ignores some of the key facts regarding the superheroes he disparages.

As a single for instance, take Superman.

If he resembles the Nietzchean dream of the ubermensch, it's because Siegel and Schuster created him specifically as a countermyth to Nazism. He's an immigrant, a stranger to our shores, and he's lived his life as one of us, a humble journalist who works tirelessly to protect those who don't really understand him.

Yes, he's a crypto-Jew.

But beyond that, Superman's great power isn't his Kryptonian muscles, but his unwavering faith in the goodness of humanity, despite all evidence to the contrary. He battles supervillains, but he also battles hopelessness, despair and cynicism. He ain't called the Big Blue Boy Scout for nothing--and that's not a knock. As Tom King showed so beautifully in his recent run on Batman, that inspirational quality is why Bruce admires Clark so deeply.

I could also mention that that the recent Black Panther movie demolishes Moore's argument all by itself, but that would be piling on.

So again: great writer. Full of crap.

[jesuswasbatman]

"Numbing condition of cultural stasis"? This is just another expression of Moore's default "contemporary pop culture is an all time nadir of commercialism and unoriginality", which shows up that he just isn't paying attention nowadays. Seems to me that he's upset that there hasn't been some kind of all-consuming "revolutionary" cultural trend recently like Modernism, rock 'n' roll, punk, or rave, and he fails to notice the massive changes in the kind of stories that are being told outside (and even in watered-down form, within) the pop-culture juggernaut franchises, which comes from the growing diversity in all senses of the word of the people who are able to express themselves. One might link this to, say, his churlish response to Pam Noles's in-depth critique of his claims to be "reclaiming" ethnic caricature characters in The Black Dossier, and his frankly bizarre claim that Tom and Dahlua in Tom Strong were the first ever positively-depicted inter-racial couple in superhero comics.

[shadowkat]

Agreed. That's more or less what I was thinking when I read his statement. While some argument could be made in support of his views in regards to The Man of Steel film, and Superman vs. Batman film...it sort of falls flat in regards to the actual comics and other presentations of the material. There's a self-righteous tone to his rhetoric that ...also threads through his work (unfortunately) that is a bit of a turn off here. While he does state that his statement doesn't apply to the minority superhero characters -- I'm not sure if that let's him off the hook completely. For one thing, while you can use Batman to further his argument -- Batman isn't a superhero but a costumed vigilante much like the ones he has as protagonists in Watchmen. And Batman's ability to fight crime is a direct result of his privilege, but he has no superpowers, and his biggest problem is well his rage and his ego. Also Batman comics weren't meant to be superhero comics but noir comics about a vigilante fighting crime, not the same. Wonder Woman and Superman by contrast are about outsiders, who outside of their "physical power" don't really have that same privilege. Superman is an alien, and stands outside society because of that -- a metaphor for the way the Jews were treated during WWII as aliens or outsiders. Wonder Woman -- likewise is an outsider, who is from the Amazon's, with powers of a Goddess -- but due to the fact she is a woman -- a commentary on sexism and how women were/are viewed as inferior or supporting. (Which is a trap that Moore falls into time an time again with his comics -- where women are either sex objects, supporting players, or inferior/dependent on the guy. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's treatment of Mina and her ill-conceived romance with the aging adventurer was one example. Another was the young girl Promethia who gains wisdom and strength through an affair with an old white guy. Ugh. And Gross.)

If you jump over to Marvel -- he's ignoring all the social commentary with Captain America -- which is a result of a competing super solider program and the costs of that program to Steve Rogers. Or Iron Man -- about a weapons manufacturer who turns himself into the ultimate weapon, but has to deal with the consequences of it -- with various villains popping up that he created with his weaponery. He's trying to redeem himself through being a weapon, but does he do more harm than good? And then we have Captain Marvel -- the female pilot who takes on a traditional male role and being alienated as well.

Superficially, yes, you can say that superhero comics etc are juvenile, with no lasting value -- but honestly you can say this about anything really. I can say this about Moore's works, pulpy noir that exploits women for men. But of course that is ignoring all ....the other layers to the work, dig deeper and you can equally say that Moore's work is a biting social commentary on these same issues.

I think in this way, Moore isn't all that different from Scorsese and Coppola who pooh-poohed superhero films and comics. The inability to look deeper and just dismiss something because of it's genre...I've seen this with romance genre as well -- those who despise the genre, have a tendency to write it off as one thing, not realizing the biting social commentary and layers inside it.

[cjlasky7]

It's not that Moore doesn't have a point about comics as juvenile power fantasy; that's one way they can be enjoyed. But on a deeper level, comics can be an empowerment fantasy.

Instead of using superpowers for revenge or personal gain, the hero battles seemingly intractable societal problems; it may not achieve a permanent solution, but the battle gives the hero a sense of purpose and inspires ordinary people (like the reader) to do the same.

It's interesting to speculate why the superhero boom is happening now. The first comics superhero boom was during WWII in a period of global crisis. This one is happening in an era of relatively low open warfare, but a greater sense of helplessness by individuals in the face of global economic forces. In this environment, the superhero offers a sense of empowerment.

(Yes, movie special effects have finally caught up to the comic book page. That too!)

[shadowkat]

I would agree with all of the above.

It's interesting to speculate why the superhero boom is happening now. The first comics superhero boom was during WWII in a period of global crisis. This one is happening in an era of relatively low open warfare, but a greater sense of helplessness by individuals in the face of global economic forces. In this environment, the superhero offers a sense of empowerment.

Also, I'd add that there are other factors at work here. The internet or digital age and technology -- both of which have made it easier to create immersive gaming. A lot of those comics have gaming equivalents. I'm not a gamer, but I've picked up on the fact that 85% of the comic book readers and film viewers are. So people can virtually role play superheroes. And for that moment in time -- they feel empowered. They can fight the injustices they see daily in the world.

So gaming is another component and a big one. A lot of the fantasy/sci-fi content that has popped up in films and television has a "video game" equivalent. Witcher -- a series that is about to be released on Netflix, is a highly popular video game, also a series of books, but mainly video game.

[oursin]

Moore, however wrong he may be on superheroes, may be white and English but because of the British class system, this does not automatically confer privilege! - and looking at his biography, he came from a working-class family in a rough area of the Midlands. Will concede there are complexities there due to legacies of Empire etc.

[shadowkat]

Yes and no. Class is a factor in privilege, certainly. But Moore was given opportunities in comics that most POC of the same class level were not. And women definitely weren't. He was able to get jobs that people of color or of Indian and African descent were not offered, So yes, he's privileged, just less privileged than someone of a higher class. I know this partly because I see it here as well. A self-made white male millionaire can get into certain circles that a self-made black male millionaire cannot.

[cactuswatcher]

Listen to Trump's people. They know where this thing could be headed. As you mentioned the constitution specifically mentions bribery, but not whether it has to be receiving or giving bribes. Trump's people know that if it can be conclusively shown that the withholding of aid from Ukraine was for personal gain, then the percentage of Americans willing to put up with Trump is going to go down. Let's be honest the U.S has put strings on foreign aid for ages, but always for the sake of "national interest." Which is why Republicans are already crying "national interest," though not explaining how risking Ukraine's future independence furthers our national interest in the slightest. Without "national interest" Trump's actions boil down to bribery using the nation's funds instead of his own. And there is no question that is impeachable.

Since Trump is not going to be removed by the Senate before the next election or possibly ever, impeachment is a hollow threat. But if the Democrats can smear Trump enough with his own bad behavior, loyalty to Trump could be a big negative factor at all levels of next year's elections.

[shadowkat]

Depends on what testimony comes out. In a way the Republicans are taking a HUGE risk making this public. Behind closed doors they could hide more. And if Bolton testifies...along with various people the White House is preventing, and Trump agrees to...this could go downhill for them fast. (Mainly because I honestly don't think Trump realizes he did anything wrong. This a sociopath who has gotten away with all of this for ages, and no one has stopped him. He sees himself as unimpeachable and that he can spin his way out of everything.) But, McConnell has some competition in Kentucky from Amy McGrath, and the Republicans are losing ground in the swing states. Add to that -- there are new players entering the field that are appealing to voters. Some of which have more money than the Republicans.

I don't know where this is headed. I do wish I was in 2030 looking back at it. Retired. And in on a beach, writing.

[mefisto]

Just one pedantic note: there are due process concerns in civil cases and in other non-criminal areas of the law as well. Not the same as criminal cases, but some. The rest of your post is entirely right.

[shadowkat]

But not Senate or Impeachment hearings, correct? It's been a while, but I remember that from the Clinton Impeachment Hearings. I wasn't sure exactly with Civil, but I do know that requirements are not as stringent as in a criminal trail/indictment, mainly because only money is at risk not imprisonment, etc.

[mefisto]

Whether due process applies to impeachments (or Senate trials) is debatable. Probably not under Nixon (not him) v US. But it's been the subject of some debate on one of the law boards where I comment. My personal view is that it does, but to a much lesser extent than a criminal trial. It's also my view that the current Senate and House rules comply with that more limited due process.

As for civil proceedings (and other types of cases), the basic rule is that the amount of process "due" depends on what's "fundamentally fair" in the specific case. It can vary from "quite little" to "lots" depending on how close it gets to criminal.

[shadowkat]

Can you support that due process applies to impeachments historically or in the guidelines? (The guidelines appear to be rather vague. I know they did try to impose something a little less vague after the notorious McCarthy Senate Hearings). I'm not seeing it historically. They fought about it during the Clinton hearings, and the Republicans insisted that it didn't apply -- I think based somewhat on Nixon, although the Nixon case had Nixon's tapes proving he did a cover-up. And that was a different time -- so things played out differently than they most likely would now. Also, there were people back then and today that still don't think Nixon was guilty of anything. (If someone makes up their mind that the earth is flat, you can't prove it otherwise.)

[mefisto]

Yeah, there's no historical precedent saying that. And Nixon v US says the courts won't intervene. The counter-argument is that some form of "fundamental fairness" is essential to any proceeding. That's likely a moot point because (a) it's not clear how to enforce it (perhaps the Chief Justice while presiding); and (b) the actual process contained in the existing rules already provides all the process that's due.

But let's suppose an extreme example: Congress orders the President tortured in order to get him to confess crimes. It then convicts him on the basis of his/her confession. It's hard to argue that this doesn't violate *something*.

[shadowkat]

The historical background on impeachment is really fascinating and somewhat weird. First? It was taken from the Brits -- they used it to get weird of the King's counselors/advisors and as a means of weakening a tyrannical King. The framers grabbed it and made it a bit stronger -- because they needed a method of getting rid of a corrupt elected official without assassination or Revolution. This was in 1787, right after they fought and won a long and painful Revolution against a corrupt King. Over the years, they've amended it per trial and error. Several Judges were successfully impeached. Actually only judges have been, they haven't successfully impeached and removed anyone else. When they wanted to impeach a Senator -- they couldn't because the Senate can't try its own -- so they just kicked him out, which was odd. The rules seem to be made up as they go and they are going by precedent and well I think there's a case way back in the 1800s with a Judge up for it -- that really set the state. Actually it was the impeachment of Supreme Court Justice way back in the 1800s that set up how things were to be done. I posted the Atlantic article on it a while back.

So, near as I can figure? No, you can't kill the president, or torture him. You can remove him from office. Spirow Agnew -- I think was impeached? They did remove the Supreme Court Justice. And maybe prison? Although that's never happened to my knowledge. Usually they are just removed from office, and someone may pardon them. As far as the trial goes -- you don't have the same rights that you do in a criminal trial. You can't plead the 5th in the same way, but at the same time they can't force you to testify without a court ordered subpoena, but they can subpoena you to testify....that's vague. The framers were really vague about a lot of things -- mainly because they weren't certain of how it would play out and erred on the side of caution.

[mefisto]

That's all basically right, though Agnew resigned before he could be impeached. And yes, they can go to prison after impeachment -- the clause expressly says so.

[shadowkat]

That's what I couldn't remember - thanks.