OT: Impeachment Isn't Enough

[SkyMedik]

Bush just vowed to veto the hate crimes law the House just passed addressing gender and sexual orientation. Most blatant act of hate-mongering without even a half an excuse ever.




http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18473074/

 

[PeterPan]

Sadly not suprising... and I expect the same if congress finally passes the employment non descrimination act

OT OT: SkyMedik, I grew up in Ellicott City and my Mom was Chairpeson of the Howard County Democratic Central committee until she died last year

 

[SkyMedik]

Cool! Sorry to hear about your mother I keep tabs on the HoCo Dem Comm. I'm working in DC presently, and my sister might move to Sterling for her pharmacy rotations later this year.

 

[ConcKahuna]

This thread remindes me of when GWB was up for re-election and everyone was chanting "4 more years!" I keep on chanting "1.5 more years!"

Who knows, maybe we'll get lucky and it will end sooner.

 

[F4disneyfan]

Wow that has to be the most blatant misuse of power I have ever seen impeachment wouldn't go far enough as far as I see it this is down right discrimination at the highest level don't people usually get sued for crap like this.

 

[DutchsMommy]

It really amazes me that this is such a big deal for him (and obviously a number of people in the States). While there was definately some back-lash to the passing of same-sex rights and same-sex marriage laws in Canada in day to day life it is such a non-issue. All people should have the same rights, who cares who you love for goodness sake! I am not sure if DubY thinks passing this will cause mass hysteria and a general gay uprising or what?? It boggles the mind why such a trivial issue is such a big deal - I always think if our politicians actually acted on the real problems instead of screwing around with all this no-brainer stuff perhaps our lives and country would be a better place!

 

[Chuck S]

It boggles the mind why such a trivial issue is such a big deal - I always think if our politicians actually acted on the real problems instead of screwing around with all this no-brainer stuff perhaps our lives and country would be a better place!

Unfortunately it is not a trivial issue to the far right, and those are about the only votes the Republican Party can hope for in 2008 at this point. Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and their ilk do have a flock, and they can herd those sheep to the polls. It is much easier to rally people around a common cause and solicit funds to vanquish "evil" than to tell them the right thing to do.

 

[dkostel]

I don't think it is the Bush white house being hateful (speaking to their motives, not their actions) as much as it is pandoring to their loudest supporters.
If you remember the whole Jeff Gannon debacle, a male prostitute was playing reporter at all the white house press conferences, until he was exposed. When records were obtained through the FOI act, it was shown that he was there on days that there were no press events and some nights too. Someone had some use for him beyond his fake reporting skills. My guess is Scotty or Karl.
We are the shiney thing (along with immigrants) that detract the public from the real issues, like Iraq.

Only 627 day, 2 hours and 15 minutes

 

[kelleigh1]

Pardon the "intrusion" (I've honestly never visited this section of the Dis) but saw the title and knew I had to read the thread. I'm behind you on this. Of course, since day 1 of his reign, I've had a hard time finding much that he's done that I agree with.

I never voted for him and I never will. And I will not vote for someone who condones discrimination. We are all Americans regardless of race, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

When Romney attempted to stop the same-sex marriage bill here in Massachusetts, I was just as incensed, even though it had no effect on my life. Or maybe because it had no effect on my life. He claimed that same-sex marriage would be bad because of the children. He didn't think we should be teaching our children about same-sex. But apparently he thought teaching them discrimination was a better idea. When you get down to it, he was basically saying that love was wrong. And meanwhile, the real issues in the state (education, economy, etc) were being ignored while he fought to prevent two people who love each other from getting married.

Phew...I should breathe now. I just don't understand hate!

 

[BikeFan]

Unfortunately it is not a trivial issue to the far right, and those are about the only votes the Republican Party can hope for in 2008 at this point. Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and their ilk do have a flock, and they can herd those sheep to the polls. It is much easier to rally people around a common cause and solicit funds to vanquish "evil" than to tell them the right thing to do.

It's not just the far right which has issues with hate crime legislation. National columnist Nat Hentoff (himself an avowed atheist and thus no fan of Robertson/Falwell/etc.) has questioned the effect such legislation has on the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. Others on the left have also come out against hate crime legislation. I consider myself libertarian and no Bush fan, but I agree with this veto. All violent crime is hate crime, or none is.

 

[Chuck S]

It's not just the far right which has issues with hate crime legislation. National columnist Nat Hentoff (himself an avowed atheist and thus no fan of Robertson/Falwell/etc.) has questioned the effect such legislation has on the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. Others on the left have also come out against hate crime legislation. I consider myself libertarian and no Bush fan, but I agree with this veto. All violent crime is hate crime, or none is.

Not all violent crime has hate as its primary motivation. If you attack someone you don't know simply because they are different, or you don't agree with their philosophy, that is a HATE crime. Murder is also motivated by greed, lust, any number of reasons, and in those instances the person who is hurt or killed has had some sort of prior relationship to the criminal. Hate crimes, like the death of Matthew Shepherd, have no motive other than hate...no robbery, or greed, or lust...just hate. Just kill or maime someone for the "fun of it because they are different."

 

[sdbirdsong]

Why is hate greater than greed, lust, boredom or any other cause of a violent crime? Why should it merit more consideration when the end result is still the same?

 

[BikeFan]

Not all violent crime has hate as its primary motivation. If you attack someone you don't know simply because they are different, or you don't agree with their philosophy, that is a HATE crime. Murder is also motivated by greed, lust, any number of reasons, and in those instances the person who is hurt or killed has had some sort of prior relationship to the criminal. Hate crimes, like the death of Matthew Shepherd, have no motive other than hate...no robbery, or greed, or lust...just hate. Just kill or maime someone for the "fun of it because they are different."

You just brought up two big issues with 'hate' crimes. First, proof. How do we know what the motivation was? When the Atlanta child murders were going on between 1979-81, that was widely thought to be 'hate' crime, because the victims were all black. However, the person convicted of the crimes, Wayne Williams, was himself black! But maybe he was self-loathing, so who knows? Hate crime? Hard to say. Certainly, it was a grevious crime, so why can't it be prosecuted strictly on that basis?
Second, I'm troubled by this 'ranking' of motivations. Take the recent attacks on the homeless by various groups of bored/disturbed youths. If Group 1 said it was sex/race/sexual orientation-neutral, and was merely seeking to beat the heck out of the first homeless person found 'just for kicks', is Group 1 inherently 'better' or 'less wrong' than Group 2, which was deliberately seeking a gay/black/female/jewish/whatever person to assault? Personally, I find both groups reprehensible, and both should face equal punishments. Most versions of hate crime legislation differentiates among classes of victims in ways I find unconstitutional.

 

[sdbirdsong]

You just brought up two big issues with 'hate' crimes. First, proof. How do we know what the motivation was? When the Atlanta child murders were going on between 1979-81, that was widely thought to be 'hate' crime, because the victims were all black. However, the person convicted of the crimes, Wayne Williams, was himself black! But maybe he was self-loathing, so who knows? Hate crime? Hard to say. Certainly, it was a grevious crime, so why can't it be prosecuted strictly on that basis?
Second, I'm troubled by this 'ranking' of motivations. Take the recent attacks on the homeless by various groups of bored/disturbed youths. If Group 1 said it was sex/race/sexual orientation-neutral, and was merely seeking to beat the heck out of the first homeless person found 'just for kicks', is Group 1 inherently 'better' or 'less wrong' than Group 2, which was deliberately seeking a gay/black/female/jewish/whatever person to assault? Personally, I find both groups reprehensible, and both should face equal punishments. Most versions of hate crime legislation differentiates among classes of victims in ways I find unconstitutional.

Well Said. It is all equally reprehensible. Personally, I think boredom and curiosity "I just wanted to see how it would feel to whatever " is the most reprehensible because I see it as being utterly pointless.

And the article that the OP is posting did not specify President's Bush's opposition so from the evidence here how do we know that it is being motivated by "hate mongering". Further, let me jump on my history techer soapbox and say that impeachment is only for "high crimes and misdeanors" to quote the Constitution. Not supporting a paticular bill, even one that you may hold as dear to your heart, is neither. Further, there is a little thing called Equal Protection to consider.

 

[Chuck S]

Why is hate greater than greed, lust, boredom or any other cause of a violent crime? Why should it merit more consideration when the end result is still the same?

With greed, you are normally motivated by $$$, for instance someone murders their spouse to inherit or to get life insurance...again, a previous relationship existed, and probably not a happy one, that either party could have left.

Lust, again, a previous relationship exists, usually a love triangle, or at least a perceived love triangle.

Hate crimes are more grievous, even with the same result, it is a random act of violence against someone with no previous history at with the criminal, targeting an unknown victim for no reason at all, except a perceived difference in values. Their goal isn't simply murder for their personal gain, but to terrorize and put fear into an entire class of citizens.

Motivation is routinely taken into account by courts when accessing the punishment. For instance, someone who accidentally kills someone and is remorseful should surely not receive the same punishment as some who kills for the "joy and thrill" of it. Hate crime legislation enables courts to better assess those penalties. Or are you saying Cheney should be imprisoned for attempted murder for shooting his hunting buddy?

 

[sdbirdsong]

IMO, If two people commit the same crime and in the same manner, the punishment should be the same no matter what the motivation.

Chenny's actions were an accident, not a crime.

The Republican party is made up of more than just the far right. It is almost as diverse as the Dems. It runs the gamut from the middle to the far right and every where in between.

 

[markp1]

It's unfortunate to see so much intolerance, judgmentalism and well, hatred coming from people who like to think of themselves as being above it.

 

[Chuck S]

IMO, If two people commit the same crime and in the same manner, the punishment should be the same no matter what the motivation.

Chenny's actions were an accident, not a crime.

The Republican party is made up of more than just the far right. It is almost as diverse as the Dems. It runs the gamut from the middle to the far right and every where in between.

Ah, but shooting someone is a crime, whether by accident or not. So, no matter the motivation (accidental or on purpose) should the punishment be the same?

Should the punishment be the same if the crime is commited against an individual, as in the case of murder for profit, greed or lust or if it it a crime committed with the intent of striking fear into an entire group of people, as in the case of a hate crime...where many more people are affected?

 

[PeterPan]

OK... first let me say I'm not a legal expert so... this is all personal feeling and my opion on how things should be... but... while I can see the equal protection arguement... I don't really agree with it... I see the same argument could be made against a difference between pre-mediated murder and regular murder... the fact that a person thought about and planned the murder results in a different crime then just killing someone spontaniously even if all other factors are equal... I agree that someone who thought about and planned a murder should get more time in jail then someone who didn't and I also agree that a person's motive should be a factor when determining sentencing... and as far as proving that it was "hate"... well that is up to the procescuter to prove... just as with any other motive... if they can't well... then they *just* commited a violent crime but not a "hate" crime

Also... the point about the title of this thread... I agree vetoing a bill is not a reason for impeachment; however, I know I feel there are many reasons to impeach bush and this just adds to the list of reasons to *want* him to be impeached even if it isn't an actual reason to be impeached

 

[donald...really]

Imagine a group of jewish people arriving at their synagogue to worship and finding out it had been vandalized over night. The front door has a giant happy face with the message "SMILE" spray painted on it. How are they going to feel.

Now imagine another group of jewish people arriving at their synagogue to worship and they too find out it had been vandalized over night. The front door has a giant swastika and the message "DIE JEW" painted on it. How are THEY going to feel?

Clearly one act of vandalism is worse than the other.

THAT is the difference between crime and a hate crime.

One targets the door of a synagogue, the other targets an entire community.