Booman believes we have to do something about torture, but doesn't know what.

Any talk of impeachment must account for the seriously depressing prospect that the Republican Party will act collectively as official apologists for torture and thereby, by failing to convict, establish the unhealthy precedent that the most serious violations of human rights are not worthy of removal from office. Compounding the problem is that a failure to attempt to impeach will establish the same precedent.
</p>

I believe(*)Booman's argument misses the politics of impeachment entirely.
Impeachment starts in the House, where it takes only a simple majority to adopt Articles of Impeachment. All of the 234 Democrats except one (Jim Marshall) oppose torture, as do 5 Republicans (Paul, Bartlett, Gilchrest, Smith, and Johnson).
So if outraged citizens like us could persuade Democratic leaders to impeach Bush for authorizing torture, they could get as many as 239 votes, 21 more than the 218 needed for a majority.
Moreover, if House Democrats were united in support of impeachment for torture, the other 193 House Republicans would be in a terrible bind. Going into an already(*)dismal election season, would they really want to defend torture - and Mr. 28%?
If they did, they would lose the 67% of voters who disapprove of Bush, and the (hopefully!) 95% of Americans who oppose torture. This includes evangelical and Catholic voters who are crucial members of the Republican "base."(*)Under those circumstances,(*)a 10% lead could disappear quickly, and a lot more Republicans could lose.
So if Democrats won the impeachment battle in the House, the Senate would put Bush on trial.(*)(They would have to try Cheney as well, because they are equally(*)responsible.)
And this is where the politics get especially interesting, because all 3 Presidential candidates are Senators.
A strong House vote for impeachment would bring with it the support of the American people. Naturally, both Democrats would support impeachment, and would get endless airtime to make their case.
But what would McCain do? If he defended torture and Bush, he'd lose the entire center of the electorate. And if he opposed torture and Bush, he'd lose the right. Either way, he'd lose the election in a landslide.
Of course it takes a 2/3 vote in the Senate to convict. With or without McCain, it's hard (although not impossible) to imagine Bush (and Cheney) surviving in office.
But contrary to Booman's argument, this would not set a precedent that "the most serious violations of human rights are not worthy of removal from office." It would simply prove to the American people that the Republican Party(*)supports torture and should therefore be swept out of office and join the Whigs in the dustbin of History.


(Source Link)