POLITICS

IMPEACH
From Newsletter #25

For those readers who might have been disturbed at the somewhat undecided attitude toward the impeachment of George W. Bush in Newsletter #24, so was this writer. Perhaps it felt uncomfortable to criticize Nancy Pelosi and others for their “impeachment is off the table” statements, or perhaps I just did not think it through carefully. At any rate, I owe a debt of gratitude to two articles that have set me straight. One article was by Elizabeth Holtzman in The Washington Spectator entitled “The People’s Case for Impeaching Bush”, and the other was by Matthew Rothschild in The Progressive entitled “Finally, Comeuppance”.

The argument just doesn’t hold that impeaching Bush would cost the Democrats votes in 2008 because it would make them look divisive and vindictive. Republicans impeached Clinton for a minor offense and still were able to muster enough votes (legitimate or not) to win the Presidency in 2000. It might also be a good time to recall that, when challenged, Clinton’s offense fell short of the standards for impeachment. Republican propagandists countered that it was not the offense itself, but the fact that Clinton lied about it that was impeachable. They actually had the nerve to attack Clinton for lying about an affair while they have no qualms about Bush’s statements about Iraq!

But, I digress. The point, thanks to Ms. Holtzman’s article, is that it is the Democrat’s duty to impeach, regardless of whether or not it hurts them politically. They must impeach to defend the integrity of our Constitution and our Democracy. Neither George Bush, nor anybody else, can be allowed to attack our Constitution, our laws and our system of checks and balances without being held accountable. George Bush cannot be allowed to lie us into a useless war, cause the death of 3000 American soldiers, blow over a trillion dollars of the American treasury, cause perhaps half a million innocent Iraqis to be killed, destroy America’s moral status in the world and spread worldwide hate against America, without being subject to impeachment.

Rothschild refers to the Democratic election victory as, “the nearest thing to a mandate that the Democrats have had in a long time.” “Mandate” may, or may not, be too strong to describe what happened. This writer would consider the election to have at least been a mandate to disengage our country from Iraq as soon as practicable. But, was it also a mandate to defend Roe v. Wade, raise the minimum wage, investigate warrantless wiretapping and no-bid contracts and to impeach President Bush? These specific questions of how far the Democrat’s mandate goes may miss the point. The Democrats have a mandate to govern with their conscience. More than likely, the American people will accept it. If the Democrats are too timid to govern with their conscience, then they have learned nothing from the last six years of rule by those who did not.

In the less than two months since the election we have seen most of the Republicans and Democrats revert to their old ways. Nancy Pelosi, Rahm Emanuel, Harry Reid and others immediately began talking about governing from the center. If they mean what they said, they are cowards, and if they do not, they are being less than honest. Did the Bush people ever give even the slightest indication that they intended to govern from the center? How can America send soldiers to defend our democracy if our politicians are not willing to take risks to do the same?

IMPEACHMENT: THE PROCESS
From Newsletter #25

Impeachment occurs when the House of Representatives specifies the charges against the president, called the articles of impeachment. Therefore, impeachment is only the first step (comparable to an indictment in criminal law) in the removal of the President from office. If a majority of the House votes to impeach, then the case goes to the Senate for trial. The trial is presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. If two-thirds of the Senators vote for conviction, the president is removed from office. The House of Representatives is the only body that has the power of impeachment, and it is limited to the President, Vice President and civil officers of the United States.

As specified in Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution:

GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT
From Newsletter #25

The framers of the Constitution did not want impeachment to be taken lightly or to be used without very serious justification. Most of Bush’s impeachable offenses are closely related to Iraq and his so-called war on terror. The major exceptions are his “signing statements” and the reckless indifference to human life that Bush exhibited during the Hurricane Katrina emergency.

The Constitution requires the President “to take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Violation of this Constitutional requirement is impeachable, although it is understood that the violation must be significant in order to rise to the level of an impeachable offense. The actions of George Bush have no problem hurdling that barrier. Criminal behavior may not necessarily be an impeachable offense, and an impeachable offense may not necessarily be a crime.

The President can be impeached for violating his Oath of Office and, according to Attorney Elizabeth Holtzman in the November 15th issue of The Washington Spectator, incompetence is no excuse for this kind of offense. The Presidential Oath of Office is specified in Article II, Section 1, clause 8 of the constitution, as follows:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Since it is considered treason or a high crime to disobey a sworn oath of office, it can be concluded that the requirement to “…preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Makes violation of the Constitution an impeachable offense.

The following actions of George W. Bush appear to be legitimate grounds for his impeachment:

1) The deception of Congress is an impeachable offense because it deprives that body of the information necessary to do the proper oversight required by the Constitution. Evidence of those lies is abundant, as is the broad scope of the deception. The consequences of that deception are enormous. Included are the death of 3000 American soldiers, the injuring of over 21,000, the death of over half a million Iraqis, the waste of what will be over $1 trillion of America’s treasury, the destruction of America’s prestige and credibility, and the creation of hostile groups intent on doing us harm. Therefore the many lies told to the members of the House and Senate to get approval for the war in Iraq is clearly grounds for impeachment.

Interestingly enough, the actual invasion of Iraq does not appear to be an impeachable offense since it was authorized by Congress on October 2, 2002. Attorney John Bonifaz, serving as lead counsel for a coalition of soldiers, their parents and members of Congress has tried this premise in February and March of 2003, and lost. The Authorization for the Use of Military Force did give the President authority to invade Iraq. Lying to Congress to get that authorization passed, however, is most assuredly an impeachable offense.

2) The violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 by engaging in domestic wiretapping without a court order is conduct that should rise to the level of impeachable offense. The same action may also be a violation of the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unlawful searches, including electronic surveillance. The Bush defense is that FISA does not apply to the President because of the congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force, and his powers as Commander-in-Chief. However, a statement by the American Bar Association on February 13, 2006 accused the President of exceeding his powers under the Constitution. This was backed by the Supreme Court decision in Hamden vs. Rumsfeld, the thrust of which is that the president’s role as Commander-in-Chief does not allow him to override explicit federal law. Holtzman, Conyers and others have said that the Presidents warrantless wiretapping program ignores the Constitution’s provision that he “shall take Care that the Laws are faithfully executed”, and contradicts the Constitutional provisions for checks and balances.

3) The NSA program to track and filter the telephone calls of millions of Americans without the approval of Congress or the courts is an impeachable offense. This program was exposed last May and seems to have no justification in law. Last August, in ACLU vs. NSA, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan ruled this activity to be unconstitutional. Judge Taylor dismissed the government’s argument, characterizing it as claiming that the President “has been granted the inherent power to violate not only the laws of Congress but the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, itself.”

4) George Bush has claimed the right to amend any law that he signs with what have come to be known as “signing statements.” In effect, these statements claim that Bush has the right to interpret that law any way that he chooses. Certainly this is one of the more arrogant actions of the President for it has the effect of putting the executive branch of government totally above the legislative branch. If legal, it would have the effect of making laws passed by Congress not applicable to the President of the United States and would constitute a rejection of the Constitutional provisions for checks and balances. No act is more clearly impeachable.

5) The Bush Administration has transferred prisoners to secret foreign locations to have them tortured outside the jurisdiction of the Constitution of the United States. Such actions, called “extraordinary rendition” are nonetheless impeachable offenses since they violate the United Nations Convention Against Torture that came into existence in 1987 and was ratified by the United States, albeit along with a signing declaration. The wording in that declaration would require a rather twisted interpretation of the Constitution in order to absolve Bush of guilt. It reads, “…nothing in this Convention requires or authorizes legislation, or other action, by the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of the United State as interpreted by the United States.” Article VI of the Constitution declares that S enate-ratified international treaties are “the supreme Law of the land.” The President of the United States simply does not have the right to violate international treaties, and doing so is an impeachable offense.

6) Violation of the Geneva Conventions, ratified by the United States in 1955, and which ban the use of torture, and cruel or degrading treatment of prisoners. In 1996 The War Crimes Act made it a crime to disobey the mistreatment of prisoner provisions of the Geneva Conventions. In 2002 a memo by George Bush rejected the application of the Geneva Conventions in the war on terror.

The President of the United States is simply not allowed to nullify laws, authorize others to break the law, or violate international treaties. George Bush is guilty of serious and heinous crimes in knowingly permitting and condoning the torture of detainees, not only in Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib, but also in secret prisons around the world.

The Bush Administration has claimed that they had the right, at their discretion, to designate any person as an “unlawful enemy combatant”. Once so designated, Bush declared, these detainees were no longer subject to the Geneva Conventions. The Third Geneva Convention, article five, says that war prisoners are entitled to a mandatory review by a “competent tribunal.” Thus “unlawful combatant status” is itself a very basic violation of the Geneva Conventions.

7) George Bush has leaked classified information to the press in order to further his own political ends. Leaks were used to expose selected classified information that appeared to justify the war in Iraq and to punish Ambassador Joe Wilson by outing his wife as an undercover agent with the CIA. Bush had claimed that Iraq was buying uranium from Niger for the purpose of making an atomic bomb. Ambassador Wilson was sent by the CIA to evaluate that claim and found it to be false.

Although the president, as Commander-in-Chief, has the right to declassify information at will, he must go through the proper procedure to do so. Even with the proper procedure, some argue that it would be an impeachable offense if done for political purposes.

8) Elizabeth Holtzman, in her article in The Washington Spectator, finds “reckless indifference to human life” to be an impeachable offense. Alternatively she proposes neglect of duty or failure to take care in matters of great consequence to be adequate grounds for impeachment. This reasoning is aimed at making Bush’s response to Hurricane Katrina and the provision of inadequate armor for our troops and their vehicles to be impeachable offenses. It may be a bit of a stretch. Certainly Bush’s negligence was gross, and the consequences were extremely severe. The administration defends itself from the Katrina-related charges by claiming that local government officials were responsible for helping the victims of Katrina. This writer has heard no excuse for the improper armor, except for Rumsfeld’s arrogant comment, “You go to war with the equipment you have”.

Along these same lines it might also be considered a “reckless indifference to human life” that Bush failed to have the military pick up the caches of explosives left out in the desert for the enemy to find.

9) George Bush allowed Afghanistan slip back into the hands of the Taliban and the drug dealers leading to a record opium crop in 2006. This may be impeachable because it means that Bush did not “faithfully execute the office of President of the United States”, as required in his Oath of Office.

10) The blatant and purposeful deception of the American people in matters of great consequence should also be an impeachable offense. How else can the people have the information necessary to participate in the meaningful elections mandated by the Constitution?

11) Using his definition of “unlawful enemy combatant” George Bush has imprisoned people indefinitely with no stated charge, not allowed them a lawyer, deprived them of due process, and not allowed them to face their accusers.

12) Finally, Bush has awarded no-bid contracts to favored corporations, watched as money was spent and nothing accomplished, outsourced projects that should have been done by our military, and watched as billions of dollars in reconstruction money just seemed to disappear without explanation.

People may disagree on the details of the charges but there should be no question about the result.

PLAN "A" AND PLAN "B"
AND NO PLAN AT ALL

With regard to Iraq and a possible impeachment of Bush, the Republicans have a two-track plan for 2006. Plan “A” is to have Iraq relatively quiet with a partial troop withdrawal under way, and no impeachment action against the President. Under these circumstances, they will fill the air with “Mission Accomplished” banners and fill the airwaves with cheers and “I-told-you-so”s.

Plan B may be unspoken, but it is nevertheless real, and will come into play in case the Iraq situation deteriorates and/or there is an ongoing impeachment process. If that happens, the Republican candidates will distance themselves from the Bush administration. They will call themselves moderates, and some may even back the impeachment.

If the economy significantly deteriorates before the next election, the Republicans would have no plan at all. They seem to be so glibly self-confident that this possibility would take them completely by surprise.

That said, even in a worst-case scenario for the Republicans, they are not going to just lie down and accept defeat. It’s going to be a tough and dirty campaign, and the Democrats had better nominate somebody that thrives in the heat of this kind of battle.

Shhh...Did I Hear the “I” Word?

“Impeachment”, it’s music to my ears. It also brings several questions to mind.

Wasn’t it somehow against the law to flim-flam the United States into an unnecessary war that has, so far, cost the lives of 2200 American soldiers? Shouldn’t that have been enough to bring up the subject of impeachment? Shouldn’t the wide scale torturing of prisoners have been enough? Shouldn’t the planting of bogus news stories to control the press have been enough? Shouldn’t the nasty retaliations against Bush’s opponents have been enough? After all, look at how little it took for the neocons to go after Clinton. Bush ruined the lives of 2200 American families while Clinton soiled a dress. There is a very basic and extreme inequality here. And besides, Bush actually makes Nixon look like Mother Theresa. I won’t even try to compare Cheney and Agnew (remember Spiro Agnew?)

So far the talk of Impeachment has been quite tentative, only calling for investigations into whether Bush may have broken the law. It’s too little, but it may not be too late. I only wish we can depend more on courageous politics from the liberal side, instead of the conservative side continually shooting themselves in the foot.

Bush has an uphill battle to get himself out of this mess. On the campaign trail in April of 2004, Bush said: “Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires—a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way.“ He cannot even deny that it is happening because he has personally admitted to approving the use of wiretaps without a court order. He and the neocons are more or less stuck with standing behind lame excuses. The lamest excuse being that court approval would take time that could cause the opportunity to be lost. The court usually acts within hours in issuing warrants for secret wiretaps and has approved all but five of the 19,000 requests in the last thirty years. Even more damaging to Bush is the fact that in emergencies the court will allow wiretap requests within 72 hours after the wiretap is put in place.

Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer of California seems to have started the impeachment discussion when she reported to the press that John Dean, of Nixon fame, told her that he felt that Bush’s authorization of wiretaps without warrants was an impeachable offense. She is speaking softly on the issue, so lets hope that she is carrying a big stick. She reported that she has written letters to four presidential scholars asking for their opinion as to whether Bush has committed an impeachable offense. Boxer said: “I take very seriously Mr. Dean’s comments as I view him as an expert on presidential abuse of power. I am expecting a full airing of this matter by the Senate in the very near future.” Those of us who are over 50 know full well why Dean is an expert on abuse of power.

Bush’s administration cronies have jumped to his defense on this issue, but it is curious that Congressional Republicans have been slow to join them. Many seem to be interested in keeping their options open.

The Democratic Party has drafted a Freedom of Information Act request to see the legal opinions written by appointees in the Justice Department that allegedly led Bush to think that the wiretaps were legal. These papers are most likely very flawed, if they exist at all.

Ladies and Gentlemen and Children of All Ages:

ITS IMPEACHMENT TIME

In an off moment, I thought I would refer to the “Warrantless Wiretaps” as the straw that broke the neocon camel’s back. That would not have been the right picture. It is more like a “Mountain of Hay” being put on a camel that is already carrying several other mountains of hay. Even with that, we cannot tell for sure if the back is broken. We really have to hand it to that neocon camel which turns out to be one heck of a powerful beast. For now, however, while we may have to be excused for excessive optimism, I think that we can work on the assumption that the final mountain of hay has done its job.

Democrats and the press are starting to show signs of courage, while Republicans up for reelection, are starting to back away from Administration positions.

The heaviest weight on the camel’s back is the war in Iraq. Most Americans now understand that we are there under false pretenses. There never were WMDs, and Bush knew it when he tried to convince us that there were. There never was a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, and Bush also knew that when he told us there was. Someone else will have to explain why this alone was not enough for impeachment. I’ll never understand it myself.

I suppose that we could include the poor planning and execution of the war, in combination with the lies that got us into it, as a single impeachable offense. One could argue that leaving the explosives in the desert for the insurgents to pick up, and then sending our troops over with inadequate armor to protect against those explosives, stands out by itself as some sort of record for callousness and idiocy.

Another weight is the torture scandal that most Americans now understand went well beyond Abu Ghraib and a few lowly scapegoats. It includes Guantanamo, the secret CIA prisons, the extraordinary rendition of prisoners to other countries so that they can be tortured by experts, and the holding of prisoners without charges, lawyers or time limits.

Arguably equally important is Bush’s semi-effective control of the press. A free press is the check of last resort. When false news stories can be planted through a network of “Judy Millers”, when the press can be intimidated, when the flow of news can be controlled from the bully pulpit, this country can’t be very far from the “America Uber Allis” of Fascist-style control. Of all of the potentially impeachable offenses, the Bush attempt to control the free flow of information is the most serious, and may not be adequately investigated. The Valerie Plame scandal is about punishing people for making the truth public. The Scooter Libby scandal is about planting news stories with the media that support the administration’s particular spin. Recently, we found out that the Pentagon has planted news stories in Iraqi papers by paying the publishers.

On a cup-is-half-empty note, the impeachment of Bush will not be good enough if the potential for control of our country still exists for a different group, or for another try by the neoconservatives. If we are able to save our constitutional liberties, which is very far from a sure thing, we must also understand what went wrong so that it will never happen again. How did the neocons manage to scare most of the American public, our leadership, and the free press into being uncritical of Orwellian mind-control tactics? How did “God Bless America” or “Support Our Troops” become neocon slogans?

CHAOS, CHAOS, CHAOS

The Hussain Trial

The head of the judicial tribunal trying Saddam Hussein, Rizgar Mohammad Amin has handed in his resignation. His stated reasons are unclear, but his actual reason is probably that he would like to avoid being blown up. Two defense lawyers have already been assassinated, and pressure was being brought on Amin to stop Hussein’s disruptive outbursts, so loved by the Sunnis. One Raouf Rasheed Abdel-Rahman was appointed as his temporary replacement.

The trial was postponed on January 24th due to the discovery that some important participants were on their way to Mecca, and scheduled to restart at the end of the month. There is no explanation of why it took four hours that morning to discover that people were missing, and which people they were. It has been estimated that it will take until May, at the earliest, to complete the trial, which has already been subject to multiple delays.

On January 29, the trial was again postponed due to the inability of the court to maintain simple order. There has now been only seven days of actual trial activity since the fiasco began.

I have commented on the idiocy of this trial in last month’s issue. At this point it appears as if the trial will never be completed. One thing for sure, if it is completed, the unhappy side will resort to disorder and violence. The current chaos underscores the inability of the Iraqi government to maintain order and control at all levels, as well as the total failure of the Bush Iraq policy, including the worsening security in the streets, the increase in insurgent attacks and the lack of social progress on all levels.

CHAOS, CHAOS, CHAOS