Onnesha Roychoudhuri: 'Impeaching George W. Bush'
Monday, March 06, 2006

From discussion to action -- Michael Ratner and his fellow lawyers have drafted a call to impeach President Bush.

Onnesha Roychoudhuri, AlterNet

Until recently, talk of ousting President George W. Bush has proved little more than a distant rumbling. For too long, impeachment has been deemed implausible. It’s not going to happen with a Republican Congress, so the argument goes. Not with the president finishing his second term, not while we're at war.

But the distant rumbling is growing louder by the day, creating a resonant echo that is rapidly taking root in public discourse. “Impeach Him,” reads the cover of this month’s Harper’s magazine. And in a public forum in New York City last week, journalists, lawyers, and political figures came together to discuss the case against our president.

Since September 11th, 2001, there has been no shortage of news regarding this administration’s involvement in torture, lies, secrecy and obstruction of the law. Yet, there has been little discussion in the mainstream media of holding those in power accountable for the actions so diligently catalogued by the press. It is a conspicuous vacuum that helps to explain why calls for impeachment are rapidly gaining currency.

[b]In fact, the case for the impeachment of President Bush is arguably the strongest in American history. The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) makes this amply clear in its recent book, a concise indictment of President Bush that lays out four clear legal arguments that point to impeachment as a necessary remedy for the gross violation of our Constitution. The Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush covers illegal wiretapping, torture, rendition, detention and the Iraq war. An appendix compares the impeachment proceedings of Andrew Johnson, Nixon and Clinton to the comparatively more powerful case against Bush.

Lawyers at the CCR, indeed lawyers throughout the world, have been embroiled in litigation with the administration for years. But the administration has consistently demonstrated disdain for the law, with the president effectively thumbing his nose at the Supreme Court, Congress, and the American people. It is this reality that led Michael Ratner and his fellow lawyers at the CCR to provide a clear argument for impeachment to the American people and Congress.

The piecemeal battles that journalists, lawyers and activists fight every day are a testament to the respect many Americans still have for the rule of law. But arguments against the president’s violation of the Constitution have not resulted in any reform or change in behavior. Public shaming and the threat of legal action often work to keep politicians in line. But President Bush is vocally disinterested in the public’s approval of his agenda. Furthermore, he views the law, as evidenced by torture and detainee litigation, as mutable suggestion. For such a president, legal recourse is largely ineffectual -- unless Americans and Congress reclaim the power of the law to remove the offending parties.

As Ratner told AlterNet, "While our battles against illegal wiretaps and Guantanamo are critical for trying to get back legality, until we get rid of what I consider a criminal administration, we will not be able to go back to even a semblance of civil liberties and human rights."

The Articles of Impeachment make clear that this is no longer just about President Bush. Rather, it is about preventing the executive branch from obtaining carte blanche to disregard the two other branches of government. This is a paradigm shift that has already gained substantial footing through this administration's steady erosion of legal precedent.

There is no shortage of diligent documentation of this president's violation of laws and misleading of the public -- from the 1,284-page Torture Papers to congressman John Conyers' 273-page compilation [PDF] of the lies leading to the Iraq war. But behind this incredible ongoing compendium of evidence against President Bush lurks the realization that publicly pointing to criminal behavior is not synonymous with bringing it to an end.

It is the ultimate case of missing the forest for the trees. Behind this massive body of evidence, behind each new report of this president’s transgressions of the law, is the threat of the one and only story that Americans will read for the rest of this presidency, and presidencies to come: The abuse of power, and the destruction of our Constitution.

As Ratner notes, "We need to be as radical as reality, and reality right now is very, very radical." Indeed, after reading through the Articles of Impeachment, readers will find that the only thing radical about impeaching this president is simply that it has not yet happened.

AlterNet spoke with Michael Ratner to discuss the specifics behind the legal arguments for impeachment, and the need for popular protest to restore the rule of law and force Congress to hold this administration accountable.

Onnesha Roychoudhuri: Can you briefly describe the articles of impeachment?

Michael Ratner: We've drafted four articles: Article I concerns the warrantless wiretapping of Americans in the U.S. This constitutes a violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) which prohibits and makes criminal any wiretapping without a warrant. The president has said that he's doing this, and it's a criminal charge that can get you five years in jail for each count. Additionally, it violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits unlawful searches and seizures -- this includes electronic surveillance. On a deeper level, these wiretaps deny the efficacy and validity of a congressional act.

Article Two of the impeachment of Richard Nixon is very similar. Nixon went outside of Congressional law and engaged in warrantless wiretapping against domestic dissidents and others who opposed the war in Vietnam. So, this article has a historical relation, obviously solid.

Article II is the falsifications that were used to justify the Iraq war. That's the article that congressman John Conyers has really focused on -- he's written an extensive report that documents this. You reference any particular day and the administration was making statements that Iraq has a relationship to 9/11, al Qaida and Osama bin Laden; that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. In the one and a half years leading up to the war, the time during which they were making these statements, they knew that they were false.

Lying to Congress and the American people got us into a war that has two serious impeachable issues within it: First, it's an aggressive war contrary to the U.N. charter and contrary to law that doesn't allow war unless it's in self-defense. Secondly, it undermines the authority of Congress and the American people to decide when war is necessary. Through the lies, he got a number of Congress people to believe that war was necessary, thereby undercutting their constitutional obligation to decide on war.

Elizabeth Holtzman, who was part of the Judiciary Committee that voted to impeach Nixon, has written a long piece about how this constitutes fraud under criminal law. Of course, you don't need a criminal act to impeach someone, you simply need an act that undermines and subverts the basic constitutional structure of our government, as well as a failure to execute the proper laws.

Article III deals with what the president has done in regard to the issues of torture, arbitrary long-term detentions, disappearances and special trial. Our law is very clear on these things. You can't torture people, you can't commit war crimes, you can't send people to countries where they're tortured and you can't set up special courts for trial. The Geneva Conventions are a part of our law, as is the international covenant of civil and political rights. The president, in authorizing that entire range of activities, has not met with his constitutional obligation to faithfully execute laws.

Congress tried to put some brakes on the president through the McCain amendment, which prohibits cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment. But the president, in a signing statement, essentially said he reserved the right to ignore what Congress says. What he did is not just a violation of the law; he is destroying the checks and balances of our Constitution.

Article IV is a general article that puts all of the prior three articles together. If you look at these things together, you see that they are essentially destroying our republic and our democracy. They are destroying the constitutional structure of our government. Therefore, he should be impeached.

OR: Was it your intent for the book to be utilized by members of Congress to begin impeachment proceedings?

MR: Yes, that's definitely one of our intents. We would also like to see some courage given to our members of Congress. John Conyers has begun the process with 26 people now signed onto the inquiry bill, but that's very small compared to the number that should be there. Similarly with the NSA spying, 18 have signed on to a serious inquiry, but we're talking about the same kinds of conduct that were part of Nixon's impeachment proceedings -- illegal use of electronic surveillance. Even Democrats like Al Gore are calling this a government of tyranny because of the utter and complete subverting of the Constitution.

Another intent is to popularize the issue that what the president has done has got to be looked. These aren't just individual issues, but a destruction of democracy on its deepest level. We want to popularize that idea and get it out there, particularly right now. If you look at the polls on warrantless wiretapping and the Iraq War, over 50 percent of Americans think that Bush could be impeached for these activities. But the media aren't picking this up. No one's talking about impeachment from the New York Times, or the Washington Post or anywhere else.

OR: Why do you think that is?

MR: They claim it's because it's not realistic. But that's not at all the case. When they started with the Clinton impeachment, less than 30 percent of the people were willing to impeach him for his actions. Yet, the media carried it widely. It may be that there's a buy-in by some part of this media leader society -- thinking that this could shake up our government too much. Some people think it's too dangerous to do so, but we would argue that it's much too dangerous not to.

OR: What do you say to Americans who think it isn't worth bothering with impeachment with the president currently in his final term?

MR: This administration has gone so far beyond what the requirements of the Constitution and the law. The question is whether this country can ever come back and resemble a democracy again. Unless you hold accountable the people who actually carried out an illegal war with Iraq, warrantless wiretapping and torture, there's nothing to stop the next administration -- whether it's Republican or Democrat -- from continuing with the same. We have to show that what happened in this country in the past four years is an utter subversion of our Constitution and completely unlawful under domestic and international law. Otherwise, I fear that this country may be changed forever in a very negative direction.

OR: What's at stake here?

MR: What's at stake is a presidency that is becoming an imperial presidency -- in which he's no longer responsible to the judiciary or the Congress. This is a president that thinks that, on his own, he can wiretap people, torture people, pick them up anywhere in the world. This has to be beaten back, and it has to be done soon. It is becoming embedded in our society in a way that is very hard to get rid of.

For instance, we just had a loss in the case of Maher Arar. Part of the judge's thinking in his decision was that, while it may not be okay to torture in a criminal case, it may be okay if it's to prevent terrorism. When that kind of thinking is afoot, something has to be done. Otherwise, it will become embedded in our legal and political thinking in the next generations. There has to be accountability for this.

OR:There's a lot of people, especially on the left, who think of George W. Bush as very self-serving president. This characterization may be preventing people from seeing that he is actually thinking well beyond his presidency -- with the intent to expand executive power for future administrations. Is this a fair characterization?

MR: Yes, this is about a particularly bad president -- a president who doesn't care about constitutional rights. But what's really going on here is what Cheney actually came out and stated a month ago when he talked about warrantless wiretapping. He said that they wanted to overcome what happened to the presidency during the '60s and the '70s.

There's an absolute intent here to make the presidency much more powerful, what they call a unitary presidency where they're not just a co-equal branch, but they are the branch -- no court or Congress can check them. This is not just about the president any longer, it's about these assertions of inherent power in the executive to override constitutional, international, congressional limitations, and judicial limitations. That's a big problem because that's essentially a dictatorship.

OR: With all this gratuitous conduct that has been amassed in the media, the question arises, why haven't there been many legal successes stopping this behavior?

MR: At the CCR, in almost every single action discussed in the articles, we have various lawsuits going. The problem is that they take a long time. Also, the courts are not always in our favor. And, even when we win, the administration is able to undercut them. You don't just win by lawsuits; you win by popular protest, people in the streets. That's the way you have to win. The Center really believes that our lawsuits are important and people have to be represented. We have to stop torture to the extent that we can. But there has to be popular protest in this country, or our lawsuits are not going to change anything.[/b]

Onnesha Roychoudhuri is an editorial fellow at AlterNet.

© 2006 Independent Media Institute.

Source: AlterNet
http://alternet.org/story/32977/

Other Links:

http://www.harpers.org/MostRecentCover.html

http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000394.htm

http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organ...mpaign_KEY=2702

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1671087&page=1

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6030202054.html

http://alternet.bookswelike.net/isbn/0521853249

http://alternet.org/story/30705/

http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/reports/report.as...6Ly&Content=712


Catherine

I think the people are not pleased with politics in America today.
Unfortunately, we have only a handfull on the hill who would even attempt to represent us.

Generally, the people of America are with out representation.
It may take a few million of us in the streets,
a few million of us breaking the law,
a few millions of us walking in on congress and the White House,
to make actual change.


We'll see if America is still what it says it is
in November 06.

Few Americans realize that the 06 election is probely the most important vote todate in the history of our country.

I would love to have some sort of denouncement of Bush in flyer form, so I could put them on cars that still have the "W" sticker from the campaign. As it is I resist going up to them and making friendly comments like, "So tell me why you support torture?"

People who are talking impeachment had better wait 'til the '06 elections, and I've got to say I hope my doubts are premature, but after both my reps, Boxer and Feinstein, voted to renew the patriot act, I feel very apprehensive, to say the least. Feinstein has always leaned to the right, and has always been a two-issue Democrat. Gay rights and womens' right to choice regarding birth control and abortion. I stand with her on those issues to be sure, but that is where she parts company with anything approaching left of the new center. And Boxer is so confident of re-election no matter what that she has apparently gone into business for herself, and fuck the voters. I am concerned that for all the hope of this pregnancy of impeachment, it will break our hearts in stillbirth. Better start looking at the numbers now, and we cannot rely on party affiliation with the Democrats as we can with the Republicans. This will take a lot of arm-twisting on our part, as I dont think impeachment is a possibility unless sufficient numbers of Democrat representatives feel threatened by the loss of their seats. bush's climate of fear has taken its toll, as has his culture of corruption. If we, the voters, cannot offer a bigger carrot, then we damned well better have a bigger stick.

Notice no one is really bothering to even campaign really, save the little guys running and even some of them are bowing out under pressure.

What can that mean?

It means campaigns are expensive, and it;s only march.

Things will start to warm up about June.
National election campaigning is a summer sport.

I also think there is far too much servitude and submissive attitudes paid to the little weasel who is right now living in our White House, from the lowest reporter for the msm right up to and including Democrats in both houses of Congress. They all do everything short of throwing themselves at his feet and/or pulling their forelocks while they bow almost to the ground whenever he struts around within a thousand feet of them. They behave as though they are the battered and abused spouse who just keeps coming back for more....

It's as though W's shit doesn't stink...

Anymore comparisons?

Catherine

Yes. Alcoholic and Al-Anon. Neither in recovery. Anne Wilson-Schaef uses the addiction/recovery model to describe the US, and it fits frighteningly well. So does the pathological model for cancer.

You got it right, Zooks..

Be sure to see the post I just made in the MEDIA forum about the msm swallowing the Bush meme. It's written by Claudia Long and she describes the attitudes of so many journalists toward Bush as being CULTish... she points out that Richard Cohen and Chris Matthews, etc. are slurping at the...well, just read it, please.

Catherine

While I would like to see Bush impeached, what realistic chance does it have of happening with the Republicans in charge and the Democrats either marching with the Republicans or being so disorganized and ineffectual that they cannot mount a serious obstacle to a Supreme Court nomination, much less what it would take to impeach the President of the United States.

Which Democrats are going the vote to impeach him? The same ones who voted to renew the Patriot Act?

swumsayin.

If Bush is impeached, wouldn't Cheney become president?

Yeah.

Then keep Bush.

Impeach them both.

What we need is for someone to add a bill for an admendment to the Constitution to give Citizens the power to desolve the whole current adminstration, like every other world power.

even if there is an actual move to impeach anyone,
it won't, can't happen until after November.

IF the Democrats can manage to take back the house,
then possibly there can be an impeachment investigation.
And if there is, i would hope they would impeach several members of the WH,
primarily Both Bush and Cheney.

If the House Votes to Impeach, they do the investigation.
Then after the investigation, it's handed over to the Senate.
It's the Senate that decides the punishment phase of the impeachment.

And if the Repugs still control that house, he'll get off clean!

BUT, having been impeached at all, would be 100% Victory!


If the president and Veep were convicted through impeachment,
the National Security secritary would be in charge!
That's Condi!
She would then be the first woman and the first black president.
She would hold the position for 2 years, maybe.
Most likely much less as the impeachment investigation and trial would use up most of that time.

During any impeachment trial, the government of the US would be at it's most vulnerable state.
I recall during Nixons Impeachment everybody wondered, what if the President doesn't recognise it?
What if he had his military surround the white house to protect him and his kingship?

If the President says, NO, i do not recognise your authority,
who's gonna step up and demand othewise?

Actually, I think the word we are all looking for is impale, not impeach.

Ha! He's already impaled on his own lies, but he just won't die!


FrankenBush!

Bushenstein?

Impeachment is needed for Bush, as outlined in the original article.
The CIA leak case gets you Cheney.
The tourture and psyops gets you Rumsfeld.

Falsification of eveidence gets you Tenet.
Failure to initiate and alert the president to an imminant threat gets you Rice.

I know I've missed some.

Tenet is the Pres Pro Tem right now right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Tenet




I deplore rewarding those that lie, cheat and steal.
Just as equally as those that ignore facts, threats, and PDB's titled, "Bin Laden determined to strike"

But in the days of despotism, what can you expect for a time well spent, not well served, but time spent? A job promotion and/or a Presidential Award and Medal.

I'm in dry heave mode now. No longer have a stomach left to puke out of. But yet am still in convulsions.

Damn I am retarded, thanks for clearing that up for me.

SEE THIS:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11724797/




Catherine

Awesome Cath!!!

Check this one from San Francisco.


SF Gate

Carol Wolman: 'Are you working for impeachment? It's your civic duty'
Posted on Saturday, March 11, 2006

Carol Wolman, Uruknet

If you are a citizen of the US, then you are living under the US Constitution, which vests ultimate authority in "we the people". Authority carries with it responsibility. "We the people" are ultimately responsible for the actions of our government, no matter how fraudulent the elections or how corrupt the Congress may be.

The US Constitution gives "we the people", through our elected representatives in Congress, the power and authority to get rid of members of the executive and judicial branches who are violating their oath of office to uphold the Constitution, or who are committing high crimes and misdemeanors. When there is reasonable grounds for suspicion that offenses have been committed, it is the DUTY of the House of Representatives to investigate whether these offenses warrant impeachment, which is the equivalent of arraignment, the formal bringing of charges. It is then the DUTY of the Senate to act as a judicial body and hold a trial, to determine whether the official is guilty. If he is found guilty, he is removed from office, and then is liable to a regular criminal trial on the charges.

Bill Clinton was actually impeached by the House, for lying about Monica. The Senate declined to find him guilty, and he remained in office. Nixon resigned rather than face a full investigation by the House of the Watergate charges, and implicitly admitted his guilt thereby. Neither was prosecuted for their offenses.

Both Bush and Cheney have been accused of many high crimes, ranging from graft to mass murder, yet the Congress refuses to impeach. Polls show that the people want impeachment if these crimes- among them: lying us into Iraq, illegal warrantless wiretapping, enrichment of Halliburton and Carlyle from the Iraq war, at least passive complicity in 9-11, outing of a key CIA agent, failure to cope with Katrina, and a host of others- can be proven to be the fault of Bush and Cheney. Certainly there are ample grounds to MANDATE an investigation, yet the Congress refuses even to launch one.

Impeachment is a legal, judicial process, the ultimate recourse of "we the people" against tyranny. It has been politicized, and the Republican majority in Congress refuses to let it go forward. "We the people" have the RESPONSIBILITY to vote them out of office in November, and to replace them with honest people who PLEDGE DURING THEIR CAMPAIGN that they will work to impeach Bush and Cheney as soon as they take office.

Terrible crimes are being committed around the world in the name of the American people, with our tax dollars. People are being tortured and murdered, toxins such as depleted uranium and napalm are being spread disseminated, global warming is being accelerated by the policies of the Bush/Cheney administration. WE THE PEOPLE ARE RESPONSIBLE!

The only recourse we have is impeachment. This is available to us. it is legal, peaceful, and democratic.

If you are not working to ensure that the next Representative to be elected to Congress from your district is an outspoken advocate of impeachment, you are SHIRKING YOUR RESPONSIBILITY AS A US CITIZEN!

This is the only cause that matters right now. If you care about the environment, women's rights, social justice, decent health care and education, respect for international law; if you care about the future, GET RID OF THE BAD GUYS! WORK FOR IMPEACHMENT!

These people are leading us to nuclear war and destruction of the biosphere. And we are complicit, by allowing them to stay in office. It is time do do the right thing, WORK FOR IMPEACHMENT.

Ezra 18: 28 If the wicked, turning from the wickedness he has committed,
does what is right and just,
he shall preserve his life;
since he has turned away from all the sins that he committed,
he shall surely live, he shall not die.

Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/activistsforimpeachment/

Carol S. Wolman, MD is a psychiatrist in Northern California. A lifelong peace activist, she has written extensively on the psychology of our times. She is actively working to impeach Bush and Cheney, and invites you to print out a letter to Bush from Rep. John Conyers, informing Bush that censure and impeachment are underway. You can collect signatures and fax them to your representative and to Conyers. http://deependnews.com/conyerscensure.htm She also suggests you join or form a local group at http://impeachbush.meetup.com/

Source: Uruknet
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m21406&l=i&size=1&hd=0 and http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?s...order=0&thold=0

Catherine

Way to go Catherine!!! Great posts!

I agree with the others Cheney is far more dangerous & needs to go too. He is "The man behind the curtain" or more graphically, Bush's lips only move when Cheney's hand is up his ass. If Cheney doesnt script it; Bush babbles like the buffoon he is.