If you opened this diary you’ve surely read the other impeachment diaries. I’ve read them, and I shall not rehash what they offered on each side of the calculus; rather below the fold I’ll tell you what I think they miss and what needs to be done about it:
I think there are two critical facts to remember:
First, the election was not a referendum on impeachment. Indeed, it was expressly not a referendum:
Pelosi, the House Democratic leader who may well surf a wave of voter resentment against the Bush administration and Republican misrule into the speaker's office after the votes are counted Nov. 7, bluntly declared that it would not be the purpose of a Democratic House to restore the rule of law, despite the fact that more than three dozen members of her own caucus are calling for an inquiry into possibly impeachable offenses by the administration, led by Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, who is in line to become chair of the Judiciary Committee if the Democrats retake the House.
"Impeachment is off the table," Pelosi declared.
"And that’s a pledge?" asked CBS’s Lesley Stahl,
"Well, it’s a pledge in the — yes, I mean, it’s a pledge," Pelosi responded. "Of course it is. It is a waste of time."
[Source]
Second, while I believe it is true that the vast majority of Kossacks want impeachment proceedings, I’m hard-pressed to believe that Kossack-thought is indicative of the nation at large.
"Based on what you have read or heard, do you believe that President Bush should be impeached and removed from office, or don't you feel that way?"
.
Should Be 30%
Should Note Be 69%
Unsure 1%
[This is from a pre-election CNN poll. There are many other and later ones consistent with the CNN poll, located here. I note the Zogby poll found differently, of course].
In my mind then, there are four things that must be done and are within the power of Congress and leadership to do, consistent with the above, in order to reach impeachment:
First, Congress should terminate the 2003 Iraq AUMF. That legislation should directly assert Congress’s power in contravention of the President’s Article II power and should establish a timetable and circumstances for bringing the troops home. It is the essence of what Democrats believe, and while we can debate the significance of the mid-term elections on the margins the one thing that seems to be abundantly clear is that the country rejected staying in Iraq. Stop playing politics, stand for what you believe, and make it happen. Should Bush refuse in the face of this clear mandate then he should be impeached. Personally I would go one step further and de-fund the war commensurate with the time table so that there is sufficient time for it not to harm the troops, but I recognize there is much risk in that and would not insist upon it.
Second, Congress should amend the 2006 MCA (hearsay, coerced evidence, speedy trial, habeas corpus, among others). That new legislation should directly assert Congress’s power in contravention of the President’s Article II power and should establish the methodology for ascertaining/challenging prisoner of war status and trying war crimes consistent with Democratic beliefs of fairness and due process. I am not certain the country at-large was particularly focused on this issue in the mid-terms, but there is no question that general power and control was intended to be placed in the hands of Democrats. And this is the essence of what Democrats believe, so a failure to enact this legislation immediately is nothing less than a sell out. Should Bush refuse to follow this law, even if it requires some detainees to be released (and it will), then he should be impeached.
Third, Congress should amend FISA to eliminate any doubt whatsoever about the (il)legality of the surveillance program. I think it is fair to say that I am the only person in the DKos community who believes that the program almost certainly does not violate the 4th Amendment, or that if in the end SCOTUS says it does, it isn’t clear enough to warrant impeachment in that regard. Rather, the focus should be on FISA (and before you troll rate me for that position I think it fair to say Armando agreed and immediately, and correctly, focused on the real issue -- FISA). Again, that amendment to FISA should directly contradict and terminate the argument the 2001 AUMF provided the implied authority to avoid FISA, and should clearly and unambiguously assert Congress’s power in contravention of the President’s Article II power in this regard. To not speak legislatively on this issue would be simple political cowardice. But having spoken clearly and unambiguously, should Bush refuse to follow the amended law and change the program accordingly, then he should be impeached.
Fourth, Congress should amend the DTA (and the Army Field Manual) to eliminate any doubt whatsoever about the treatment the country will afford those captured not only in the war on terror, whatever we may say that war might be, but in any war. In my way of thinking, this is very simple: either you believe in humane conduct or you do not. And assuming you share that belief then you have a duty to make it abundantly clear what is permissible and what is not. No guessing. No implied authority. No passing the buck. Having passed such a law, should Bush refuse to follow it then he should be impeached.
These things should be at the top of the legislative agenda. A clear stand makes for a clear violation. And having clear violations post-election vacates Pelosi’s pledge and engages that part of the electorate not presently in favor of impeachment.
Refusing or failing to stand up for what you believe on the grounds of practicality, cost, or politics is not bi-partisanship or leadership, it is cowardice.