Like many of us, when I saw elishastephens's diary last night, I flipped to C-SPAN to watch Congressman Kucinich introduce Articles of Impeachment against Bush. Like most of us, I agreed with almost everything that Kucinich said. George W. Bush is a miserable failure and the worst President of the last century.
But, lest we forget, he is also a human being and a United States citizen. Perhaps the most damning and serious article of impeachment that Kucinich introduced was the article taking Bush to task for imprisoning U.S. citizens without charging them, giving them access to counsel, or giving them any sort of due process whatsoever. That is a serious human rights violation and a disgrace to this country. But why, then, are we cheering on the introduction of articles of impeachment that are largely unsupported by evidence sufficient to support a finding of probable cause that Bush committed "high crimes and misdemeanors," much less proof beyond a reasonable doubt?
(more after jump)
Ten years ago, when the GOP impeached Bill Clinton, they did so after a long investigation by Kenneth Starr, which resulted in a 184-page report full of documentation supporting various crimes committed by Clinton. The crimes outlined in the report were almost certainly not "high crimes and misdeameanors" under the Constitution. But they were federal crimes (perjury and obstruction of justice). Most prosecutors wouldn't have prosecuted Bill Clinton for those crimes, but there was substantial evidence that he at least technically violated the law.
Contrast that to what Congressman Kucinich did last night. Many of the Articles of Impeachment he introduced relate to activities that don't violate U.S. law at all. For most of them, there isn't substantial evidence that George W. Bush committed a crime, much less proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Are we really supposed to be standing up for human rights by denying Bush his? I hate the guy, but he's a human being and a U.S. citizen. He has rights, and we're no better than he is -- or the Republicans were, ten years ago -- if we charge and try to convict him based on innuendo and supposition.
Take a closer look at the Articles of Impeachment list compiled in another diary. Article #7 seeks to impeach Bush because we invaded Iraq without a declaration of war. But the U.S. hasn't declared war since World War II. Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Desert Storm, Haiti, Kosovo, etc. All wars undertaken without a formal declaration. During the Vietnam War, the Supreme Court repeatedly ducked the issue of whether that war was constitutional. Courts have repeatedly failed to rule on this issue, regarding it as a political question. Given that every President since FDR has engaged in undeclared wars, and that Bush did get authorization from Congress beforehand, trying to impeach him for an undeclared war is pretty ridiculous.
Many of the other articles aren't much better. Article #9 seeks to impeach Bush for failing to provide troops with adequate body armor and vehicle armor. Is the lack of body armor appalling? Yes. Is it a "high crime and misdemeanor" worthy of impeachment? Come on. Decisions about troop equipment shouldn't be criminalized at all, much less considered an impeachable offense. Do we really want prosecutors to bring criminal charges against Pentagon officials for providing inadequate body armor? On what basis? If we wouldn't prosecute those in the Pentagon who were responsible, why Bush?
Article #16 seeks to impeach Bush for "reckless misspending" of tax dollars. Does anyone here take that seriously? Congress recklessly misspends my tax dollars every year. Can we indict Tad Stevens for "reckless misspending"? Of course not. I wish I could, because that bozo deserves it. But wasteful government spending is not a crime, much less an impeachable offense.
Article #32 tries to impeach Bush because Republicans, including many energy lobbyists, are spreading dissinformation about climate change. As a starting point, these people have a First Amendment right to say whatever the hell they want about climate change. Yes, they're lairs. And yes, it's bullshit. But part of being in a free country is tolerating idiots who say things that are stupid or false. If Neo-Nazis have the right to free speech, so do right-wing climate change deniers, and the industry that supports them. In any event, how the hell would you hold Bush criminally responsible for their activities? Does this make any sense?
Article #22 presents an odd impeachable offense -- it claims that Bush "has established a body of secret laws through the Office of Legal Counsel." First of all, OLC opinions are just that -- opinions. They don't have the force of law. Second, the OLC didn't operate any differently under Clinton or other past Presidents. The conclusions were different, and John Yoo rightfully deserves the scorn and scrutiny he's getting. He was at best grossly negligent, and at worst criminal. But to impeach Bush merely because the OLC is issuing opinions that aren't publicly announced? That's ridiculous. Are we going to bring charges against Clinton too, for the same "crime"?
And that's just a small selection. Are there some articles that are more serious? That are closer to an actual impeachable offense? Sure. For instance, Article #33 charges that Bush "repeatedly ignored and failed to respond to high level intelligence warnings of planned terrorist attacks in U.S. prior to 9/11." That's a serious charge. But where is the substantial evidence in support of it? I read the 9/11 commission report, the biggest investigation of 9/11 to date, and saw no evidence of anything rising to an impeachable offense. Think about it -- is there really evidence, actual evidence that would hold up in court of law, that he deliberately ignored actionable intelligence? Sure, I know of the memo he received when he was in Crawford. I watched Fahrenheit 9/11 with the rest of you. But that one report in a daily memo received on one day months before the attack is not enough to establish that Bush knew about 9/11 and deliberately did nothing about it. We don't have evidence of that. Maybe (but I doubt it) we could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he's negligent. Negligence is not a criminal offense. It just means you're an awful President, which we know he is.
By now, I know what you're thinking. You're thinking that I'm missing the point. The point of these Articles of Impeachment is to get the conversation started. It's to get the investigation going. We don't have to have the evidence yet -- this is how we get the evidence! Right? Wrong.
In the United States of America, you don't charge people with crimes in order to get your investigation started. You don't charge people with crimes in order to get the discussion going. You don't charge anyone with any crime until you have probable cause to do so. Period. The Articles of Impeachment introduced by Kucinich charge Bush with "high crimes and misdemeanors," yet he lacks anything close to probable cause for at least the vast majority of them. (And that's being charitable.) Are we really saying that it's okay to charge the President with crimes, to impeach him, without even probable cause, much less proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Do we really want to set that sort of precedent?
Think about what it would be like if the shoe was on the other foot. Would we really want the Republicans to charge Senator Obama (or President Obama) with terrorism, child molestation, you name it, with no evidence aside from innuendo and speculation? Would we want them to use formal charges or articles of impeachment as a way of launching an investigation? Would we want them to charge Obama with crimes as a way to get the discussion going? Absolutely not. So why would we possibly countenance -- much less cheer on -- an effort to do the same thing to another American. I don't care who the hell it is. He has rights just like you and I do.
The truth is that Congressman Kucinich should be condemned, not praised, for what he did last night. It's an embarassment to him and to everyone on here that's cheering him on. Bush may very well have committed impeachable offenses, but Kucinich set back any effort to hold Bush responsible for the offenses he did commit by bringing dozens of charges without sufficient evidence and often without even an underlying crime. There are a couple of promising Articles on his list, but they're surrounded by so much crap that they're lost in the shuffle. And even those Articles lack enough evidence at this point to impeach. If you support impeachment, then support an investigation tailored to specific provable charges. But don't support the circus that Kucinich launched last night. It violates the same principles that we aim to protect.