The rumblings are being heard: Americans want impeachment on the table. Congress has one of its lowest approval ratings in history. Zogby found 52% of Americans want Congress to consider impeaching Bush if he wiretapped American citizens without a judge's approval. The American Research Group found 54% want impeachment proceedings to begin against Dick Cheney.
The addition of Edolphus Town as a cosponsor of Kucinich's H.R. 333, is an indicator that the circle is spreading beyond the usual Maxine Waters-Barbara Lee suspects. Activist pressure is credited with persuading Rep. Tammy Baldwin to sign on, after citizens organized a public assembly for this purpose.
Now is a moment of peril. Can the impeachment movement knit itself into a nationwide entity united around a winning case? "They'll be out of office in a year anyway" as an argument is getting drowned out. If someone broke into your house and robbed you, and the police told you they weren't going to press charges because the robber was leaving the country in a year anyway, would you be satisfied? Bush has robbed us of our democracy, our constitutional rights,...
..our blood and treasure. The Congress is the "police," the branch charged with providing a check on the Executive Branch.
John Conyers recently said even if impeachment is "off [Pelosi's] table, it is not off John Conyers' table." Conyers affirmed his authority as head of the Judiciary Committee to introduce impeachment articles independently of Pelosi, and without her approval.
Through activist committees, city and town resolutions, active state-level officials, and growing rallies and demonstrations, impeachment is on the table in nearly all 50 states. On the right, Pat Buchanan, Bruce Fein, Paul Craig Roberts, Ron Paul, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), and Chuck Hagel have impeachment sitting on the table somewhere between the string beans and the roast beef. The ultra-right John Birch Society published an opinion piece on January 9, 2006 in favor of impeachment, titled "It's Not Just a Piece of Paper" in reference to the US Constitution.
The impeachment of Bush-Cheney presents a problem. Whereas previous strategies for impeachment have searched for the tangible charges that would force removal, with Bush-Cheney you hardly know where to start. Through signing statements alone, Bush has claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office.
Successful impeachments have relied upon a small number of articles (in the case of Clinton, two articles, a blue dress, and panties.) Nixon's downfall consisted, rather mundanely, of engaging in the cover-up of the Watergate break-in, "making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States." But his "false and misleading statements" on Watergate didn't plunge the world into an inferno.
When even John Ashcroft sits up in his hospital bed, livid, and refuses any part of the NSA domestic spying program, you know that program crosses some serious lines.
The only other main charge against Nixon, besides the cover-up for the Committee for the Re-election of the President (CREEP in those days) was "violating the constitutional rights of citizens" by siccing the IRS and the FBI on his opponents. Nixon never, like Bush, threw a Jose Padilla into a military prison to rot until he felt like letting him go, nor claimed the right to do the same to any one of us, to this very day.
The core case against Clinton was providing "perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning...the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee." Clinton's articles of impeachment state the explosive charge that he "brought disrepute on the presidency."
My great fear is that by throwing everything they can at Bush-Cheney, including the kitchen sink, the Impeach Cheney First, Then Bush Movement will dissipate its energy defending against spurious right-wing attacks, rather than focussing on clear-cut elements that even right-wingers have a hard time arguing against.
Those elements are:
--Violation of the oath of office to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution, specifically the Sixth Amendment right of American citizens, in criminal matters, to be told of the charges against them, to counsel, and a to speedy and public trial by a jury of their peers. The rights of foreign nationals may be debated, but the rights of Americans are not open to debate. Declaring an American an "enemy combatant" overturns the Bill of Rights. The enemy combatant designation was meant to apply to wars of limited duration. They have never before been attempted in a war which, by definition, has no end. Jose Padilla was presumed guilty until proven innocent. He was tortured, given LSD, and after 4 years released to be given a civilian trial upon Bush's whim. Padilla was found guilty even though his lawyers say he was too damaged to assist in his own defense.
--Seeking to overturn the Bill of Rights of the Constitution by the transparent device of claiming wartime powers which would last forever.
--Violation of the oath of office to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution, specifically the Fourth Amendment right to freedom from search without a warrant, in the NSA warrantless surveillance scandal. The media helps the administration by twisting the issue to be whether the government can spy, when in fact the government has always been able to spy on anyone as long as it is within the law. Referring to the NSA scandal, John Dean says Bush is the only president in history who has openly admitted an "impeachable offense."
--Lying to Congress and the American people to draw the country into the invasion and occupation of Iraq. "High-level contacts" between Saddam and Bin Laden? They hated each other!
--Treason in the War on Terror: Revealing secrets to the enemy in wartime by ordering the public identification of American intelligence agent Valerie Plame. Plame was engaged in tracing weapons of mass destruction before they reached American shores. Also the public identification of Al Qaeda double agent Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan, who in the words of one expert "might have led to bin Laden himself." Khan was trotted out to bolster the 2004 NYC Financial District terror alerts just before the election. Also the leak of the Bin Laden video in October 2007, which according to the group which obtained the video, means "a rare window into the world of Al Qaeda has now been sealed shut."
I propose uniting around a "core case" consisting largely of the above, and linking an "extended case." The strategy is to offer a core case of articles everyone understands from Eighth Grade Civics.
Bush's torture of prisoners in Guantanamo and violation of UN Charter are crimes, since all treaties ratified by the Congress have the full force of U.S. law. But how much time are we willing to spend getting off the track and defending Clinton's bombing of Kosovo, which was without the approval of the U.N. Security Council? How much do we give to Congress to talk about, when we already know they can't walk and chew gum at the same time?
The torture of prisoners in Guantanamo would be a strong addition to the articles, only if Congress does a good job of explaining that many of these prisoners are innocent. So far I don't see this happening. If we get into an argument over whether someone who has knowledge of a terrorist attack should be tortured, we're going to lose that one on Main Street.
We need to strip out this UN business because it is divisive. People disagree on the relation between UN and US law. Why waste time when we have such an open and shut case otherwise? The impeachment movement will fail unless it manages to cross the deep social and cultural divides that Bush plays exquisitely to his advantage. Remember Freedom Fries? Lying to the U.S. Congress to get into war, violating the Constitution, and treason are enough.
If impeachment wins, the world will not know the details, only that we have in Scott Ritter's words "repudiated" Bush and everything he stands for. If impeachment fails, the world will know nothing of our best of intentions.
Articles citing Bush's response to Katrina are also trouble. Although the response was possibly criminally negligent, the talk shows heard on Main Street will have no trouble enticing people to believe that them lib'rals are trying to blame even Acts of God on our prezdent!
The charge of "threatening" Iran in the Kucinich articles against Cheney is counterproductive, and should be stripped out. Saber-rattling is as old as the hills, and if we impeached presidents every time one sent an aircraft carrier steaming near another country, none of them would finish out a term.
The deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq, PTSD, missing eyes, limbs, orphaned children, the U.S. treasury looted for the benefit of Halliburton and Blackwater, the horrors unleashed by 9/11 in the politically skillful, fear-mongering hands of George Bush could go on and on. But a prosecutor goes to trial with a limited case. He knows juries have limited attention spans, prejudices, and fall asleep like everyone else. He puts together what will "stick." Either you put your man away or you don't; it doesn't matter if it's for one life term or a hundred.
The energy of the movement must go toward congressmen who hide behind the last barricade: asking for "verifiable facts" for impeachment. What the hell are you talking about? Who needs investigations? It's all public record!
How about, just for starters:
WMD:
--"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." Vice President Cheney at VFW 103rd National Convention, August 26, 2002
--"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." George Bush, March 17, 2003
--"Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda" National Journal
--"[Iraq] had no . . . strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions ended." CIA Duelfer Report Sept. 2004
Iraq and 9/11:
--"His regime has had high-level contacts with Al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to Al Qaeda terrorists." Speech of Vice President Cheney at the Air National Guard Senior Leadership Conference, December 2, 2002
--"I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organiza-tions, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." -George Bush, certification to Congress to authorize the use of force in Iraq
--"No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th," -George Bush, Sept. 18, 2003, Meet the Press
--"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. Sir Richard Dearlove, Head of British Secret Intelligence Service, the "Downing Street Memo", July 23, 2002
--"We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida cooperated on attacks against the United States." 9/11 Commission
Constitution Sixth Amendment:
--"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." Presidential Oath of Office.
--"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." Sixth Amendment of the US Constitution, the "Bill of Rights"
--"I, GEORGE W. BUSH, as President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the U.S. armed forces, hereby DETERMINE for the United States of America that...Jose Padilla, who is under the control of the Department of Justice and who is a U.S. citizen, is, and at the time he entered the United States in May 2002 was, an enemy combatant...Accordingly, you are directed to receive Mr. Padilla from the Department of Justice and to detain him as an enemy combatant. " June 9, 2002 Presidential Order to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, to take military custody of Jose Padilla as an "enemy combatant"
Constitution Fourth Amendment:
--"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Fourth Amendment, Bill of Rights
--"I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the September the 11th attacks, and I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups." George Bush, Dec. 17, 2005, President's radio address
--"[This is a] pretty straightforward case where the president is acting illegally... When Congress speaks on questions that are domestic in nature, I really can't think of a situation where the president has successfully asserted a constitutional power to supersede that... This is domestic surveillance over American citizens for whom there is no evidence or proof that they are involved in any illegal activity, and it is in contravention of a statute of Congress specifically designed to prevent this." Robert Reinstein, Dean of Law School at Temple University
Treason, Plame:
--"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." U.S. Constitution
--"Somebody in his administration leaked the name of that person" George Bush on Valerie Plame, July 12, 2007
--"The possibility of penetrating these groups, the possibility of knowing that they're going to carry 10-pound bags of explosive in the subway stations, will go right down the drain." Special Forces Col. Patrick Lang, on the damage to the national security done by Plame's identification, Dorgan-Waxman Committee Hearings July 22, 2005
--"A former diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity said yesterday that every foreign intelligence service would run Plame's name through its databases within hours of its publication to determine if she had visited their country and to reconstruct her activities." Former diplomat quoted in Walter Pincus, Washington Post, October 4, 2003
Treason, Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan:
--"the problem is that when you're trying to strike a balance between giving enough information to the public so that they know that you're dealing with a specific, credible, different kind of threat than you've dealt with in the past, you're always weighing that against kind of operational considerations." Condoleeza Rice on the leaking of double agent Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan's name by "senior administration officials" to bolster the administration's August 2004 NYC Financial District Terror alerts.
--"A Pakistani intelligence source told Reuters Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan, who was arrested in Lahore secretly last month, had been actively cooperating with intelligence agents to help catch al Qaeda operatives when his name appeared in U.S. newspapers." Reuters Aug. 6, 2004
--"Pakistani interior minister, Faisal Hayat, as well as the British home secretary, David Blunkett, had "expressed displeasure in fairly severe terms that Khan's name was released, because they were trying to track down other contacts." Sen. Charles Schumer, CNN, Aug. 9, 2004
--"British and Pakistani intelligence officials are furious that the Administration unmasked Mr. Khan and named other captured terrorist suspects. Yesterday’s editions of the Daily News in New York reported Pakistani Interior Minister Faisal Saleh Hayyat is dismayed that the trap they hoped would lead to the capture of other top Al Qaeda leaders, possibly even Osama Bin Laden." Sen. Charles Schumer, Aug. 9, 2004, letter to administration on leaking identity of Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan.
Republicans have Democrats sold on the impeachment backlash theory, which says heading in this direction could jeopardize the Democrats' chances for the White House in 2008. But history indicates the opposite. After Nixon resigned just ahead of impeachment, caretaker president Gerald Ford finished out the term, then was beaten by unknown Jimmy Carter as the nation sought fresh air. And by forcing Clinton to air his dirty laundry, the Republicans so weakened the Democratic party that a bumbling former Texas governer was able to take the presidency in what should have been a cakewalk for Democrats, in the midst of a healthy economy in peacetime. There has never been impeachment backlash, only frontlash.