action biased bpolitics bush cheney corruption dick.cheney fuckbush george george.w.bush george_w._bush georgewbush gwb impeach impeachbush impeachment iraq law legal lies movementtoimpeachgeorgew.bush neocons politics pw usa w. war

My tags:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article or section has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page. It needs additional references or sources for verification. Tagged since January 2009. It may contain original research or unverifiable claims. Tagged since January 2009.

This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality. Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page. (December 2008)

The movement to impeach George W. Bush was a social movement which unsuccessfully sought the impeachment of United States President George W. Bush.

A Canadian research firm's poll in 2007 showed U.S. public support ranging between 46% and 55% opposed to impeaching the President, and between 39% and 45% in favor.^[1]

On June 10, 2008, Congressman Dennis Kucinich, along with co-sponsor Robert Wexler, introduced 35 articles of impeachment.^[2] against President George W. Bush to the U.S. House of Representatives.^[3] The House voted 251 to 166 to refer the impeachment resolution to the Judiciary Committee on July 25, where no further action was taken on it. ^[4]

Contents 1 Rationales for impeachment 1.1 2003 invasion of Iraq 1.1.1 Constitutionality of invasion 1.1.2 Justification for invasion 1.1.3 U.N. Charter 1.2 NSA warrantless surveillance controversy 1.3 Geneva Conventions controversy 1.3.1 Treatment of detainees 2 Political views and actions 2.1 Democrats in Congress 2.2 State-level Democratic party actions 3 Rallies and marches 4 References 5 Further reading 6 External links

[edit] Rationales for impeachment

This article or section may contain unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not attributable to the original sources. See the talk page for details. (February 2009)

Proponents of impeaching Bush asserted that one or more of his actions qualify as "high crimes and misdemeanors" under which the president can constitutionally be impeached. ^[5]

This section collates a list of pro-impeachment advocates' rationales as suggested by commentators, legal analysts, members of the Democratic Party, the Center for Constitutional Rights,^[6] and others. However, since impeachment is inherently political, and not a legal process, there is no exact definition of what constitutes an impeachable offense (other than treason or bribery). Therefore, this list is not necessarily accurate. Simply stated, it is up to Congress to determine if something rises to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors."

[edit] 2003 invasion of Iraq

The 2003 invasion of Iraq was the most substantial portion of the articles of impeachment introduced by Kucinich and Wexler. 15 of the 35 articles directly relate to alleged misconduct by Bush in seeking authority for the war, and in the conduct of military action itself. Five other articles address allegations partially or tertiarily relating to the war, including the "outing" of Valerie Plame, treatment of prisoners (both in Iraq and from operations in Afghanistan and other countries), and building a case for Iran being a threat based in part on alleging Iranian actions in Iraq.

[edit] Constitutionality of invasion

In February and March 2003, John Bonifaz served as lead counsel for a coalition of US soldiers, their parents, and members of Congress in John Doe I v. President Bush,^[7] a constitutional challenge to Bush’s authority to wage war against Iraq absent a congressional declaration of war or equivalent action. Bonifaz argued in court that Bush's planned first-strike invasion of Iraq violated the War Powers Clause of the US Constitution.^[8] As a corollary to his lawsuit, Bonifaz has argued publicly and in writing that Bush should be impeached for this. However, Bonifaz's lawsuit was dismissed in February 2003 and, in March 2003, the dismissal was upheld on appeal. Regarding the dismissal, Bonifaz said:

"They’re not supposed to sideline... Courts cannot shirk from responsibility when it looks like a political battle."^[9]

Regarding the affirmation of the dismissal, the First Circuit Court of Appeals held:

"...the text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an 'authorization' of such a war."^[10]

Francis Boyle, a professor of international law at the University of Illinois also uses this argument as reason in his Draft Impeachment Resolution.^[11]

[edit] Justification for invasion

Furthermore, the arguments put forward for the invasion of Iraq^[12] — the continued possession and development of weapons of mass destruction and active links to al Qaeda — have been found to be false, according to all official reports.^[13][14] A report by the Defense Department in 2007 conclusively stated the claimed working relationship with Al Qaeda did not exist. As the Washington Post described it:

"the intelligence community's prewar consensus [was] that the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda figures had only limited contacts, and ... that reports of deeper links were based on dubious or unconfirmed information."^[15]

The Bush administration advocated that this was due to failure by the intelligence community. However, it has become clear that, prior to the invasion, these arguments had already been widely disputed,^[16] in intelligence reports which should have been seen by the Bush administration. An in-depth investigation into the nature of these discrepancies by the Senate Intelligence Committee has been frustrated. A New York Times editorial states:

Mr. Roberts (chairman of the Senate panel) tried to kill the investigation entirely, and after the Democrats forced him to proceed, he set rules that seem a lot like the recipe for a whitewash.^[17]

Supporters of impeachment argue that the administration knowingly distorted intelligence reports or ignored contrary information in constructing their case for the war.^[18][19] The Downing Street memo and the Bush-Blair memo are used to substantiate that allegation.^[20] Congressional Democrats sponsored both a request for documents and a resolution of inquiry.^[21] A report by the Post on April 12, 2006, corroborates that view. It states that the Bush administration advocated that two small trailers which had been found in Iraq were "biological laboratories," despite the fact that U.S. intelligence officials possessed evidence to the contrary at that time.

"The three-page field report and a 122-page final report published three weeks later were stamped "secret" and shelved. Meanwhile, for nearly a year, administration and intelligence officials continued to publicly assert that the trailers were weapons factories."^[22]

[edit] U.N. Charter

By Article VI of the Constitution, Senate-ratified treaties such as the U.N. Charter are "the supreme Law of the Land." John Conyers, Robert Parry and Marjorie Cohn– professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, executive vice president of the National Lawyers Guild, and the U.S. representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists – assert that this was not a war in self-defense but a war of aggression contrary to the U.N. Charter (a crime against peace) and therefore a war crime.^{[23][11][24][25]} Also, Kofi Annan called the war in Iraq a violation of the UN Charter and therefore "illegal." A war of aggression refers to any war not initiated out of self-defence or sanctioned by the UN. Such a violation of international law would constitute an impeachable offense according to Francis Boyle, John W. Dean, from FindLaw, Marcus Raskin and Joseph A. Vuckovich, from the Institute for Policy Studies.^[11][26]

[edit] NSA warrantless surveillance controversy

In the context of the "War on Terrorism", Bush ordered the wiretapping of certain international calls to and from the U.S. without a warrant. The program's critics contend that this violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which was adopted to remedy similar actions in the past (e.g. Operation Shamrock, Operation Minaret). They also allege that it violated the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.^[27] In its defense, the Bush administration asserted that FISA did not apply as the President was authorized by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) and the presidential powers as Commander-in-Chief inherent in the Constitution, to bypass FISA.^[28] In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court majority held that neither the AUMF nor the president's role as Commander-in-Chief trumps explicit federal law, in this case the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

In January 2006, the Congressional Research Service released two legal analyses concluding that:

...no court has held squarely that the Constitution disables the Congress from endeavoring to set limits on that power. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has stated that Congress does indeed have power to regulate domestic surveillance... the NSA surveillance program... would appear to be inconsistent with the law.^[29]

In addition, the American Bar Association, in February 13, 2006, issued a statement denouncing the warrantless domestic surveillance program, accusing Bush of exceeding his powers under the Constitution. Their analysis opined that the key arguments advanced by the Bush administration are not compatible with the law.^{[30][verification needed]} David S. Kris and five former FISC judges, one of whom resigned in protest, have also voiced their doubts as to the legality of a program bypassing FISA.^[31] The Senate Committee voted along party lines, and decided that a detailed investigation into the matter was unwarranted.^[32]

On August 17, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan ruled in the case ACLU v. NSA that the Bush administration’s program to monitor the phone calls and e-mails of Americans without warrants was unconstitutional and must be stopped.^[33] It was the first ruling by a federal court to strike down the National Security Agency surveillance program. In her ruling, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor dismissed the government’s argument that the president "has been granted the inherent power to violate not only the laws of the Congress but the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, itself." In the conclusion of the ruling, Justice Warren was quoted from the case U.S. v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258 (1967) where he wrote:

Implicit in the term ‘national defense’ is the notion of defending those values and ideas which set this Nation apart…It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of…those liberties…which makes the defense of the Nation worthwhile. Id. at 264.^[34]

In response to this decision, on September 20, 2006, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence as both committees approved H.R. 5825, the "Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act." According to the ACLU, that bill, authored by Representative Heather Wilson (R-NM) would give the president unprecedented power and authorize the warrantless surveillance program conducted by the National Security Agency.^[35] Some civil liberties groups^[who?] opposed the bill commenting that the new bill gave the president tacit approval to ignore the Constitution.^[35]

Bush notified Congressional leaders of his decision to authorize warrantless wiretapping at the time of the decision. However, they were not totally informed, nor were they allowed to take notes or confer with others to assess the possible ramifications of this program.^[36]

[edit] Geneva Conventions controversy

[edit] Treatment of detainees

As part of the war on terrorism, several memos^[37] were written analyzing the legal position and possibilities in the treatment of prisoners. The memos, known today as the "torture memos",^{[by whom?]} advocate enhanced interrogation techniques, but point out that refuting the Geneva Conventions would reduce the possibility of prosecution for war crimes.^[38] In addition, a new definition of torture was issued. Most actions that fall under the international definition do not fall within this new definition advocated by the U.S.^[39]

Several top military lawyers, including Alberto J. Mora, reported that policies allowing methods equivalent to torture were officially handed down from the highest levels of the administration, and led an effort within the Department of Defense to put a stop to those policies and instead mandate non-coercive interrogation standards.^{[40][unreliable source?]}

Notwithstanding the suggestion of official policy, the administration repeatedly assured critics that the publicised cases were incidents, and Bush later stated that:

"The United States of America does not torture. And that's important for people around the world to understand."^[41]

The administration adopted the Detainee Treatment Act to address incidents of detainee abuse. However, in his signing statement, Bush made clear that he reserved the right to waive this bill if he thought that was needed.^[42]

Over the years numerous incidents have been made public and a UN report denounced the abuse of prisoners as tantamount to torture.^[43] Conyers has advocated investigating these abuses to see if they violate the Geneva Conventions and are thus cause for impeachment, while Boyle, Holtzman, and Veterans for Peace hold that violating these laws is grounds for impeachment.^[11][44]

Several legal analysts — such as Holtzman, Marjorie Cohn, and Human Rights First — have advocated that writing the so-called "torture memos", not preventing or stopping the abuse could result in legal challenges involving war crimes^[11] under the command responsibility.^[45] This view was confirmed when the US Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that, contrary to what the Bush administration advocated, the Third Geneva Convention (regarding the treatment of prisoners) applies to all detainees in the war on terrorism and as such the Military Tribunals used to try suspects were violating the law. The Court reaffirmed that those involved in mistreatment of detainees violate US and international law.

On May 19, 2006, the United Nations Convention Against Torture issued a report stating the U.S. should stop what it concluded was "ill-treatment" of detainees, since such treatment, according to the report, violated international law. It also calls for cessation of the US-termed "enhanced interrogation techniques", as the UN sees these methods as a form of torture. The UN report also admonishes against secret prisons, the use of which, is considered to amount to torture as well and should be discontinued.^[46]

[edit] Political views and actions

[edit] Democrats in Congress

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2009)

On June 16, 2005 Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) assembled an unofficial meeting to discuss the Downing Street memo and to consider grounds for impeachment.

On December 20, 2005, the House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff, at Conyers' request, filed its report.^{[citation needed]}

Conyers filed a resolution on December 18, 2005 to create an investigative committee to consider impeachment. His resolution gained 38 co-sponsors before it expired at the end of the 109th Congress. He did not reintroduce a similar resolution for the 110th Congress.^[47]

Keith Ellison was the leading figure behind the resolution to impeach Bush brought to the Minnesota State House of Representatives in May 2006.^[48] Ellison was elected to the United States House of Representatives in November 2006. During the campaign and when he was named to the House Judiciary Committee, Ellison repeatedly called for an investigation into a possible impeachment.^[49] In support of his candidacy, he “received a $1,000 contribution from ImpeachPAC”.^[50] Later, on April 22, 2007, Ellison met with constituents and listed new conditions for his support for impeachment hearings, such as verifiable facts and the backing of a majority of the American people.^[51]

At another unofficial hearing convened by Conyers on January 20, 2006, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) called for the committee to explore whether Bush should face impeachment, stemming from his decision to authorize domestic surveillance without court review. The proceedings had no legal authority, as committee chairman, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, (R-WI), rejected Democrats' requests for an inquiry.^{[citation needed]}

On May 10, 2006, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) indicated she was not interested in pursuing impeachment and had taken it "off the table", reiterating this phrase on November 8, 2006.^[52][53] In July 2007, Pelosi stated that she "would probably advocate" impeaching Bush if she were not in the House nor Speaker of the House.^[54]

On December 8, 2006 (the last day of the 109th Congress), then-Representative Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) submitted a resolution, H. Res. 1106, introducing articles of impeachment against President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.^{[citation needed]} The bill expired along with the 109th Congress.^[55]

John Conyers brought up the subject of impeachment on the July 8, 2007 broadcast of This Week with George Stephanopoulos,^[56] stating:

"We're hoping that as the cries for the removal of both Cheney and Bush now reach 46 percent and 58 percent, respectively, for impeachment, that we could begin to become a little bit more cooperative, if not even amicable, in trying to get to the truth of these matters."

Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich's major point in the Democratic Presidential Debate on October 30, 2007 was that Bush and Cheney should be impeached for the Iraq war.^[57][58] On November 6, 2007, Kucinich introduced a resolution to impeach Vice President Cheney in the House of Representatives.^[59]

In November 2007, Joe Biden, then a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, stated that he would move to impeach if President Bush bombs Iran without first gaining congressional approval.^[60] However, no such bombing occurred during the rest of Bush's term (with or without congressional approval).

In December 2007, Congressman Robert Wexler started a website to promote impeachment hearings against Vice President Cheney. He indicated that hearings into the impeachment of Bush might be warranted as well.^{[citation needed]}

On June 9, 2008, Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), introduced a resolution, H.Res. 1258, to impeach president George W. Bush, which included 35 counts in the articles of impeachment. At the end of the evening on June 10, Kucinich offered a motion to refer HRes 1258 to the House Judiciary Committee. On June 11, the House voted 251-166 to send the resolution to the Committee.^[61]

On July 14, 2008, Kucinich introduced a new impeachment resolution (H.Res. 1345) limited to a single count.

[edit] State-level Democratic party actions

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2009)

On March 21, 2006 the New Mexico Democratic Party, at a convention in Albuquerque, adopted a plank to their platform saying “the Democratic Party of New Mexico supports the impeachment of George Bush and his lawful removal from office.”^[62]

On March 24, 2007, the Vermont Democratic State Committee voted to support JRH 15, a state legislative resolution supporting impeachment, calling for its passage as "appropriate action."^{[63][dead link][64]}

On April 28, 2007, the California Democratic Convention passed a resolution for impeachment. On May 19, 2007, the Massachusetts Democratic Convention passed a resolution to impeach Bush and Cheney.^{[citation needed]}

On January 2, 2008, Betty Hall (D), an 87-year-old, fourteen-term State Representative, introduced New Hampshire House Resolution 24 in the State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs Committee of the New Hampshire House of Representatives.^[65] The resolution was "petitioning Congress to commence impeachment procedures" against Bush and Cheney for "high crimes and misdemeanors", including domestic spying, illegal detentions, signing statements, electioneering, the breaking of international treaties, and war crimes.^[66] The bill further asserted that "section 603 of Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practice states that an impeachment may be set in motion by the United States House of Representatives by charges transmitted from the legislature of a state".^[66]

On February 20, 2008, the bill was ruled "Inexpedient to Legislate" to pass by a 10 to 5 vote within committee, which passed the resolution on to the full House for a vote.^[65] The bill was tabled in the New Hampshire House of Representatives on April 16, 2008.^[65] After three efforts to have the bill removed from the table were unsuccessful, it died on the table on September 24, 2008.^[65]

[edit] Rallies and marches

An anti-Iraq war protest march in Washington, D.C. on September 24, 2005 attracted over 100,000 people. The march among other things included calls for impeachment and for investigations leading to impeachment.^[67]

On November 2, 2005, The World Can't Wait mobilized marches across the country that called for the ousting of Bush.^[68]

[edit] References

[edit] Further reading

• Dennis Loo and Peter Phillips, Impeach the President: the Case Against Bush and Cheney, (2006) ISBN 1-58322-743-1^{[dubious – discuss]}
• Center for Constitutional Rights, Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush, (2006) ISBN 1-933633-08-5
• John Bonifaz, Warrior King: The Case for Impeaching George Bush, (2003) ISBN 1-56025-606-0
• John Dean, Worse than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush, (2004) ISBN 0-316-00023-X
• Elizabeth de la Vega, U.S. v. Bush, (2006) ISBN 1-58322-756-3^{[dubious – discuss]}
• Dave Lindorff & Barbara Olshansky, The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office, (2006) ISBN 0-312-36016-9
• Charles Black, Impeachment: A Handbook (Yale Fastback Series), (1998 Reissue) ISBN 0-300-07950-8^{[dubious – discuss]}
• Glenn Greenwald, How Would a Patriot Act? Defending American Values from a President Run Amok, (2006) ISBN 0-9779440-0-X
• Elizabeth Holtzman with Cynthia Cooper, The Impeachment of George W Bush A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens, (2006) ISBN-10: 156025940X
• Marjorie Cohn , Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law, (2007) ISBN-10: 0977825337
• Seymour Hersh , Chain of Command: The Road from 9/11 to Abu Ghraib, (2005) ISBN 0060955376
• Charlie Savage , Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy, (2007) ISBN 0316118052

[edit] External links

• The 35 Articles of Impeachment and the Case for Prosecuting George W. Bush, by Congressman Dennis Kucinich. Free PDF.
• Feingold to Introduce Resolutions Censuring President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Other Administration Officials (July 22, 2007)
• Bill Moyers Journal of July 13, 2007 "Tough Talk on Impeachment" focusing on the constitutional issues
• Bill Moyers interviews John Dean (transcript)
• Is Lying About War An Impeachable Offense? by John Dean
• The Impeachment of George W. Bush an article in the January 30, 2006 issue of The Nation magazine
• Kucinich Bush Impeachment from Mahalo
• groundsforimpeachment.com
• Wexler impeachment site