[NYTr] The Logic of Impeachment

[nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com]

Consortium News - Jul 21, 2007
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/072107.html

he Logic of Impeachment

By Robert Parry
July 21, 2007

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has taken impeachment “off the table,” in
line with Official Washington’s view that trying to oust George W. Bush
and Dick Cheney would be an unpleasant waste of time. But there is
emerging a compelling logic that an unprecedented dual impeachment
might be vital to the future of the United States.

If some historic challenge is not made to the extraordinary assertions
of power by President Bush and Vice President Cheney, the United States
might lose its status as a democratic Republic based on a Constitution
that adheres to the twin principles that no one is above the law and
everyone is endowed with inalienable rights.

Over the past six-plus years, Bush has trampled on these traditional
concepts of liberty and the rule of law time and again, even as he
professes his love of freedom and democracy. Indeed, in Bush’s world,
the word “freedom” has come to define almost its classical opposite.

Bush’s “freedom” means the right of the Executive to imprison enemies
of the state indefinitely without charge and without even the
centuries-old right of habeas corpus; Bush’s “freedom” tolerates
coercion, torture or what the Founders called “cruel and unusual
punishment” to extract confessions from detainees; it countenances
surveillance of anyone – citizen and non-citizen alike – without a
requirement for judicial review or evidence of probable cause that a
crime is being committed; it sees no problem with the government and
its private-sector allies teaming up to silence dissent.

Bush’s “freedom” also embraces the notion of a Commander in Chief
acting as a quasi-dictator possessing “plenary” – or unlimited – powers
in wartime, deciding which human beings on the planet get basic rights
and which ones don’t.

Given the indefinite and boundless nature of the “war on terror,” which
could last forever and extends to a global battlefield (including U.S.
territory), Bush’s presidential powers also don’t represent just a
temporary suspension of the Constitution in the face of a short-term
emergency, but rather a permanent change in the American system of
government.

After all, if one man possesses unlimited power, that means the rest of
us hold our personal liberties at the leader’s forbearance, much as
feudal subjects lived at the pleasure of the monarch, not as citizens
who could stand up to the ruler with the firm knowledge that their
basic rights of life and liberty were unshakeable.

As the so-called “unitary executive,” Bush asserts further his right to
enforce the laws selectively, protecting friends and punishing enemies
– and most of all, putting himself and his senior aides beyond the
reach of the law.

Under these theories of presidential powers, Bush can ignore domestic
laws, international treaty commitments and even the Constitution when
he deems it necessary. Sometimes he just waives a law by issuing a
“signing statement” declaring he won’t be bound by its restrictions.
Other times, he makes ad hoc judgments as the mood suits him.

[For more on Bush’s assertions of power, see the new book, Neck Deep:
The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, co-authored by Robert
Parry.]

New Affront

Bush’s latest affront to the traditional American concept of checks and
balances was to bar the Justice Department from handling
contempt-of-Congress complaints lodged against White House aides who
have invoked executive privilege rather than testify about the
politically tainted firings of nine federal prosecutors, ones who
didn't measure up as "loyal Bushies."

In Bush’s view, federal prosecutors can enforce the laws only the way
he sees fit – and thus once he tells a subordinate not to testify, the
Justice Department has no choice but to rebuff any efforts by Congress
to compel testimony.

So, the “unitary executive” gets to decide how much congressional
oversight will be allowed, regardless of an existing law which makes it
the duty of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia to take
congressional contempt citations to a grand jury.

In similar cases in the past, the Executive Branch has averted a
showdown by making compromises that were acceptable to Congress. But
Bush has refused to budge from his position that the most Congress will
be granted is an informal chat with his advisers without a transcript
and with no chance to ask follow-up questions.

Bush is daring Congress to either mount a constitutional battle or
submit to his will.

While this latest affront alone might not justify Congress seeking
impeachment, the executive privilege ploy is only part of a larger
pattern. It is the consistency of the White House arrogance, dating
back to the earliest days of the Bush-Cheney administration, that
argues for impeachment hearings against both Bush and Cheney.

Beyond their mutual disdain for the constitutional limits on executive
power, Bush and Cheney have committed what the Founders would call “a
long train of abuses,” including some – like refusing to “assent to
laws” – which parallel the crimes of King George III as enunciated in
the Declaration of Independence.

But arguably Bush and Cheney have committed offenses against the nation
that are worse than the actions of King George III. Bush and Cheney,
for instance, induced the United States to invade Iraq under false
pretenses, a war that has caused grievous harm to the nation in loss of
life, treasure and international standing.

Over the past five years, Bush and Cheney repeatedly have deceived the
American people about the causes for war with Iraq – with Bush claiming
even now that Saddam Hussein “chose” war by not disarming, although the
U.S. intelligence community has long since concluded that Iraq did
dispose of its unconventional weapons and had declared that fact
accurately long before Bush ordered the invasion.

Beyond the administration’s brazen deceit and the horrendous death
toll, the U.S. occupation of Iraq has let al-Qaeda, the terrorist
organization that killed almost 3,000 people on Sept. 11, 2001, off the
hook.

According to a new National Intelligence Estimate, the Iraq War has
helped al-Qaeda attract recruits, raise money and again threaten the
American people. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Bush Is al-Qaeda’s
Strategic Ally.”]

Bush Incompetence

The Bush administration also has demonstrated gross incompetence in
responding to national emergencies. Not only did Bush’s neglect of
pre-9/11 warnings leave the United States vulnerable to attack, but
Bush’s political cronyism contributed to the destruction of a leading
American city, New Orleans, when Hurricane Katrina struck in 2005.

There is also the issue of treasonous behavior by Bush and Cheney in
the exposure of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame as part of a political
attack on her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, for criticizing
Bush’s use of false intelligence to justify going to war with Iraq.

Even in the plot of the first “Mission Impossible” movie, it is
recognized that the willful identification of CIA officers under
“non-official cover” (or NOCs), the status of Valerie Plame,
constitutes an act of treason.

In the Plame-gate affair, however, the government officials behind this
security breach and the subsequent cover-up were George W. Bush and
Dick Cheney.

Still, many leading Democrats argue that impeachment would just be an
exercise in futility, because conviction in the Senate requires a
two-thirds majority and because the sizable Republican minorities in
Congress would stick by Bush no matter what – which may indeed be true.

Impeachment hearings in the House, however, would at least focus the
public’s attention on the severity of Bush’s offenses, demonstrate the
pattern of abuse, and explain how this administration has deviated so
far from the course laid out by the Founders.

Impeachment also offers a definable – and constitutionally envisioned –
response to leaders who threaten the survival of the Republic. The
Founders put the impeachment clause in the Constitution for exactly
this kind of moment.

Even if impeachment didn’t reach the ultimate goal of removing Bush and
Cheney, it would put down a marker of congressional resistance to
executive abuses.

The public would get the point, too.

The current Democratic strategy of fighting and losing legislative
battles over symbolic resolutions of disapproval or meaningless votes
of no confidence only invites the consolidation of the Bush-Cheney
vision of an all-powerful presidency.

The Democratic fecklessness also alienates the only logical allies in
the fight to save the Republic, millions of citizens alarmed at the
Bush-Cheney power grab.

In my neighborhood in Arlington, Virginia, lawn signs have sprung up
reading simply “Impeach Him” or “Impeach Them Both.” No one needs to
say who the “him” and the “them” are.

>From opinion polls, it’s clear, too, that Americans across the country
are furious with Bush and Cheney. Many recognize that Bush and Cheney
represent an unparalleled threat to core American principles, such as
the concept of inalienable rights.

These millions of Americans are searching for some courageous
politicians willing to take the lead. Instead, the people get all-night
Iraq War debates that go nowhere – and empty promises that, some day
down the road, the Democrats will finally get serious.

What these citizens want is for the Democrats to stiffen their spines
and finally declare, loudly and clearly, “Impeach the bastards.”

[Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the
Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The
Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, can be ordered at
neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise
of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras,
Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth' are also available there.]