Movement to impeach George W. Bush
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. (August 2008) Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. |
 |
This article or section needs to be updated. Please update the article to reflect recent events / newly available information, and remove this template when finished. |
The movement to impeach George W. Bush is a series of actions and commentary within the public and private spheres voicing support for the impeachment of United States President George W. Bush. The phrase is also used in a broader sense to refer to a social movement and public opinion poll data that includes both Democrats and Republicans which indicate a degree of public support for the impeachment of President Bush. The reasons offered for Bush's impeachment include concerns about the legitimacy, legality, and constitutionality of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and the controversial warrantless electronic surveillance of American citizens by the National Security Agency.
Polls in 2007 have shown public support ranging between 39% and 45% in favor of impeaching Bush, and between 46% and 55% opposed. The House of Representatives Judiciary Committee has not considered the impeachment of President Bush, and the House of Representatives has taken no action to do so. The Democratic Party leadership has indicated that they have no intention of resolving to impeach him.
On June 9, 2008 Dennis Kucinich gave official notice of his intention to introduce 35 articles of impeachment against George W. Bush to the U.S. House of Representatives.[1] On June 10, 2008, as Congressman Robert Wexler joined Kucinich as co-sponsor of the resolution[2], Kucinich officially introduced his resolution to a near-empty House chamber. The Clerk took just under four hours to read the resolution into the record. As soon as the House Clerk finished reading the resolution in the early morning of 11 June, Kucinich himself moved to refer the resolution to the Judiciary Committee. The House voted 251 to 166 to refer the impeachment resolution to the Judiciary Committee on July 25.
[edit] Impeachment
To impeach the President of the United States, a majority of the United States House of Representatives must agree to pass a resolution that alleges the President committed "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." This impeachment resolution is also commonly called an "Article of Impeachment" and spells out in detail the charges against the President. The House of Representatives then exhibits these Articles of Impeachment to the United States Senate since the latter body has the "sole Power" to "try all impeachments."
If the U.S. Senate, by two-thirds vote, finds the President "guilty" on any Article of Impeachment, then the President is removed from office and the Senate next votes on whether or not to disqualify the ex-President from holding further office under the United States. Although already convicted by the Senate, the ex-President is still liable to indictment and trial under regular criminal statutes for any federal crimes he may have committed. If the U.S. Senate fails to reach a two-thirds majority for conviction, the President is acquitted and the trial is over.
In the House, the Judiciary Committee is the typical committee to where impeachment resolutions are referred. The Judiciary Committee has formally reported to the full House of Representatives impeachment resolutions against four Presidents: John Tyler, Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton. Of those four Presidents, only Johnson and Clinton were impeached by the House. Both were acquitted by the Senate. Nixon resigned after the Judiciary Committee recommended impeachment but before the full House considered the report. (Nixon resigned apparently after being told that his impeachment and conviction were near certainties by Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater, a conservative Senator who ran for President in 1964.)
The President's pardon power does not extend to "Cases of Impeachment", as explicitly stated in Article Two of the United States Constitution. Thus a President may not intervene in either the House impeachment or the Senate trial. Dispute exists about whether the Impeachment exception to the pardon power extends to cases brought in the regular court system after Senate conviction.
[edit] Rationales for impeachment
Proponents of impeaching Bush assert that one or more of his actions qualify as "high crimes and misdemeanors" under which the president can constitutionally be impeached.[3][4]
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[5] 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] NSA warrantless surveillance controversy
- Further information: NSA warrantless surveillance controversy, Rule of law, and Separation of powers
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 it violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which was adopted to remedy similar actions in the past (e.g. Operation Shamrock, Operation Minaret, Church Committee). They also allege that it violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution,[6] which prohibits unlawful searches and seizures of US citizens, including electronic surveillance. These allegations have been advanced by articles published in The Christian Science Monitor and The Nation.[7] In its defense, the administration has asserted that FISA does 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.[8] 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.[9]
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 opines that the key arguments advanced by the Bush administration are not compatible with the law.[10] David 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.[11][12]
Aside from these organizations, others (see below) have stated that the Bush administration's justification of the program, using its interpretation of presidential power, overthrows the Constitutional system of checks and balances and ignores other provisions of the Constitution mandating that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" and vesting Congress with the sole authority "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces" and "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." The Senate Committee voted along party lines, and decided a detailed investigation into the matter was unwarranted.[13]
Former House member Elizabeth Holtzman (who played a key role in House impeachment proceedings against Nixon), John Dean (Nixon's former counsel) and Jennifer van Bergen from FindLaw assert that by authorizing warrantless domestic wiretapping, President Bush violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act without legal basis, constituting a felony and as such an impeachable offense.[14][15][16]
On August 17, 2006, the case, ACLU v. NSA, in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan ruled that the Bush administration’s program to monitor the phone calls and e-mails of Americans without warrants was unconstitutional and must be stopped.[17] 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.[18]
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.[19] Some civil liberties groups opposed the bill commenting that the new bill gives the president tacit approval to ignore the Constitution.[19]
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.[20]
[edit] 2003 invasion of Iraq
- Further information: 2003 invasion of Iraq
[edit] Constitutionality of invasion
- Further information: United States Constitution
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,[21] 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.[22] 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."[23]
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."[24]
Francis Boyle, a professor of international law at the University of Illinois also uses this argument as reason in his Draft Impeachment Resolution.[25]
[edit] Justification for invasion
- Further information: Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, Downing Street memo, Bush-Blair memo, Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and Bush-Aznar memo
Furthermore, the arguments put forward for the invasion of Iraq[26] — 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.[27][28] 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."[29]
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,[30] 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.[31]
Supporters of impeachment argue that the administration knowingly distorted intelligence reports or ignored contrary information in constructing their case for the war.[32][33] The Downing Street memo and the Bush-Blair memo are used to substantiate that allegation.[34] Congressional Democrats sponsored both a request for documents and a resolution of inquiry.[35] 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."[36]
[edit] U.N. Charter
- Further information: UN Charter, War of aggression, Jus ad bellum, and Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq
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.[3][25][15][37] 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.[25][38]
[edit] Geneva Conventions controversy
[edit] Unlawful combatant status
- Further information: Unlawful combatant, Combatant Status Review Tribunal, and Seton Hall study
Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Bush administration advocated that suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban members would be designated as "unlawful combatants". They suggested that, as such, they were not protected under the Geneva Conventions. To address the mandatory review by a "competent tribunal" as defined by article five of the Third Geneva Convention, Combatant Status Review Tribunals were established. The American Bar Association, Human Rights Watch, the Council on Foreign Relations and Joanne Mariner from FindLaw have dismissed the use of the unlawful combatant status as not compatible with U.S. and international law.[39] In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court held that Common Article 3 (CA3) of the Geneva Conventions applies to detainees in the Global War on Terrorism.
Congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to provide a legal framework for the designation of "unlawful combatants", their detention, and trial through military commission. This was described as unconstitutional by several Senators during the floor debates, so it has not changed the views of those advocating impeachment on these grounds.
[edit] Extraordinary rendition
- Further information: Extraordinary rendition by the United States and United Nations Convention Against Torture
The CIA has "rendered" suspected terrorists, such as Maher Arar, to other countries. Critics accuse them of doing this in order to avoid U.S. laws prescribing due process and prohibiting torture, calling this "torture by proxy" and "torture flights".[40] Then-U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales explicitly testified to Congress that the administration's position was to extradite detainees to other nations as long as it was not "more likely than not" that they would be tortured, although he later modified that statement.[41] However, the Convention against torture states:
- No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
Commentators, including the United Nations and Louise Arbour, have stated that, under international law, rendition as practiced by the U.S. government is illegal.[3][42] Conyers has called for investigating whether these violations of international and US law constitute an impeachable offense,[3] whereas Boyle thinks it does, and included this in his Draft Impeachment Resolution.[25]
A report on May 19, 2006, by the United Nations Convention Against Torture concluded that the US should not send suspects to countries where they face a risk of torture, since that would violate international law.[43]
[edit] Treatment of detainees
- Further information: Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, Bagram torture and prisoner abuse, United Nations Convention Against Torture, Geneva Conventions, and Command responsibility
As part of the war on terrorism, several memos[44] were written analyzing the legal position and possibilities in the treatment of prisoners. The memos, known today as the "torture memos," advocate enhanced interrogation techniques, but point out that refuting the Geneva Conventions would reduce the possibility of prosecution for war crimes.[45] 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.[46]
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.[47]
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."[48]
The administration adopted the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 to address the multitude of 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.[49]
Over the years numerous incidents have been made public and a UN report denounced the abuse of prisoners as tantamount to torture.[50] 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.[3][25][14][15][51] An article in the Progressive supports the view that these alleged violations of US and international law could be an impeachable offense too.[15]
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[25] under the command responsibility.[3][52] 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.[53] Dave Lindorff contends that by ignoring the Geneva Conventions the Bush administration — including Bush himself, as Commander-in-Chief — is culpable for war crimes, and as such that constitutes an impeachable offense.[54]
On May 19, 2006, the United Nations Convention against Torture issued a report stating the U.S. should stop, what it concludes, is "ill-treatment" of detainees, since such treatment, according to the report, violates 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.[43]
Reviewing the book The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned Into a War on American Ideals, by Jane Mayer, The New York Times reported on July 11, 2008, that:
Red Cross investigators concluded last year in a secret report that the Central Intelligence Agency’s interrogation methods for high-level Qaeda prisoners constituted torture and could make the Bush administration officials who approved them guilty of war crimes .....[55]
and that the techniques applied to Abu Zubaydah
[edit] Commutation of Lewis Libby
- Further information: Niger uranium forgeries and Plame affair
Lewis "Scooter" Libby, convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice in connection to the investigation of the leak of the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame, was sentenced to 30 months in prison and a fine of $250,000, which he paid with $400 in additional fees.[56] While Libby's appeal in United States v. Libby was still pending, the presiding judge, Reggie Walton, denied his request for a stay and ordered Libby to begin his prison sentence.[57][58] Following that decision, Bush commuted Libby's sentence, eliminating the prison term on the basis that the sentence was too harsh and would have lasting effects on Libby's career.[59][60]
In response, representative Robert Wexler (D-FL) stated he would file a resolution censuring President George W. Bush for the "egregious and politically motivated commutation of Scooter Libby's prison sentence."[61] Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., Marjorie Cohn, and Elizabeth de la Vega suggested it to be an impeachable offense.[62][63][64] According to Dan Froomkin the President was within his prerogative, but that when commutation was used in matters in which the president himself may be involved, impeachment was warranted.[65]
[edit] Alleged declassification for political purposes
- Further information: Invasion of Iraq, Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, Downing Street memo, Bush-Blair memo, Yellowcake forgery, Plame affair, and CIA leak grand jury investigation
On April 6, 2006, court papers were filed in the CIA leak grand jury investigation, stating that Libby had testified that Bush authorized the disclosure of select portions of the then classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq.[32][66] The position of the Bush administration is that a Presidentially authorized release of material, even if it does not go through the formal declassification procedure, is not a "leak", because Presidents are authorized to de-classify material and the release of de-classified material is not leaking.[32][67] This contradicts previous statements by Bush in which he made clear that leaking classified information is unacceptable.[32][68] According to the court filings by Fitzgerald:
- “Defendant (Libby) testified that this July 8 meeting was the only time he recalled in his government experience when he disclosed a document to a reporter that was effectively declassified by virtue of the President’s authorization that it be declassified.”[69]
Elizabeth de la Vega, Ray McGovern and Greg Mitchell have noted that the Bush Administration's asserted motivation — that this declassification was needed to counter misinformation spread by opponents of the Bush administration's casus belli — is odd, since only an obscure part of the NIE, which supports the claims advanced by the US government, has been released, while the rest of the report, in which the CIA in 2002 allegedly dismissed that claim as unlikely, is still classified.[30][69][70] Bush's misrepresentations on this point and his allegedly declassifying of information for a political purpose, is seen by some as an impeachable offense.[70][71]