Thread: The Logic of Impeachment

Independent Investigative Journalism Since 1995

The 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.....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Although at another forum board I have permission from Mr. Parry to post his articles in their entirety, I don't have his permission to do so here; therefore, I had to, (reluctantly), post only part of this one at this time.

It's obvious to me that impeachment of Bush and Cheney will probably never happen; and this is gravely wrong, because in not doing so, Congress is allowing the Constitution of the United States to be trampled into the ground and this country to be led into the worst injustices and atrocities the mind can conjure.

I'm at an age where death no longer frightens me; however, I fear greatly what is in store for my children and grandchildren, knowing that we could have stopped the reign of GWB and didn't.

For those here who are young adults, especially those with children, I beg of you: Please stop the madness - NOW!

MeMyselfnI

You know, I always thought that it was a bad idea. Not that he/they did not deserve impeachment, but because what would be the point? Nothing would get accomplished during the next two years and they would not really remove him from office as he would be done anyway.
But, since the Dems aren't doing anything anyway they might as well. At least that way we would see something, however meaningless it may be, getting done.

Originally Posted by metheron

You know, I always thought that it was a bad idea. Not that he/they did not deserve impeachment, but because what would be the point? Nothing would get accomplished during the next two years and they would not really remove him from office as he would be done anyway.
But, since the Dems aren't doing anything anyway they might as well. At least that way we would see something, however meaningless it may be, getting done.

As I see it, it's a "catch 22" situation - damned if we do and damned if we don't. However, the damnation is far worse for this country if we don't.

Unfortunately, nothing will be done, and we're about to see The Damnation of the United States of America, brought to you by Shrub et al and the stupid-assed congress.

(Do you think you're getting your money's worth?)

MeMyselfnI

Originally Posted by metheron

You know, I always thought that it was a bad idea. Not that he/they did not deserve impeachment, but because what would be the point? Nothing would get accomplished during the next two years and they would not really remove him from office as he would be done anyway.
But, since the Dems aren't doing anything anyway they might as well. At least that way we would see something, however meaningless it may be, getting done.

The point would be precedent. If these guys get away with governing with a total disregard for the law and greatly expand their power, then we are saying that the next president can, and the next after that.

We must make it clear that the president does not have the powers that these guys have seized and that no president does. Not under this Constitution. Not in this country. We must make it clear that no presidential administration will be allowed to operate as if the laws do not apply to them.

Even if it were the last day that they were in office,. I would want them impeached for PRECEDENT if nothing else (although there is lots else).

I thought we set precedent for a meaningless impeachment when Clinton was President? How many meaningless impeachments do we ahve to get through before these Presidents catch on? Or do we just have to even the score?

Originally Posted by metheron

I thought we set precedent for a meaningless impeachment when Clinton was President? How many meaningless impeachments do we ahve to get through before these Presidents catch on? Or do we just have to even the score?

Clinton's impeachment was not meaningless. It showed that perjury and obstruction by a president will not be tolerated in this country. It showed that presidents are not above the law. That is why I supported it even though I voted for him. The same applies here.

It is about preserving the system of checks and balances and making it clear that no president is above the law.

Please check out this thread in detail:
http://www.politicalhotwire.com/1143...alls-bush.html

Originally Posted by metheron

I thought we set precedent for a meaningless impeachment when Clinton was President? How many meaningless impeachments do we ahve to get through before these Presidents catch on? Or do we just have to even the score?

However, this wouldn't be a "meaningless" impeachment, even if all it proved is that the executive branch cannot - and must not - usurp its rights to govern this country and obliterate the constitution thereof.

MeMyselfnI

By impeaching him does not show anyone he is above the law. Clinton was impeached, how much time did he serve? What lesson did it teach Bush? It sounds good, but in reality what good did it do? Clintion seems no worse off now than any other President that hadn't been impeached and his successor is committing impeachable offenses. I call that a waste of taxpayer money.

IMO, by doing these meaningless impeachments, all we are doing is showing the next President that it isn't all that bad. If there was some teeth behind it I could support it.

Originally Posted by metheron

By impeaching him does not show anyone he is above the law. Clinton was impeached, how much time did he serve? What lesson did it teach Bush? It sounds good, but in reality what good did it do? Clintion seems no worse off now than any other President that hadn't been impeached and his successor is committing impeachable offenses. I call that a waste of taxpayer money.

IMO, they ought to BOTH impeach them AND try them in a court of law for treason against the constitution and the citizenry of the U.S.

If found guilty, they should suffer the consequences of the sentences imposed, including capital punishment.

MeMyselfnI