Movement to impeach George W. Bush

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The movement to impeach George W. Bush refers to actions and commentary within the public and private spheres tending towards 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 include both Democrats and Republicans which indicate a degree of public support for the impeachment of President Bush.

The reasons offered for Bush's impeachment vary, such as questions about the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy. Those who have voiced support for impeachment include some members of the United States Congress, public opinion polls and demonstrations, various other politicians and government officials, scholars, authors, organizations and members of the media. The political affiliation of those calling for impeachment is predominantly, though not exclusively from the political left.

The House Judiciary Committee has not considered the impeachment of President Bush and the House of Representatives has taken no action to do so.

Contents 1 Background 2 Political views and actions 2.1 Legislators 2.1.1 Speaker Pelosi 2.1.2 Representative Conyers 2.1.3 Senator Boxer 2.1.4 Representative Lewis 2.1.5 Representative Nadler 2.1.6 Representative Ellison 2.1.7 Cynthia McKinney 2.2 State Legislatures 2.2.1 Vermont 2.2.2 Illinois state legislature 2.2.3 California 2.2.4 Minnesota 2.2.5 New Mexico 2.2.6 Washington 2.3 Local Communities 3 Reported White House reaction 4 Public opinion 4.1 Polling results 4.1.1 2005 4.1.2 2006 4.1.3 Media response to polls 4.2 Rallies and marches 4.3 Groups formed to support impeachment 5 Advocates of impeachment 5.1 Organizations 5.2 Politicians and government officials 5.3 Viewpoints of some legal and academic professionals 5.4 Authors 5.5 Musicians 5.6 Media editorials and opinion pieces 6 Rationales for impeachment 6.1 NSA warrantless surveillance controversy 6.2 2003 invasion of Iraq 6.2.1 Constitutionality of invasion 6.2.2 Justification for invasion 6.2.3 U.N. Charter 6.3 Geneva Conventions controversy 6.3.1 Unlawful combatant status 6.3.2 Extraordinary rendition 6.3.3 Treatment of detainees 6.4 Leaking of classified information 6.4.1 Possible involvement in the CIA leak 6.4.2 Declassifying for political purposes 6.5 Hurricane Katrina 6.6 Abuse of power 7 Movement in the 110th Congress 8 See also 9 References 10 Further reading 11 External links

[edit] Background

For a President to be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors", formal charges known as "Articles of Impeachment", which state the allegations, are introduced at the House of Representatives where they may be debated and, if consensus for a vote is reached, voted upon. If any of the articles are approved by a simple majority, then the President is considered "impeached" and would then be tried by the United States Senate to determine his guilt or innocence. If a President is found guilty by two thirds of the Senate on any charge, the Constitution states that he must be removed from office and replaced by the Vice President. In the case of President Bush, if he were successfully removed from office, Vice President Richard Cheney would be immediately sworn in as President.

There have been nine formal attempts to impeach a United States President. Four of these resulted in articles being referred to the House of Representatives: John Tyler, Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. Of these four, only two were actually impeached by the House: Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. Richard Nixon resigned the Presidency before the full House could actually vote. However, his impeachment and conviction was virtually certain in the face of the Watergate scandal. Both Presidents Johnson and Clinton were acquitted by the Senate following their subsequent trials. In addition there have been numerous impeachment movements of various sizes directed at visible members of the government, most notably the movement to impeach then Chief Justice Earl Warren.

By Article II of the U.S. Constitution, the President "shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. [emphasis added]." So even when there is no chance of conviction in the Senate, if follow-on prosecution in the courts is likely, there is strong reason for a president to resign before getting impeached. Richard Nixon, for example, resigned while he was still pardonable and was pardoned one month later by his presidential successor, Gerald Ford.

[edit] Political views and actions

[edit] Legislators

[edit] Speaker Pelosi

In statements she made to the Washington Post in early 2006, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had initially left open the possibility that if Democrats took over the House after the November 2006 election, their planned investigations into the Bush administration could lead to impeachment. Although impeachment would not be the goal of the investigations, she said, "You never know where it leads to." In May 2006, the Washington Post reported that Pelosi was not interested in pursuing impeachment and had taken it "off the table". The story cited political calculations as the reason for the Democratic Party's impeachment decisions. "Some Democratic activists criticized Pelosi" for leaving open the possibility of impeachment, the Post reported, "saying she made the party appear extreme while drawing attention away from more useful issues such as gasoline prices and Republican lobbying scandals."^[1]

After the win by the Democratic party in the November 2006 mid-term elections, when Pelosi became the speaker-elect, she stated that any effort to impeach the president is "off the table".^[2]

[edit] Representative Conyers

In May 2005, Congressman John Conyers (D-MI) began collecting signatures on a letter to Bush requesting answers to the questions raised by the Downing Street Memo. Conyers delivered a letter with over 540,000 signatures to the President on June 16, 2005.

That same day, Conyers assembled an unofficial meeting to receive evidence related to the Downing Street memo and to consider grounds for impeachment. Dozens of Members of Congress attended. Witnesses included Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, constitutional attorney John Bonifaz, and CIA analyst Ray McGovern.^[3]

On December 20, 2005, the House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff, at Conyers' request, filed its 273-page report, The Constitution in Crisis; The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Coverups in the Iraq War. The report included copies of house resolutions to establish a bi-partisan Select Committee in the House (H.Res. 635); to censure the President (H.Res.636); and to censure the Vice President (H.Res. 637).

Regarding this report, Conyers contended that it finds "substantial evidence" that Bush, et al, "misstated and manipulated intelligence information" regarding the Iraq War. Conyers also makes other allegations on his blog.

Conyers filed legislation on December 18, 2005, where it was referred to the House Committee on Rules. According to the Library of Congress' legislative information site, as of November 14, 2006 there were 38 co-sponsors of H. Res. 635, "Creating a select committee to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment."^[4]

As of May 18, 2006, according to the Washington Post, Conyers's current position regarding impeachment of the president is "...rather than seeking impeachment, I have chosen to propose comprehensive oversight of these alleged abuses."^[5]

[edit] Senator Boxer

On December 19, 2005 Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) issued a press release,^[6] saying that she had written four undisclosed legal scholars, asking if there were grounds for impeachment. In the press release, she cited the December 16, 2005 New York Times disclosure of Bush's authorization of the National Security Agency to monitor Americans without warrants and Nixon counsel John Dean's comments on December 18, 2005 as support for what she thought constituted an impeachable offense. However, in a December 20, 2005 CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer, Boxer stated she was not ready to call for Bush's impeachment.

[edit] Representative Lewis

An Associated Press report on December 20, 2005 said that Representative John Lewis (D-GA) told an interviewer at WAOK-AM News radio that the President should be impeached for authorizing the NSA's actions.^[7] A news release, dated December 19, 2005 posted on John Lewis' official United States House of Representatives website stated:

"In my opinion, the President has violated the law, and the House and Senate must pursue their inquiries into this illegal program. The President must stop using the threat of terrorism and the tactics of fear to invade the privacy of American citizens. George W. Bush is the president. He is not a king. He is not above the law...There is no question that the U.S. Congress has impeached presidents for lesser offenses."^[8]

[edit] Representative Nadler

On January 21, 2006 the Detroit Free Press reported in a story, "Call is Out to Impeach Bush," that the previous day, at an unofficial hearing of Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee called by Conyers, Scott and Van Hollen, Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), called for the committee to explore whether Bush should face impeachment for alleged high crimes and misdemeanors stemming from his decision to authorize domestic surveillance without court review. The proceedings had no legal authority, as committee chairman, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, (R-WI), rejected Democrats' requests for an inquiry. Nadler is a senior Democrat on the committee's panel on the Constitution.^[9]

[edit] Representative Ellison

Keith Ellison as a representative for Minnesota’s District 58B was the leading figure behind the resolution to impeach President Bush brought to the Minnesota State House of Representatives in May 2006 (see below). Speaking to reporters about the resolution Ellison said “I absolutely know and can show that (the president) deserves it; he deserves to be impeached. I don’t disrespect Mr. Bush … I’d like to see him live very comfortably on his ranch, ride some horses, cut some brush. If he got impeached it would allow him more leisure time, which he appears to like quite a bit.”^[10]

Ellison later announced he would run for the open seat in the US House of Representatives. At the 32nd anniversary of President Richard Nixon's resignation in August 2006, Ellison again called for an investigation towards Bush impeachment, citing “imperial excesses” and an improper expansion of executive authority. Ellsion said "I think it's important we have to develop the body of evidence.^[11] During a rally in October 2006, at Minneapolis’ Loring Park, he repeated his call for the impeachment of President George W. Bush. According to the Minneapolis Star and Tribune, Ellison said “Bush ‘has been running amok’ and needs to be reined in: ‘There is one way that you can truly hold this president accountable, and it's impeachment. …[and it is time to] send the message to this Bush character that we're not going to have it anymore.’ He said that impeachment ‘would be a major undertaking and it would dominate the headlines for a long time’ but that it was the right course.”^[12] In support of his candidacy, he “received a $1,000 contribution from ImpeachPAC”.^[12]

In November 2006 Ellison won his election to Congress, and in December “Ellison's appointment to the Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over impeachment, ...brought applause from the president's fiercest critics.”^[12] Ellison told reporters that he’s “a step before impeachment”, saying that “he's backing proposals to fully investigate Bush and that ‘a little more homework needs to be done’ before Congress can move to impeach. ‘I'm a lawyer, you know. I don't think due process is just for some people, it's for all people, including the president.’ …Ellison said Congress must take its time. ‘These things are fluid," he said. "You know, these things have to take shape. ... The bottom line is we're going to have to let this thing run its proper and due course.’”^[12] Ellison said that his main focus in early 2007 is to learn the ropes of Congress and promote a broad range of human and civil rights issues. He also said, “My opinions really have not changed over time, but the circumstances that I'm in have.”^[12] ImpeachPAC’s spokesman acknowledged that as a freshman Ellison had much on his plate, but said “he'll be ‘extremely disappointed’ if Ellison has done nothing after a month or two.”^[12]

Ellison’s Republican counterpart from Minnesota, Rep. John Kline, said “Ellison's views won't matter because House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has already said impeachment is ‘off the table.’ In all fairness to the gentleman from Minneapolis, he is a freshman member. I understand that he was endorsed by ImpeachPAC and supported financially. ... He probably feels that he made a commitment and he's got to make some noise, but so what?”^[12]

[edit] Cynthia McKinney

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 Cheney, and Secretary of State Rice. The bill expired along with the 109th Congress.^[13]

[edit] State Legislatures

[edit] Vermont

Certain Vermont leaders, as per guidelines from "Jefferson's Manual", a supplement to U.S. House of Representatives rules are attempting to initiate a Bush impeachment. Its section on impeachment specifically allows a state legislature to transmit charges to initiate impeachment proceedings.^[14] The state Democratic committee called a special meeting for April 8, 2006, to decide whether to pursue this possibility. Gaye Symington, a Democrat, and Speaker of the Vermont House of Representatives, which would have to act on any such resolution, has said that the state legislature should keep its attention focused on matters concerning the state of Vermont.^[15]

Twelve Vermont state representatives (Democrats, Progressives, 1 Independent) endorsed a resolution to ask Congress to impeach President George W. Bush and to investigate alleged "high crimes and misdemeanors" in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

The resolution was introduced by Rep. David Zuckerman, P-Burlington, on Tuesday, 25 April 2006.^[16] The bill has expired without action.

[edit] Illinois state legislature

On April 20, 2006, the Illinois state legislature, citing the same rule used by Vermont Democrats (Section 603 of Jefferson's Manual of the Rules of the United States House of Representatives), began to consider Resolution 125 (HJR0125), which brought five specific charges against President Bush.

A synopsis of the bill "urges the General Assembly to submit charges to the U. S. House of Representatives to initiate impeachment proceedings against the President of the United States, George W. Bush, for willfully violating his Oath of Office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and if found guilty urges his removal from office and disqualification to hold any other office in the United States."^[17]

Among the charges in HJR0125 is that "President Bush authorized violation of the Torture Convention of the Geneva Conventions, a treaty regarded a supreme law by the United States Constitution". In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the US Supreme Court ruled that the Geneva Conventions apply to detainees in the Global War on Terror. Per the War Crimes Act of 1996, "[Any US national who] commits a war crime [including any 'grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party'] ... if the victim dies, shall ... be subject to the penalty of death."

On April 25, 2006 over a dozen members of the Illinois house co-sponsored the bill, and referred it to the Rules Committee.

[edit] California

In April 2006, it was reported that California became the second state in which a proposal to impeach President Bush has been introduced in the state legislature. The resolution "bases the call for impeachment upon the Bush Administration intentionally misleading the Congress and the American people regarding the threat from Iraq in order to justify an unnecessary war that has cost billions of dollars and thousands of lives and casualties; exceeding constitutional authority to wage war by invading Iraq; exceeding constitutional authority by Federalizing the National Guard; conspiring to torture prisoners in violation of the Federal Torture Act and indicating intent to continue such actions; spying on American citizens in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978; leaking and covering up the leak of the identity of Valerie Plame Wilson, and holding American citizens without charge or trial."^[18]

On November 7, 2006, voters in San Francisco and Berkeley approved ballot measures calling for Bush and Cheney's impeachment. In San Francisco, Proposition J passed with 59% approval;^[19] Berkeley's Ballot Measure H passed with 69% approval.^[20][21] Both measures call upon the California State Legislature and both houses of Congress to pursue impeachment proceedings and reference "High Crimes and Misdemeanors", abuse of executive powers, and violation of constitutional rights through electronic surveillance and detainment.^[22]

[edit] Minnesota

On May 4, 2006, then-member of the Minnesota state House of Representative Keith Ellison (DFL-Minneapolis) was joined by fellow members Bill Hilty (DFL-Finlayson), Karen Clark (DFL-Minneapolis), Neva Walker (DFL-Minneapolis) and Carlos Mariani (DFL-St. Paul) in putting forward a "resolution relating to impeachment of President George W. Bush".^[23] The resolution cited Jefferson's Manual of the Rules and listed several charges against President George W. Bush, "Whereas, President George W. Bush has publicly admitted to ordering the National Security Agency to violate provisions of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a felony, specifically authorizing the agency to spy on American citizens without warrant ... evidence suggests that President Bush authorized violation of the Torture Convention of the Geneva Conventions, a treaty regarded as supreme law by the United States Constitution...the Bush Administration has held American citizens and citizens of other nations as prisoners of war without charge or trial...manipulated intelligence for the purpose of initiating a war against the sovereign nation of Iraq, resulting in the deaths of large numbers of Iraqi civilians and causing the United States to incur loss of life, diminished security, and billions of dollars in unnecessary expenses ... the Bush Administration leaked classified national secrets to further a political agenda, exposing an unknown number of covert United States intelligence agents to potential harm and retribution while simultaneously refusing to investigate the matter".^[24] The resolution also noted the inaction of the 108th & 109th US Congresses "whereas, the Republican-controlled Congress has declined to fully investigate these charges to date; Now, therefore, Be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Minnesota that it is the sense of the House that the Legislature of the State of Minnesota has good cause to submit charges to the United States House of Representatives under Section 603 that the President of the United States has willfully violated his oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."^[24] The resolution was referred to the Committee on Rules and Legislative Administration.^[23]

[edit] New Mexico

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.” While the issue was not originally on the schedule it was brought up by Robb Chaves of Bernalillo County and passed with a vote of more than two-thirds of the 1,200 delegates. State party chairman, John Wertheim said that 80% of delegates voted for the resolution convinced that the Bush administration is "fraught with abuses of power and violations of the Constitution." He said "There was not a single person to speak in opposition.” The domestic wiretapping of the National Security Agency, the “misstatements” the President used about the threat posed by Iraq, and the charges against Scooter Libby were presented as among the reasons for support of the resolution.^[25]

On January 23, 2007 Democratic State Senators John Grubesic of Santa Fe and Gerald Ortiz y Pino of Albuquerque, introduced a resolution to the New Mexico Legislature in “a serious effort to try to trigger impeachment proceedings.”^[26] Pino told supporters “This is not a publicity stunt. This is action that we can take, and it's an opening for the citizens to act. …Everything we do in this legislative session is being done under the shadow of policies at the national level that are taking away from human needs and converting it to warfare, paranoia and oppression. We simply cannot carry out the business of the Legislature with that shadow, that pall, hanging over us…we created a ripple. Your voice is going to turn it into a tidal wave, hopefully.”^[26][27] State Senator Grubesic, the other co-author, said “I'm an American who believes that allowing real soldiers to die in their Hummers in Iraq so rich Americans can drive their Hummers here and play soldier is wrong.”^[27] To move forward the resolution must be voted for by March 17, 2007.^[26]

The resolution accused Bush of “misleading congress and the public regarding the threat from Iraq in order to justify a war in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 371…ordering the national security agency to conduct electronic surveillance of American civilians without seeking warrants…in violation of Title 50 United States Code, Section 1805…[and he] conspired to commit the torture of prisoners in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Chapter 113C.” The resolution also held that the President’s policies around the term “enemy combatant” were actually an assault on Constitutional guaranteed rights.^[28]

The Democrats held both chambers of New Mexico’s Legislature, but the resolution has been set to come before three different committee hearings. The New Mexican reported “That many committee assignments generally is thought of as the kiss of death for legislation. Not only are there three chances to kill a measure before it gets to a floor vote, it also increases the chance that time will run out in the 60-day session before a measure can make it through both chambers.”^[27] Republican members told reporters that the were not taking the resolution seriously and cited the number of committee hearings as one of the reasons for their opinion.^[27] US Rep. Tom Udall (D-NM) said he would be closely watching the progress of the resolution as “These legislators speak for many of my constituents.”^[27]

[edit] Washington

Washington state senator Eric Oemig introduced Senate Joint Memorial 8016 in February 2007 calling on Congress to investigate and consider the impeachment of President Bush.^[29]

At a March 2, 2007 hearing in front of the Washington State Senate Governmental Operations Committee, Salt Lake City mayor Rocky Anderson called for Bush's impeachment saying:^[30]

"Never before has there been such a compelling case for impeachment and removal from office of the president of the United States for heinous human rights violations, breaches of trust, abuses of power injurious to the nation, war crimes, misleading Congress and the American people about threats to our nation’s security and the supposed case for war, and grave violations of treaties, the Constitution, and domestic statutory law."

[edit] Local Communities

On 6 March 2007 a total of 39 towns in Vermont (up from just 5 towns in 2006) passed resolutions calling on the U.S. Congress to file articles of impeachment against President Bush for misleading the nation on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and for engaging in illegal wiretapping, and other charges. The date was Vermont's annual town meeting day — a colonial era tradition where citizens debate current issues. Vermont's US Congressional delegation has not shown any serious interest in the idea, and is not required to act on town resolutions, however Senator Peter Shumlin, the President Pro Tempore of the Vermont State Senate has expressed strong support. Early in the session Joint Resolution, JRH 15, was submitted in the Vermont House. It has many cosponsors, but is lodged in the House Judiciary Committee. The Speaker of the Vermont House, Congresswoman Gaye Symington, has stated that there is not time in the current session to debate or vote on the resolution.

On 24 March 2007, the Vermont Democratic State Committee voted overwhelmingly to support JRH 15, calling for its passage as "appropriate action" by the Vermont legislature. ^{[31] [32] [33]}

[edit] Reported White House reaction

The January 23-29 2006 issue of Insight on the News, self-described as "a sister publication" of the Washington Times, included an article, "Impeachment hearings: The White House prepares for the worst." This article said administration sources regard Senate Judiciary Committee hearings into the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy as "a prelude to the impeachment process." The article quotes an anonymous source as saying, "Our arithmetic shows that a majority of the committee could vote against the president. If we work hard, there could be a tie." An anonymous source also criticized Congress, saying, "We will tell the American people that while we have done everything we can to protect them, our policies are being endangered by a hypocritical Congress."^[34]

[edit] Public opinion

[edit] Polling results

[edit] 2005

In October 2005, a left-wing anti Iraq war organization, After Downing Street, commissioned a poll by the independent Ipsos Public Affairs Research,^[35] which found that by a margin of 50% to 44% Americans say that President Bush should be impeached if he lied about the war in Iraq. 39% strongly agreed and 30% strongly disagreed with the statement, "If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him." 72% of Democrats favored impeachment, compared to 56% of Independents and 20% of Republicans.^[36]

A Zogby International poll from October 29 to November 2, 2005 found that by a margin of 53% to 42% (+/-2.9%) Americans say that "If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment." This was supported by 76% of Democrats, 50% of Independents, and 29% of Republicans. A November 2, 2005 Washington Post-ABC News poll found 55% of Americans believe the Bush administration "intentionally misled the public" in making its case for war.^[37]

On December 15, 2005, Rasmussen Reports released a poll that showed that 32% of the 1,000 Americans polled would support an impeachment of Bush and 35% would support an impeachment of Cheney.^[38] This survey was also commissioned by After Downing Street.

[edit] 2006

A March 16, 2006 poll by American Research Group showed that 42% of American adults favored impeaching Bush and 49% oppose this.^[39]

A May 22, 2006 poll conducted by Fox News asked if it would be right or wrong for Democrats to impeach Bush over the Iraq war and weapons of mass destruction came back with 30% of the respondents saying it would be right and 62% saying it would be wrong to impeach Bush that way.^[40]

A September 2, 2006 poll conducted by CNN/Opinion Research Corp. asked whether Bush should be impeached (in addition to other questions). Out of the 1,004 adults who were asked, 69% said Bush should not be impeached or removed from office, with 30% saying he should be impeached or removed from office. One percent had no opinion.^[41] This support for impeachment was similar to the 29% who favored impeachment for Clinton during the height of the Lewinsky imbroglio.^[42]

An October 2006 Newsweek poll found 51% of Americans supported impeachment of President Bush with 44% opposed. 28% felt that impeachment should be a "top priority", while 23% gave it a "lower priority".^[43]

[edit] Media response to polls

The major media have largely ignored these opinion polls and protests. However, several columnists have endorsed impeachment. Eleanor Clift on The McLaughlin Group predicted on 6 November 2005 that "if the country, according to the polls, believes by a margin of 55 percent that President Bush misled us into war, the next logical step is impeachment and I think you’re going to hear that word come up and if the Democrats ever capture either house of Congress there are going to be serious proceedings against this administration."^[44]

When the Washington Post's chief pollster Richard Morin was asked by readers why the Post has not polled on impeachment he responded, "This question makes me angry." According to Media Matters for America, the Washington Post asked about impeachment in a poll conducted a few days after the revelation of President Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky in 1998. Frank Newport, the director of the Gallup Poll has said he would only run a poll on the subject if it starts to gain mainstream attention and not until then.^[45]

[edit] Rallies and marches

An anti-Iraq war protest march in Washington, DC on 24 September 2005 attracted over 100,000 people. The march among other things included calls for impeachment and for investigations leading to impeachment.^[46]

On November 2, 2005, The World Can't Wait mobilized marches across the country that called for the ousting of Bush. News reports cited thousands of protesters in each of New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco and 500 in each of Washington, DC, Chicago, Atlanta and Seattle.^{[47][48][49][50][51]}

Rep. Maxine Waters founded the Out of Iraq Caucus in the House of Representatives. It has 66 members (as of August 31, 2005). An Out of Iraq event hosted by Rep. Waters in Inglewood, California, attracted 1200 supporters who loudly chanted "Impeach Bush" in response to a speaker explaining high crimes and misdemeanors.

On January 6, 2007, over 1000 people gathered in Nancy Pelosi's district, on Ocean Beach in San Francisco, to spell out the message "IMPEACH!".[6]

[edit] Groups formed to support impeachment

Numerous groups have been created to support impeachment. The ImpeachBush.org website claims to have collected over 850,000 signatures (as of February 19, 2007) on a petition to impeach Bush. None are known to have been created to oppose it (as MoveOn had been created to oppose the impeachment of Clinton).

On December 20, 2005, The AfterDowningStreet.org website mounted an effort^[52] to support Representative Conyers' legislation to censure Bush and Cheney and to investigate the administration's lead-up to the Iraq war, in possible preparation to impeachment.

Constitution Summer[7], a nonpartisan coalition of students and young people at law schools and universities nationwide, helped the cities of Berkeley and San Francisco put impeachment on their municipal ballots, and are working to help other cities pass city council resolutions.

[edit] Advocates of impeachment

[edit] Organizations

• Impeach For Peace.org advocates "do-it-yourself" impeachment initiation by U.S. citizens, citing the procedural rules of the House of Representatives that allow for individual citizens to submit a motion requesting an impeachment investigation.^[53][54] Impeach For Peace.org leverages historical precedent regarding the successful impeachment by the House (but no conviction in the Senate) of Federal Judge James H. Peck in 1830.^[55][56] This impeachment investigation was initiated by a memorial submitted by a private citizen. Impeach For Peace.org used the language of this original memorial to create print-able PDFs so private citizens may submit to the House their own memorial requesting an investigation of George W. Bush. Their hope is to have so many private citizens request an impeachment investigation that the House cannot ignore the requests.

• Even before Bush took office, on December 13, 2000, the ImpeachBush.tv[8] organization was formed with the idea that President Bush could possibly commit impeachable offenses once in office. After Bush took office, the website provides a summary of charges related to the Iraq war, wiretapping, torture, etc. Working with AfterDowningStreet and others, they conducted research into Section 603 of the Jefferson Manual and posted the results as a resource for activists working to pass local impeachment resolutions.

• On June 27, 2006, the Berkeley City Council voted unanimously to place Articles of Impeachment on the municipal ballot. The ballot initiative was based on the Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush by the Center for Constitutional Rights. It was drafted by the Berkeley Peace and Justice Commission, and was lobbied for by Constitution Summer. On November 7, 2006, the measure passed with a 68.9% majority. A similar impeachment measure passed in San Francisco with a 59.4% majority.

• On August 8, 2006, the 32nd anniversary of President Richard Nixon's resignation, Constitution Summer announced that the San Francisco Supervisors Chris Daly, Ross Mirkarimi, Tom Ammiano, and Jake McGoldrick had placed Articles of Impeachment on the San Francisco municipal ballot. Like the Berkeley Impeachment Initiative, the San Francisco initiative was based on the Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush by the Center for Constitutional Rights, and was drafted with help from Constitution Summer.

• The National Lawyer's Guild drafted an impeachment resolution [9].

• On March 1, 2006, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a resolution 7-3 calling on the congressional delegates representing California to impeach George W. Bush. The mayor of the city has said he does not know whether he will sign it, and in either case, it will remain a low priority for him even if he does.

• The Green Party National Committee passed a resolution calling for impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney at its national meeting on July 21, 2003, citing a "pattern of making false statements to Congress, the American people, and the world to win support for actions by the American government and military forces", "squandering the resources of the American people to serve the interests of transnational corporations"; and war crimes, including the use of depleted uranium and cluster bombs in the preemptive invasion of Iraq."^[57] This was the first known call for impeachment by a mass membership organization.

• At the most recent state convention, the Democratic Party of Wisconsin cited the Downing Street Memo in calling for the Impeachment of George Bush, Richard Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.^[58]

• On July 9, 2006, the Wisconsin Green Party and the Libertarian Party of Wisconsin called for impeachment of George W. Bush.^[59]

• AfterDowningStreet, an organization begun by liberal activists Bob Fertik and David Swanson and constitutional attorney John Bonifaz, advocates a congressional Resolution of Inquiry into evidence related to what has become known as the Downing Street memo, involving the Bush administration's military operations in Iraq. Such a resolution would be the first step toward a possible impeachment.^[60]

• Impeach Central is dedicated to the impeachment of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for violating the laws of the United States. While the group says the Bush administration has violated the Constitution on numerous occasions, the group is focusing on what it sees as the lies they told the American people and Congress which led the country into the Iraq War.^[61]

• Veterans for Peace has called for the impeachment of George Bush.^[62]

• The liberal group Gold Star Families for Peace sent a bus to Crawford, Texas, emblazoned with the words "Impeachment Tour" in August 2005. The group is seeking to hold the president accountable for his actions in 2003 invasion of Iraq.

• On June 4, 2006, the board of governors of the American Bar Association voted unanimously to investigate whether or not Bush has exceeded his constitutional authority by using signing statements to signify he does not agree with over 800 laws that have been passed since he took office.^[63]

[edit] Politicians and government officials

• Ralph Nader's 2004 presidential campaign also promoted the cause of a Bush impeachment on grounds of alleged unconstitutionality of the Iraq War and five alleged deceptions by the Bush Administration.^[64] Nader also wrote an op-ed, (with Kevin Zeese, director of DemocracyRising.us) favoring impeachment in the May 31, 2005 Boston Globe.^[65]

• Elizabeth Holtzman, former Congresswoman who served on the House Judiciary Committee that voted to impeach Richard Nixon, advocates impeaching Bush in her 2006 book, coauthored with Cynthia L. Cooper, The Impeachment of George W. Bush^[66] and in numerous articles^[67] and public appearances.

• Pat Buchanan, in his syndicated column, called for a bill of impeachment "charging George W. Bush with a conscious refusal to uphold his oath and defend the states of the Union against 'invasion'"^[68] in regards to issues with illegal immigration.

• Dennis Morrisseau, a candidate for the Vermont House of Representatives seat has said he will campaign for impeachment against George W. Bush. Although Morrisseau is campaigning for the Republican nomination, he has previously run for public office only as a Democrat, and says he voted for John Kerry for president in 2004.^[69]

• Paul Craig Roberts, former assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration stated, "The Bush administration is insane. If the American people do not decapitate it by demanding Bush’s impeachment, the Bush administration will bring about Armageddon."^[70] In 2007, he urged to Impeach Bush to Stop an invasion of Iran.^[71]

• Former Clinton Administration Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury J. Bradford DeLong has called for Bush's impeachment.^[72]

• ↑ On March 7, 2006, Vermont town meetings in Brookfield, Dummerston, Marlboro, Newfane and Putney called for impeachment of the president, and instructed Representative Bernie Sanders to pursue this end. Five Vermont towns endorse move to impeach the president After initially labelling the request as "impractical", Sanders added his name to Conyers' impeachment investigation bill.

[edit] Viewpoints of some legal and academic professionals

• John Dean, former White House Counsel to President Richard Nixon, and convicted to serve four months for of obstruction of justice during the Watergate scandal, although his testimony contributed to President Nixon's downfall,^[73] was an early advocate of a Bush impeachment, believing that President Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction in order to get the United States into a war with Iraq and that this is an impeachable crime.^[74] In a talk before Writers Bloc in Beverly Hills, CA on December 18, 2005, Dean "remarked that Bush is the first President to ever willingly admit to an impeachable offense." (referring to the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy)^[75]
• Ramsey Clark, United States Attorney General under Lyndon Johnson, and lawyer for Saddam Hussein, has set up a website, VoteToImpeach, in which he lists some of the reasons he believes Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney should be impeached and had included ex-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

• Constitutional Law Professor Francis Boyle has written six draft articles of impeachment against Bush.^[76]

• Scholars Bruce Fein (constitutional scholar and former deputy attorney general in the Reagan Administration) and Norm Ornstein (scholar at the American Enterprise Institute) argued on the December 19, 2005 Diane Rehm show^[77] that, should Bush continue the controversial program (as he has indicated he will), Congress should consider impeaching him. Said Fein, "On its face, if President Bush is totally unapologetic and says I continue to maintain that as a war-time President I can do anything I want—I don’t need to consult any other branches—that is an impeachable offense. It’s more dangerous than Clinton’s lying under oath because it jeopardizes our democratic dispensation and civil liberties for the ages. It would set a precedent that … would lie around like a loaded gun, able to be used indefinitely for any future occupant." Said Ornstein, "I think if we’re going to be intellectually honest here, this really is the kind of thing that Alexander Hamilton was referring to when impeachment was discussed."

• Constitutional Lawyer John Bonifaz has written a book on the case for impeaching Bush, is a co-founder of After Downing Street, and has spoken regularly in favor of impeachment.

• Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University and a specialist in surveillance, spoke about Bush's admission that he authorized warrantless wiretaps, in an interview for an article, “Bush’s Impeachable Offense” by Michelle Goldberg, published December 22, 2005 on Salon.com. "The president has already conceded that he personally ordered that crime and renewed that order at least 30 times. This would clearly satisfy the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors for the purpose of an impeachment." Turley testified against Clinton in that impeachment hearing and added "Many of my Republican friends joined in that hearing and insisted that this was a matter of defending the rule of law, and had nothing to do with political antagonism. I'm surprised that many of those same voices are silent. The crime in this case was a knowing and premeditated act. This operation violated not just the federal statute but the United States Constitution. For Republicans to suggest that this is not a legitimate question of federal crimes makes a mockery of their position during the Clinton period. For Republicans, this is the ultimate test of principle."^[78]

• Attorney Barbara Olshansky of the Center for Constitutional Rights and journalist Dave Lindorff published a book in May 2006 entitled, The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office (ISBN 0-312-36016-9). The rationales they list for impeachment include "lying and inducing Congress and the American people into an unjust war; allowing his friends and business cronies to profiteer off the war in Iraq; authorizing torture and rendition of prisoners of war and suspected terrorists—a complete violation of the Geneva Conventions, a treaty the U.S. has signed and is therefore part of our law; stripping American citizens of their Constitutional rights—holding people with no charge, wiretapping them illegally, offering them no trial, and never allowing them to face their accusers; [and] failing in almost every way possible to defend the homeland and our borders."

[edit] Authors

• A rundown of authors talking about impeachment was published in Editor and Publisher on December 21, 2005. ^[79]

[edit] Musicians

• Neil Young's 2006 studio album Living with War has a song titled "Let's Impeach the President", in which he explains why Americans should impeach the President. The track that follows "Let's Impeach the President" on the album is "Lookin' For a Leader", in which the singer searches for somebody to take Bush's job.
• Roger Waters did a performance of his Dark Side of the Moon Live tour on September 9 at the Tweeter Center in which "Impeach Bush Now" was written on the Pink Floyd Pig.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Media editorials and opinion pieces

• The conservative John Birch Society magazine The New American 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. Talking in the voice of Thomas Jefferson, Christopher S. Bentley, Manager of Office Operations for the John Birch Society[10] wrote: "'When in the course of U.S. events it becomes necessary for Americans to demand that their duly elected representatives impeach and remove from office a president, a decent respect to the opinions of their fellow citizens requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to such a course of action.'" The piece enumerates the reasons for impeachment, with links to news articles, and concludes, again in Jefferson’s voice, "'A president, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be a leader of a free people.'" Then resuming its own voice, it states, “Mr. President, when you placed your hand over the Bible, raised your arm, and swore an oath before God to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States" (Article II, Section I), that wasn't ‘just a book’ you put your hand on. And it certainly wasn't a mealy-mouthed ‘agreement’ you made before your Maker—whose name you have no compunction about taking in vain. And Mr. President, the Constitution is not just a piece of paper.”^[80]

• Radio personality and syndicated columnist Garrison Keillor wrote a column on February 28, 2006, calling for impeachment, "What to do when the emperor has no clothes", citing reports of torture at Guantanamo Bay ("When Americans start pulling people's fingernails out with pliers and poking lighted cigarettes into their palms, then we need to come back to basic values."), 9/11 Commission findings that indicate to him that "...our country is practically as vulnerable today as it was on 9/10," and the failure of the Iraq war to provide security for Americans ("Our adventure in Iraq, at a cost of trillions, has brought that country to the verge of civil war while earning us more enemies than ever before.")^[81]

• Robert Scheer, columnist formerly at the Los Angeles Times and currently at the San Francisco Chronicle, and contributing editor of The Nation, has repeatedly called for impeachment.^{[82][83][84][85]}

• In an October 28, 2004 column, "Hold Bush Accountable," Richard Cohen, of the Washington Post, accused Bush of impeachable offenses and called on the American electorate to figuratively "impeach" Bush by voting against him.^[86]

• On the September 11th, 2006 episode of Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Keith's Special Comment on that day, from Ground Zero, made reference to impeachment, saying in reference that Saddam Hussein had no ties to Al Quedia, "The polite phrase for how mnay of us were duped into supporting a war or the false premise that it had 'something to do with 9/11 is lying by implication. The impolite phrase, is impeachable offense."

[edit] Rationales for impeachment

Proponents of impeaching President George W. Bush assert that one or more of his actions qualify as "high crimes and misdemeanors" under which the president can constitutionally be impeached.^[87][88]

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^[89] and others. However, since impeachment is inherently political, and not a legal process, there is no exact definition of what constitutes an impeachable offense. 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 Terror, President Bush ordered wiretapping of certain international calls to and from U.S. without a warrant. Whether this is legal is currently debated, since the program appears to violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which was adopted to remedy similar actions in the past (i.e. Operation Shamrock, Operation Minaret, Church Committee). Additionally, it may violate the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution,^[90] 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.^[91] 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.^[92] 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. Presumably the same would hold for FISA.

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."^[93]

In addition, the American Bar Association, in February 13, 2006, issued a statement denouncing the warrantless domestic surveillance program, accusing the President 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.^[94] 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.^[95][96]

Aside from these organisations others (i.e. John Conyers, John Dean, Elizabeth Holtzman, and Jennifer van Bergen) 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.^[97]

Elizabeth Holtzman (served four terms in Congress, where she played a key role in House impeachment proceedings against President Richard Nixon), John Dean (former counsel to the president) 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.^{[98][99][100]}

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.^[101] It was the first ruling by a federal court to strike down the controversial National Security Agency surveillance program. In the judges ruling, Judge 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."^[102]

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.^[103] Some civil liberties groups opposed the bill commenting that the new bill gives the president tacit approval to ignore the Constitution.^[104]

It should be noted that President Bush did notify Congressional leaders of his decision to authorize warrantless wiretapping at the time of the decision. However, none was totally informed, nor were they allowed to take notes or confer with others to assess the possible ramifications of this program.

[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, parents of US soldiers, and Members of Congress in John Doe I v. President Bush,^[105] a constitutional challenge to President Bush’s authority to wage war against Iraq absent a congressional declaration of war or equivalent action. Bonifaz argued in court that the President’s planned first-strike invasion of Iraq violated the War Powers Clause of the US Constitution.^[106] As a corollary to his lawsuit, Bonfiaz has argued publicly and in writing that Bush ought to be impeached for this. However, Bonfaz's lawsuit was dismissed in February 2003 and in March 2003 the dismissal was upheld on appeal. Regarding the dismissal, Attorney Bonifaz said:

"They’re not supposed to sideline... Courts cannot shirk from responsibility when it looks like a political battle."^[107]

Regarding the affirmation of the dismissal, the appeals court held:

"...the text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an 'authorization' of such a war."^[108]

Nevertheless, Francis Boyle (professor of international law at the University of Illinois) also uses this argument as reason in his Draft Impeachment Resolution.^[109]

[edit] Justification for invasion

Further information: Iraq and weapons of mass destruction,  Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda,  Downing Street memo, and Bush-Blair memo

Furthermore, the arguments put forward for the invasion of Iraq^[110] — the 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.^[111][112] 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,^[113] which had purportedly been reported to the U.S. administration. An in-depth investigation into the nature of these discrepancies by the Senate Intelligence Committee has been frustrated. Or, as 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.^[114]

Supporters of impeachment argue that the administration knowingly distorted intelligence reports or ignored contrary information in constructing their case for the war.^[115][116] The Downing Street memo and the Bush-Blair memo are used to substantiate that allegation.^[117] Congressional Democrats sponsored both a request for documents and a resolution of inquiry.^[118] A report by the Washington 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."^[119]

[edit] U.N. Charter

Further information: UN Charter,  War of aggression, and Jus ad bellum

By Article VI of the U.S. 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.^{[87][109][99][120]} Such 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.^[109][121]

[edit] Geneva Conventions controversy

[edit] Unlawful combatant status

Further information: Unlawful combatant,  Combatant Status Review Tribunal, and Seton Hall study

Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, 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.^[122] 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 Terror. Per the War Crimes Act of 1996, any US national who "commits a war crime [e.g., violates CA3] shall be fined ... or imprisoned ... , and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death."

The US 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 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".^[123] 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.^[124] 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.^[87][125] Conyers has called for investigating whether these violations of international and US law constitute an impeachable offense,^[87] whereas Boyle thinks it does, and included this in his Draft Impeachment Resolution.^[109]

A report, on May 19, 2006, by the UN Committee 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.^[126]

[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 terror several memos^[127] 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.^[128] 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.^[129]

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.^[130]

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

"The United States of America does not torture. And that's important for people around the world to understand."^[131]

To address the multitude of incidents of prisoner abuse the McCain Detainee Amendment was adopted. However, in his signing statement President Bush made clear that he reserved the right to waive this bill if he thought that was needed.^[132]

Over the years numerous incidents have been made public and a UN report denounced the abuse of prisoners as tantamount to torture.^[133] Representative John Conyers has advocated investigating these abuses to see if they violate the Geneva Conventions and are thus cause for impeachment, while Francis A. Boyle, Elizabeth Holtzman and Veterans For Peace hold that violating these laws is grounds for impeachment.^{[87][109][98][99][134]} An article in the Progressive supports the view that these alleged violations of US and international law could be an impeachable offense too.^[99]

Several legal analysts -such as Marjorie Cohn, Elizabeth Holtzman, 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^[109] under the command responsibility.^[87][135] 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 Terror 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.^[136] Dave Lindorff contends that by ignoring the Geneva Conventions the US administration including President Bush, as Commander-in-Chief, is culpable for war crimes, and as such that constitutes an impeachable offense.^[137]

On May 19, 2006, the UN Committee against Torture issued a report stating the USA should stop, what the it concludes, is "ill-treatment" of detainees, since such treatment, according to the UN-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.^[126]

[edit] Leaking of classified information

[edit] Possible involvement in the CIA leak

Further information: Yellowcake forgery,  Plame affair, and CIA leak grand jury investigation

In his 2003 State of the Union Address, President Bush cited British government sources in saying that Saddam Hussein was seeking uranium. He referred to what ultimately turned out to be falsified documents. After Ambassador Wilson wrote an OpEd article in the New York Times denouncing the yellowcake basis and other justifications for the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, the identity of his wife as a CIA employee appeared in media reports for the first time. Wilson later made the allegation her identity was leaked as personal retaliation against him for his pointing out misrepresentations regarding the uranium claim. An investigation into this by Patrick Fitzgerald led to an indictment of Lewis "Scooter" Libby on perjury charges, not for releasing information regarding Plame. At one point, Libby's indictment states:

"Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community."^[138]

The litigation surrounding Libby has yielded court papers showing that Libby was authorized and instructed to disseminate formerly classified information by his superiors.^[139] No court papers have alleged that Bush or Cheney authorized the release of Plame's name. On April 13, 2006, Bloomberg.com reported Libby has testified that Bush and Cheney did not authorize the release of Plame's name.^[140] Libby's position is that he did not leak Plame's name.

The actual first source of Plame's name to the media was Richard Armitage.^[141]

[edit] Declassifying 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 President Bush authorized the disclosure of select portions of the then classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq.^[115][142] The position of the Bush administration is that a Presidentally authorized release of material is not a "leak" in the sense that Presidents are authorized to de-classify material and the release of de-classified material is not leaking.^[115][143] Some argue that this contradicts previous statements by Bush in which he made clear that leaking information is unacceptable.^[115][144] 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.”^[145]

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.^{[113][145][146]} Bush's misrepresentations on this point and his allegedly declassifying of information for a political purpose, is seen by some as impeachable offense.^[146][147]

[edit] Hurricane Katrina

Further information: Hurricane Katrina,  Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina , and Political effects of Hurricane Katrina

The alleged responsibility of the George W. Bush administration in the mishandling of Hurricane Katrina has been used by Ramsey Clark, Francis Boyle, PopMatters, Green Party of Humboldt County and the Sunday Independent to suggest failure by the administration to adequately provide for the need of its citizens. And as such they hold that the allegations of incompetence amount to an impeachable offense.^[109][148]

The administration, and its supporters, contend that the principal responsibility lies with the local authorities.^[149] Therefore, according to the President's supporters, any accusation of inadequate handling of the disaster should be addressed to Governor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco.^[150]

[edit] Abuse of power

Further information: Unitary executive theory and signing statement

President Bush has asserted broad executive powers, attributing them to his position as Commander-in-Chief and to the war on terror. These have been used to justify policies connected with the war. Constitutional law expert Glenn Greenwald attributes Bush's interpretation of the authority of the president to a series of legal memos by John Yoo, identifies this expansive interpretation as the common thread shared by the other Bush controversies, and indicates that this interpretation is based on combining the powers of all three branches of government in the single person of the President, and is therefore the diametric opposite of the text and the Founding Fathers' intended meaning of the U.S. Constitution.^[151]

Elizabeth Holtzman, John Dean, Elizabeth de la Vega, AlterNet, the St. Petersburg Times and the Santiago Times have claimed that Bush has exceeded constitutional or other legal limitations on such war powers.^[87][152] The Draft Impeachment Resolution by Boyle advocates that this is an impeachable offense.^[109]

[edit] Movement in the 110th Congress

The decision of Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) the House Judiciary Chair to hold hearings on Bush’s use of “signing statements”, has been hailed by the President’s critics as a step towards impeachment.^[153]

[edit] See also

• Impeachment of Bill Clinton
• Impeachment in the United States

[edit] References

[edit] Further reading

• John Nichols, The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism, (2006) ISBN 1-59558-140-5
• 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 W. Dean, Worse than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush, (2004) ISBN 0-316-00023-X
• Charles Black, Impeachment: A Handbook (Yale Fastback Series), (1998 Reissue) ISBN 0-300-07950-8
• Glenn Greenwald, How Would a Patriot Act? Defending American Values from a President Run Amok, (2006) ISBN 0-9779440-0-X

[edit] External links

• Rosa Brooks: Did Bush commit war crimes?, Los Angeles Times, June 30, 2006
• Bill Moyers interviews John Dean (video) (Transcript)
• Is Lying About War An Impeachable Offense? by John Dean
• Polling Report, which reports a Zogby Poll which shows 42% of Americans agree that "if President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment?"
• The Impeachment of George W. Bush an article in the January 30, 2006 issue of The Nation magazine
• Impeach Bush Coalition
• Salon.com on the mainstreaming of "The I-word"
• Impeach Bush: When the emperor has no clothes by Garrison Keillor
• Concerning The Impeachment Of President Bush
• CNN - Is lying about 'the reason for a war' an impeachable offense?
• CNN - Gore: Resist Bush's 'excessive power grab'
• CBS - San Francisco's Impeachment of Bush Now Law
• MSNBC - Spying, the Constitution — and the ‘I-word’
• MSNBC - Live Vote: Should Bush be impeached?
• ABC - Feingold Calls for Bush's Censure; Library Of Congress link to Feingold's Senate resolution
• Harper's Magazine Editor Lewis Lapham discusses the case for impeachment (Real Media)
• The Sunday Times: "Impeach bush chorus grows"
• NY Times: In Court Filings, Cheney Aide Says Bush Approved Leak
• C-Span Book TV Program: Dave Lindorff and Barbara Olshansky discuss their book The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office
• MSNBC - Countdown with Keith Obermann: "Beginning of the End of America
• "Impeachment of Bush is not an option for the Democratic Congress" argument diagram at HonestArgument.com
• "Top 10 reasons to impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney"
• Impeach Bush Group News and Resources
• Impeachment Info, links and more information from the WikiYourRights.com wiki.

v • d • e George W. Bush
Life and politics	Early life · Professional life · Military service · First term as U.S. President (2001-2005) · Second term as U.S. President (2005-) · Administration
Terms and policies	Foreign policy · Domestic policy · Bush Doctrine · Economic policy  · Compassionate conservatism
Perceptions	Public perception · Bushisms · Criticism · Movement to impeach · Fictionalized portrayals · As the subject of books and films