Efforts to impeach George W. Bush

File:Harpers March 2006.jpg

Some have called for the impeachment of U.S. President George W. Bush. Shown here is the March 2006 newsstand cover of Harper's Magazine.

File:The Case for Impeachment of GWB.jpg

The authors present legal grounds for impeachment of Bush

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 seeking 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 from the political left, although some calls have come from members of the political right.

The United States House of Representatives has taken no formal actions toward the impeachment of President Bush, nor are they scheduled to do so.

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, 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 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 was 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 House could actually vote. 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 former Chief Justice Earl Warren.

Political views and actions

Representative Pelosi

In May 2006, the Washington Post reported that Democratic House minority leader Nancy 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.

In statements she made to the Washington Post in early 2006, Pelosi had initially left open the possibility that if Democrats take 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."

"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."

Representative Conyers

John Conyers, who has advocated for the impeachment of George W. Bush, has called for an investigation of the President.

In May 2005, Congressman John Conyers (D-MI) began collecting signatures on a letter to President 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.

On June 16 2005, 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 Wilson, constitutional attorney John Bonifaz, and CIA analyst Ray McGovern.

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, Congressman 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 May 3 2006 there were 36 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."

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."

Senator Boxer

On December 19, 2005 Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) issued a press release, 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 (NSA) 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.

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. 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."

Representative Nadler

On January 21, 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.

Vermont Democrats

Certain Democrats in Vermont, 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. The state Democratic committee has called a special meeting for April 8 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.

Vermont State Legislature

Vermont impeachment resolution

Twelve Vermont state representatives (Democrats, Progressives, 1 Independent) have 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.

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."

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

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."

Individual citizens

A Minnesota-based impeachment group, has researched a method for impeaching the president using a little known and rarely used part of the Rules of the House of Representatives ("Jefferson’s Manual"). This document states, "In the House of Representatives there are various methods of setting an impeachment in motion." These include "charges preferred by a memorial, which is usually referred to a committee for examination ([U.S. House Precendents: Hinds] III, 2364, 2491, 2494, 249G, 2499, 2515; VI, 552)." This method, as opposed to other more well-known methods, actually empowers individual citizens to initiate the impeachment process themselves.

There is precedent in an 1826 memorial by Luke Edward Lawless (U.S. House Precendents: Hinds III, 2496-2499) which had been successful in initiating the impeachment of Federal Judge James H. Peck. A Minnesota group, Impeach for Peace, has used this as a template for their "Do-It-Yourself Impeachment" allowing citizens to initiate impeachment.

Reported White House reaction

The January 23-29 January, 2006 issue of Insight on the News, self-described as "a sister publication" of the conservative 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."

Public opinion

Polling results

An October 2006 Newsweek poll found that 51% of Americans feel that the impeachment of President Bush should be a "top priority" or a "lower priority". 44% were against impeachment.

In October of 2005, a left-wing anti Iraq war organization, After Downing Street, commissioned a poll by the independent Ipsos Public Affairs Research, 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.

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.

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. This survey was also commissioned by After Downing Street.

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

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. [1]

A Sep 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. [2] This support for impeachment was similar to the 29% who favored impeachment for Clinton during the height of the Lewinsky imbroglio. [3]

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."[4]

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, 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. [5]

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.[6]

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.[7][8][9][10][11]

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.

Groups formed to support impeachment

Numerous groups have been created to support impeachment. The ImpeachBush.org website claims to have collected over 736,000 signatures (as of September 25, 2006) 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 [12] 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, 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.

Advocates of impeachment

Politicians and government officials

• Ralph Nader's 2004 presidential campaign also promoted the cause of a Bush impeachment by raising public awareness of the numerous alleged crimes of the Bush Administration.[13] Nader also wrote an op-ed, (along with Kevin Zeese, director of DemocracyRising.US) favoring impeachment in the May 31, 2005 Boston Globe. [14]

• 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[15] and in numerous articles [16] 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'"[17] 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. [18]

• 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."[19]

• Former Clinton Administration Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury J. Bradford DeLong has called for Bush's impeachment.[20]

• ^ 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.

Viewpoints of some legal and academic professionals

• John Dean, convicted Watergate felon and former White House Counsel to President Richard Nixon, and an early advocate of a Bush impeachment, believes that President Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction in order to get the United States into a war with Iraq. Dean believes this is an impeachable crime. [21] 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) [22]
• Ramsey Clark, United States Attorney General under Lyndon Johnson, and current lawyer for Saddam Hussein, has set up a website, VoteToImpeach.org, in which he lists some of the reasons he believes Bush, as well as Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, should be impeached.

• Constitutional Law Professor Francis Boyle has written six draft articles of impeachment against Bush.[23]

• 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 [24] 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." [25]

• 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."

Authors

• A rundown of authors talking about impeachment was published in Editor and Publisher on December 21, 2005.[26]

Musicians

• Neil Young released a song in 2006 called "Let's Impeach the President" on his album Living With War.

Organizations

• 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 August 8, 2006, the 32nd anniversary of President Richard M. 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 has drafted an impeachment resolution(pdf).

• 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 left-wing Green Party National Committee passed a resolution calling for impeachment of Bush and 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", "[s]quandering 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." [27] 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.[28]

• 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.[29]

• 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.[30]

• Veterans for Peace has called for the impeachment of George Bush.

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

• According to the Boston Globe 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.[31]

Media editorials and opinion pieces

• The ultra-conservative John Birch Society magazine, The New American, published an opinion piece on January 9, 2006 in favor of impeachment, “It's Not Just a Piece of Paper”. Talking in the voice of Thomas Jefferson, were he alive today, it stated, "'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.” [32]

• 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.") [33]

• 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.[34][35][36][37]

• In an October 27, 2005 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. [38]

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.

This section collates a list of pro-impeachment advocates' rationales as suggested by commentators, legal analysts, politicians of the Democratic Party, the Center for Constitutional Rights 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."

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, 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. 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. 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."

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. 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.

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.

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.

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. [39] 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." [40]

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. [41] Some civil liberties groups opposed the bill commenting that the new bill gives the president tacit approval to ignore the Constitution. [42]

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.

2003 Invasion of Iraq

Further information: Invasion of Iraq

Consitutionality of Invasion

File:Warrior-King.jpg

Attorney Bonifaz argues for a Bush impeachment, alleging that the war against Iraq was undertaken without a declaration of war by Congress and is thus illegal.

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, 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. 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."

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."

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

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 — 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. . 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, 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.

Supporters of impeachment argue that the administration knowingly distorted intelligence reports or ignored contrary information in constructing their case for the war. The Downing Street memo and the Bush-Blair memo are used to substantiate that allegation. Congressional Democrats sponsored both a request for documents and a resolution of inquiry. 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."

U.N. Charter

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. 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.

Geneva Conventions controversy

Unlawful combatant status

Further information: Unlawful combatant and Combatant Status Review Tribunal

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. 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.

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". 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. 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. Conyers has called for investigating whether these violations of international and US law constitute an impeachable offense, whereas Boyle thinks it does, and included this in his Draft Impeachment Resolution.

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.

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 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. 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.

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.

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."

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.

Over the years numerous incidents have been made public and a UN report denounced the abuse of prisoners as tantamount to torture. 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. An article in the Progressive supports the view that these alleged violations of US and international law could be an impeachable offense too.

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 under the command responsibility. 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 reaffirms that those involved in mistreatment of detainees violate US and international law. 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.

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.

Leaking of classified information

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."

The litigation surrounding Libby has yielded court papers showing that Libby was authorized and instructed to disseminate formerly classified information by his superiors. 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. 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.

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. 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-classiffy material and the release of de-classified material is not leaking. Some argue that this contradicts previous statements by Bush in which he made clear that leaking information is unacceptable. 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.”

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. Bush's misrepresentations on this point and his allegedly declassifying of information for a political purpose, is seen by some as impeachable offense.

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.

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

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.

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. The Draft Impeachment Resolution by Boyle advocates that this is an impeachable offense.

Military Commissions Act of 2006

President Bush signed this act into law which allows for Article one, Section eight of the US Constitution and nine of the ten Bill of Rights to be killed by this act. This law allows the President to define torture as he wishes while denying Habeas Corpus to detainees and other enemies though that can also be expanded to Americans as well. In addition, the law allows the complete destruction of our freedom of speech, freedom to use guns in self-defense, freedom of due process, freedom of a right to a speedy trial, freedom of a right to a trial by jury, and freedom of property rights. In short, the only right now a given under the constitution is the freedom to not offer board to a member of the US Military.

• [43] MSNBC, October 20 2006

See also

• Impeachment of Bill Clinton
• Impeachment in the United States

Further reading

• John Nichols, The Genius of Impeacghment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism, (2006) ISBN 1595581405
• 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

External links

• Rosa Brooks: Did Bush commit war crimes?, LA 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
• Salon.com on the mainstreaming of "The I-word"
• Impeach Bush: When the emperor has no clothes by Garrison Keillor
• 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
• The Impeachment Wiki
• 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