"When Silence is Betrayal"



Why We Must Impeach
George Bush


By Bee Gentry

      




     On September 11, 2001, George W. Bush launched his "war on terror." And now, after some four-and-a-half years of combat, terror seems to be surviving and thriving. The U.S. Constitution, however, is seriously wounded and our democratic republic is definitely maimed. Only drastic measures can save them. Are we brave enough to act?


"A time comes when silence is betrayal. That time has come for us..."

Martin Luther King, April 1967


     Fortunately, our operating theater is well stocked. In 1787, the Constitutional Convention gave us, among other remedies, Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States of America:
"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors."
      Impeachment has been rightly described as the "nuclear option" of politics. Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton are the only U.S. Presidents to have actually experienced impeachment; Richard Nixon resigned when faced with it. Arguably, Clinton's crime of lying about an extramarital affair wasn't grand enough to be a High Crime and was hardly even a Misdemeanor.

     George Bush, though, seems to be in an entirely different class -- world class. And when one thinks of world-class political crimes, the Nuremberg trials head the list. Consider for example, four indictments brought by the Nuremberg tribunal against high-ranking members of Hitler's government:

  • Count One: Conspiracy to Wage Aggressive War

  • Count Two: Waging Aggressive War, or 'Crimes Against Peace.'

  • Count Three: War Crimes

  • Count Four: Crimes Against Humanity 1

      These, then, are the some of the most egregious High Crimes for which historical individuals have ever been tried. Do any look familar?


Count One, Conspiracy to Wage Agressive War

     "This count helped address the crimes committed before the war began, showing a plan to commit crimes during the war." 2

     Might not the Downing Street Memos apply here:

"A legal justification for invasion would be needed. Subject to Law Officers advice, non currently exists. This makes moving quickly to invade legally very difficult. We should therefore consider a staged approach, establishing international support, building up pressure on Saddam and developing military plans. There is a lead time of about 6 months to a ground offensive..." 3                                                                    

    And later, "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." 4

    There are a total of eight similar memos, available at http://www.downingstreetmemo.com and http://www.afterdowningstreet.org. Surely, a conspiracy case could be built without much trouble.


Count Two, Waging Aggressive War

     And then there is Count Two of the Nuremberg indictments, Waging Aggressive War, or "Crimes Against Peace" -- "Including 'the planning, preparation, initiation, and waging or wars of aggression, which were also wars in violation of international treaties, agreements, and assurances.'" 5

     This one is even easier to demonstrate, since Bush has been open about the need for pre-emptive war, reported by Anthony Dworkin for The War Crimes Project:

"This guiding principle [that an attack against potential aggressors is self-defense] is being worked up as a central tenet of the United States’ strategic posture – as a 'Bush doctrine'. The fullest exposition was given by the President in a speech at West Point on June 1. Warning that the United States faced 'a threat with no precedent' through the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the emergence of global terrorism, Bush said that the traditional strategies of deterrence and containment were no longer sufficient. Deterrence meant nothing 'against shadowy terrorist networks with no nation or citizens to defend' and containment could not work 'when unbalanced dictators with weapons of mass destruction can deliver those weapons on missiles or secretly provide them to terrorist allies.' Under these circumstances, he concluded, 'If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long.' 6

     Mr. Dworkin went on to interview five experts in international law. They disagreed among themselves as to the legitimacy of Bush's self-defense claim, as follows:

"Among our experts, the principles of the Bush doctrine met with a wide spectrum of responses. On one extreme, Byers argued that even if there were some legal right of pre-emptive self-defence, the Bush doctrine was so far beyond it as to be transparently unlawful. On the other, Taylor said that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction made the claims of the administration reasonable, when dealing with extreme cases like Iraq." 7

     Ultimately, in this discussion before the Iraq war started, it appeared that the legitimacy of "the Bush doctrine" rested on whether Saddam Hussein's regime was linked to the terrorists and whether that regime had weapons of mass distruction available for use by terrorists against the United States. As we know all too well, the war was begun following statements by Bush and senior staff that Saddam Hussein did indeed have weapons of mass destruction and direct links to terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attacks on the United States.

     On May 1, 2003, Bush declared, "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda and cut off a source of terrorist funding." However, on June 17, 2004, Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank reported in The Washington Post that "The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no 'collaborative relationship' between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq."

     Earlier, the administration had been forced to admit that no weapons of mass destruction appeared to exist, despite strong statements to Congress to the contrary in gaining permission to launch the war. So, new reasons for going to war were presented:

"The Duelfer report showed that Saddam was systematically gaming the system, using the U.N. oil-for-food program to try to influence countries and companies in an effort to undermine sanctions," Bush said as he prepared to fly to campaign events in Wisconsin. "He was doing so with the intent of restarting his weapons program once the world looked away." 8

     Thus, without being able to demonstrate terrorist links and possession of weapons of mass destruction, the basis for George Bush unilaterally choosing to attack Iraq lacks legitimacy. Count Two of the Nuremberg indictments seems to apply.


Count Three, War Crimes

     These were described as "...the 'traditional' violations of the law of war including treatment of prisoners of war, slave labor, and use of outlaw[ed] weapons." 9

     Here, there seems to be an open and shut case against George Bush and other members of his administration. Prisoners of war have been treated extremely inhumanely, against the Geneva Conventions, and the malfeasance has been graphically documented. When abuses were brought to light George Bush did not issue sanctions against those who permitted them.

     In fact, Bush obtained legal advice that suggested the Geneva Conventions no longer applied:

"As you have said, the war against terrorism is a new kind of war," Gonzales wrote to Bush. "The nature of the new war places a high premium on other factors, such as the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors in order to avoid further atrocities against American civilians." Gonzales concluded in stark terms: "In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions." 10

     This Newsweek article continues with additional evidence that others within the administration, notably Colin Powell, strongly disagreed with the decision to drop support for the Geneva Conventions and discusses how Bush and his legal counsel pushed back and proceeded with their criminal interrogation plans.

     And just recently, when an anti-torture law introduced by U.S. Senator and Viet Nam veteran John McCain was signed into law by George Bush, he issued a signing statement to the effect that:

''The executive branch shall construe [the law] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President . . . as Commander in Chief," Bush wrote, adding that this approach ''will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President . . . of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks." 11

     This action was generally viewed as Bush reserving the right to bypass the law under his powers as Commander in Chief. So, Bush seems directly supportive of inhumane treatment of prisoners.

     He could also be construed as allowing the use of outlawed weapons in that the United States has used hundreds of tons of depleted uranium in shells and missiles in Iraq. 12 This clearly violates the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I of 1977), which prohibits employment of "weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering" (Article 35, paragraph 2), as well as employment of "methods or means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment" (Article 35, paragraph 3; also: Article 55).

     The use of DU weapons also violates provisions of the same Protocol, regarding the protection of civilian population against effects of hostilities (Article 48; Article 51, paragraphs: 1, 4-c, 5-b; Article 57, paragraph 2-a-ii). Considering these facts , George Bush seems liable to prosecution for several types of violations under Count Three of the Nuremberg indictments.


Count Four, Crimes Against Humanity

     Count Four of the Nuremberg indictments involves crimes against civilians during war, including "actions in concentration camps and other death rampages." 13

     The use of depleted uranium weapons, described above under Count Three, certainly qualifies. Uranium poisoning, birth defects, and environmental destruction result among civilians as a result of their use.

     In addition, heavy bombing of settled areas qualifies as a crime against civilian humanity. The fact that we carpet-bombed during World War II, perhaps our last "just" war, does not make it legal.

     And then, there is the definition of what constitutes a civilian. The detainees mentioned above under Count Three are not necessarily Iraqi or Afghani soldiers. Bush has declared that anyone on or near a battlefield, or presumed to be working with terrorists away from a battlefield, could be declared an "enemy combatant" and detained indefinitely without charges or attorney contact. This designation could also be applied to American citizens, such as Jose Padilla.

     Because of practices of rounding up people in the vicinity of combat and delivering them into captivity to receive bounties, it is estimated that 30 to 40% of individuals imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay are innocent and have no connection with al Qaeda or any other terrorist organization. The same is true at Abu Ghraib. 14

     Because habaeus corpus -- a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody -- has been suspended and most of these individuals have not been allowed legal representation, they are being subjected to all the violations of the Geneva Conventions outlined for Count Three, above, but they are civilians. As Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces, George Bush is responsible for these and all other military abuses outlined above.


Actionable War Crime Offenses?

     There has been no trial so a guilty verdict cannot be delivered. However, there seems to be sufficient prima facie evidence for commission of these extremely High Crimes by George W. Bush to justify his impeachment, if not criminal trial by an international war tribunal.


Violation of Oath of Office

     When George Bush was sworn in as President of the United States, he took an oath of office in accordance with Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

     Immediately after the events of September 11, 2001, George Bush presented the Patriot Act to Congress for speedy passage with no time for review. All but one member of Congress (Russ Feingold, D-WI) approved the Act and it was immediately signed into law. By most accounts, the Patriot Act violates Constitutional Bill of Rights amendments that guarantee freedom of the press, protection from unwarranted search and seizure, the right to due process and more. A slightly revised Patriot Act was presented for renewal earlier this year. It too was approved by Congress and was signed by George Bush, although with a signing statement that allowed him to bypass certain reporting provisions:

''The executive branch shall construe the provisions . . . that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch . . . in a manner consistent with the president's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information . . . "

George W. Bush, March 9, 2006


     Apart from these attacks on the Constitution authorized by the Patriot Act, George Bush has perpetrated other violations of legal tenets of the United States in addition to violations of international laws and treaties to which the United States has subscribed (mentioned above in the discussion of war crimes). These additional violations include the suspension of habaeus corpus, mentioned previously, and posse comitatus, described by Wikipedia as a Federal law that "generally prohibits Federal military personnel and units of the United States National Guard under Federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress."

     Bush himself also admitted to violating provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), passed in 1978 and pertaining to the necessity of seeking the approval of a special court before wiretapping citizens of the United States:

"I'm also using constitutional authority vested in me as commander-in-chief. In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. "

George W. Bush, December 17, 2005


     Bush believes that his position as Commander in Chief allows him to rise above the law in cases where that is necessary to protect national security and his counsel supports him in this:

"...we also believe the President has the inherent authority under the Constitution, as Commander-in-Chief, to engage in this kind of activity. "

Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States, December 19, 2005

     In Third Reich Germany, that was called "the Fuehrer Principle." The Nuremberg tribunal didn't accept it, and the citizens and Congress of the United States shouldn't either. Michael C. Dorf has an excellent article in FindLaw that discusses the technical reasons why inherent presidential authority doesn't apply in this case. 15


Is This Enough?

     Bill Clinton was impeached for committing perjury -- lying about a concensual sexual act. Surely his "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" pale in comparison to these charges that can be leveled at George Bush. And, indeed, Articles of Impeachment have already been drawn up by several statesmen. Ramsey Clark, 66th Attorney General of the United States under Lyndon B. Johnson, lists 20 articles of impeachment, including Bush's cabinet members as well as Bush, and presents a good case for their use. Frances Boyle, professor of law at University of Illinois School of Law has also drafted articles of impeachment. Congressman John Conyers, D-MI, has called for censuring Bush and his administration as a first step to impeachment, on these grounds:

"In brief, we have found that there is substantial evidence the President, the Vice-President and other high ranking members of the Bush Administration misled Congress and the American people regarding the decision to go to war in Iraq; misstated and manipulated intelligence information regarding the justification for such war; countenanced torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in Iraq; and permitted inappropriate retaliation against critics of their Administration. There is at least a prima facie case that these actions that federal laws have been violated – from false statements to Congress to retaliating against Administration critics." 16

     While not drafting articles of impeachment, two prominent individuals from the Nixon era have put forth strong analyses of the case. Elizabeth Holtzman, a member of the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment proceedings against Richard Nixon, writing in The Nation, states "As a matter of constitutional law, these and other misdeeds constitute grounds for the impeachment of President Bush. A President, any President, who maintains that he is above the law -- and repeatedly violates the law -- thereby commits high crimes and misdemeanors, the constitutional standard for impeachment and removal from office." 17

     And John Dean, former counsel to President Nixon, has been quite active pointing out the deficiencies in Bush's actions, with apt comparisons to the "one President who provides a precedent for Bush's stunning, in-your-face, conduct: Richard Nixon." 18 In the referenced FindLaw article, Dean goes on to discuss the wiretapping in violation of FISA and other problematic actions and countermeasures, with hopes for a Democratic Congress in 2006.

     The ever eloquent Gore Vidal has spoken more generally, but still forcefully:

"Reason requires that we explain to the media and to this self-anointed 'war-time president' whose 'inherent' powers, to hear him babble, transcend the Constitution itself. But they can't: First, we are not at war with another country; second, presidential powers are enumerated in the constitution, not inherent--despite the weird legal misreadings by ambulance-proud White House lawyers. Nevertheless, our neo-totalitarians are planning new wars in the Middle East, Far East, Conga Line! while his latest State of the Union speech justifies eavesdropping (without judicial warrants) on anybody in the United States that he wants to listen in on. This is what we call dictatorship. Dictatorship. Dictatorship. And it is time we objected. " 19

     Hear, hear! And an Internet search will turn up many more articles with similar sentiments.


Why We Must Impeach George Bush and His Cabinet

     To sum up, the Congress of the United States needs to impeach George Bush because:

  1. He appears to have committed all the violations of international law, U.S. law, and his oath of office summarized above.
  2. If he is guilty of international war crimes and we don't take action against him, we are also guilty.


What You Can Do

     William Goodman, writing for AlterNet on March 14, 2006, links to a number of other articles showing that the call for impeachment is growing louder. At this time, 50 % of polled Americans believe that George Bush should be impeached if he lied about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (versus 44% who disagree). 20 And a new Zogby poll shows that by "a margin of 52% to 43%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he wiretapped American citizens without a judge's approval." 21

     If you agree that there is a case for impeachment, it is your duty to act:
  1. Contact your local Congress members and explain why impeachment is necessary. Urge them to act and express your support. Don't forget that state legislatures can also prepare articles of impeachment.

  2. Consider the difference between partisans and patriots. Partisans blindly support their political party and particular people. Patriots support the Constitution of the United States and the well-being of all its citizens. If your Congressional representatives are partisans, not patriots, consider crossing party lines or doing whatever else is necessary to elect someone in 2006 who supports the U.S. Constitution, not a cabal of international criminals.

  3. Check out these and other Web sites for more information. Cast your vote for impeachment, along with over 700,000 others:

  4. But, above all -- ACT NOW!

     Impeaching George Bush and his cabinet now could prevent a full blown police state or even civil war in the future.






Notes:

1, 2, 5, 9, 13: The Nuremberg Trials: IMT Charter, Indictments, Verdicts and Sentencing of Major War Figures

3: March 8, 2002 memo from Overseas and Defence Secretariat Cabinet Office, UK. Posted at The Downing Street Memos

4: Minutes of the Prime Minister's Meeting, July 23, 2002. Originally published in The Sunday Times, May 1, 2005. Posted at The Downing Street Memos

6, 7: Dworkin, Anthony. "Iraq and the 'Bush Doctrine' of Pre-Emptive Self-Defence," August 20, 2002. Crimes of War Project

8: Lindlaw, Scott. "Bush, Cheney Admit Iraq Had No WMD, Take New Tack," The San Diego Union Tribune, October 8, 2004

10. Memo of January 25, 2002 from Alberto Gonzales, White House Counsel, to George W. Bush, quoted in Barry, John et al, 'The Roots of Torture," Newsweek, May 24, 2006.

11: Savage, Charlie. "Bush Could Bypass New Torture Ban," Boston Globe, January 4, 2006

12: Roper, L. David. "Radioactive Weapons."

14: Borger, Julian. "Private contractor lifts the lid on systematic failures at Abu Ghraib jail," The Guardian, May 7, 2004.

15: Dorf, Michael C. " What are the 'Inherent' Powers of the President? How the Bush Administration Has Mistaken Default Rules for Exclusive Rights," FindLaw, February 13, 2006.

16: Conyers, John, Jr. Press Release, December 20, 2005.

17: Holtzman, Elizabeth. "The Impeachment of George W. Bush," The Nation, January 30, 2006.

18: Dean, John. "An Update on President Bush's NSA Program: The Historical Context, Specter's Recent Bill, and Feingold's Censure Motion," FindLaw, March 24, 2006.

19: Vidal, Gore. "President Jonah (redux)," TruthDig, February 7, 2006

20: Goodman, William. "Impeachment Talk Reaches the Mainstream," AlterNet, March 14, 2006.

21: Fertik, Bob. "Zogby Poll: Americans Support Impeaching Bush for Wiretapping