THE IMPEACHMENT MOVEMENT AGAINST THE BUSH REGIME: A DEFINITIVE PRESENTATION
WITHIN THE HALLS OF CONGRESS IT STARTED HERE !
It's About the Rule of Law
Impeaching George W. Bush
By FRANCIS A. BOYLEProfessor of Law, University of Illinois School of Law
With another Bush Family war of aggression against Iraq staring the American People, Congress and Republic in their face, on Tuesday 11 March 2003, Congressman John Conyers of Michigan, the Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, which would have jurisdiction over any Bill of Impeachment, convened an emergency meeting of forty or more of his top advisors, most of whom were lawyers, to discuss and debate immediately putting into the House of Representatives Bills of Impeachment against President Bush Jr., Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and Attorney General Ashcroft in order to head off the impending war.[i]
Congressman Conyers kindly requested me and Ramsey Clark to come in to the meeting and argue the case for impeachment. Ramsey had launched his own campaign to impeach Bush Jr. et al. in mid-January 2003 at a peace rally held in Washington D.C.
This impeachment debate lasted for two hours. It was presided over by Congressman Conyers, who quite correctly did not tip his hand one way or the other on the merits of impeachment.
He simply moderated the debate between Clark and me, on the one side, favoring immediately filing Bills of Impeachment against Bush Jr. et al. to stop the threatened war, and almost everyone else there who were against impeachment. Obviously no point would be served here by attempting to digest a two-hour-long vigorous debate among a group of well-trained lawyers on such a controversial matter at this critical moment in American history. But at the time I was struck by the fact that this momentous debate was conducted at a private office right down the street from the White House.
Suffice it to say that most of the "experts" there opposed impeachment on the grounds that it might hurt the Democratic Party get their presidential candidate elected in the year 2004. As a political independent, I did not argue that point--it was not for me to tell Democrats how to get their candidates elected. Rather, I argued the merits of impeaching Bush Jr., Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft under the United States Constitution, U.S. Federal Laws, U.S. Treaties and other International Agreements to which the United States was a contracting party.
Article VI of the U.S. Constitution provides that Treaties "shall be the supreme Law of the Land." This so-called Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution also applies to International Executive Agreements concluded under the auspices of the U.S. President such as the 1945 Nuremberg Charter.
Congressman Conyers was so kind as to allow me the closing argument in the debate. Briefly put, the concluding point I chose to make was historical: The Athenians lost their Democracy. The Romans lost their Republic. And if we Americans did not act now we could lose our Republic! The United States of America is not immune to the laws of history!
After two hours of most vigorous debate, the meeting adjourned with a second revised draft Bill of Impeachment sitting on the table. Despite these efforts, President Bush Jr. started his war of aggression against Iraq on the evening of Wednesday 19 March 2003 with an attempt to assassinate Iraqi President Saddam Hussein by means of a so-called "decapitation" strike, which was clearly illegal and criminal. Since then, Clark and I have accelerated our respective grassroots campaigns to impeach President Bush Jr. et al. Don Quixotes tilting at windmills?[ii] Not at all!
In the run-up to his 1991 Gulf War, President Bush Sr. feared impeachment. Writing in his diary on 20 December 1990 about the impending war against Iraq, President Bush Sr recorded his fears of impeachment as follows: "But if it drags out, not only will I take the blame, but I will probably have impeachment proceedings filed against me."[iii] There are thus good grounds to believe that fear of impeachment compelled Bush Sr. to terminate the war early on 28 February 1991 with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein still in power, thus avoiding innumerable and horrendous casualties for Americans and even more so for Iraqis.
Thirteen years later, after President Bush Jr.'s invasion of Iraq, flush with "victory" and the arrogance of power, members of the Bush Jr. administration publicly threatened to attack Iran, Syria, and North Korea. In direct reaction to these threats, on 13 April 2003 former U.S. Secretary of State (under President Bush Sr., no less!) Lawrence Engleburger told the BBC:[iv]
"If George Bush [Jnr] decided he was going to turn the troops loose on Syria and Iran after that he would last in office for about 15 minutes. In fact if President Bush were to try that now even I would think that he ought to be impeached. You can't get away with that sort of thing in this democracy."
Almost immediately after Eagleburger's BBC broadside against them, the Bush Jr. warmongers cooled their public rhetoric and threats against Iran and Syria--but not North Korea.
So the Bush Jr. administration has already stood down for the time-being from two further aggressions because of at least one public threat of impeachment. But as of this writing U.S. military, political and economic preparations are underway for a Bush Jr. war of aggression against North Korea. The American People and Congress must put the fear of impeachment into the highest levels of the Bush Jr. administration in order to prevent such a catastrophic war that could readily go nuclear.[v]
Certainly, if the U.S. House of Representatives can impeach President Clinton for sex and lying about sex, then a fortiori the House can, should, and must impeach President Bush Jr. for war, lying about war, and threatening more wars. We need one Member of Congress with the courage, integrity, and principles of the late and great Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez of Texas. Otherwise, the alternative will be an American Empire abroad, a U.S. Police State at home, and continuing wars of aggression to sustain them--along the lines of George Orwell's classic novel 1984 (1949).
Despite all of the serious flaws of the United States government that this author has amply documented elsewhere during the past quarter century as a Professor of Law, the truth of the matter is that America is still the oldest Republic in the world today.[vi] We, the People of the United States, must fight to keep it that way![vii] And for the good of all humanity, we must terminate America's Imperial Presidency and subject it to the Rule of Law.[viii]
Impeach Bush: A Draft Resolution
Francis A. Boyle, Professor of Law, University of Illinois, is author of Foundations of World Order, Duke University Press, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence, and Palestine, Palestinians and International Law, by Clarity Press. He can be reached at: FBOYLE@LAW.UIUC.EDU
Notes
[i]. Ethan Wallison, Time to Impeach?, Roll Call, March 13, 2003, at 1.
[ii]. Liz Halloran, Wartime Snapshots of American Life: Tilting at Presidents, Hartford Courant, March 30, 2003, at A3.
[iii]. Laura Myers, Bush Describes Gulf War Quandary, Associated Press, Sept. 10, 1998, quoting from Bush's memoir A World Transformed (1998), which he co-authored with his National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft. See also Bush: Worried about Impeachment for Gulf War, The Hotline, Sept. 10, 1998; Institute for Public Accuracy, Bush Worried About Impeachment, Too, 28 Sept.1998 Press Release.
[iv]. Ben Russell, U.S. Warns Syria Not to Provide Haven for Wanted Iraqis, The Independent (UK), April 14, 2003; Former Sec. Of State Lawrence Engleburger: Bush Should Be Impeached If He Invades Syria or Iran, Antiwar.com, April 14, 2003 (link to audio).
[v]. Francis A. Boyle, The Criminality of Nuclear War Deterrence: Could the U.S. War on Terrorism Go Nuclear? (2002).
[vi]. See Akhil Reed Amar & Alan Hirsch, For the People (1998).
[vii]. Francis A. Boyle, Defending Civil Resistance Under International Law (1987; Special Paperback ed. 1988).
[viii]. Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., The Imperial Presidency (1989). See also Michael Parenti, Against Empire (1995); John Pilger, The New Rulers of the World (2003).
Wikipedia (Movement To Impeach George W. Bush
In The House of Representatives: A Resolution To Impeach Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Introduced by Dennis Kucinich –Ohio-
Synopsis of Resolution
Text of Resolution as Introduced in the House of Representatives
H. Res. 333: Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors
HRES 333 IH
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. RES. 333
Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President Of The United States, For High Crimes And Misdemeanors.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 24, 2007
Mr. KUCINICH submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
RESOLUTION
Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President Of The United States, For High Crimes And Misdemeanors.
Resolved, That Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:
Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Article I
In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests, to wit:
(1) Despite all evidence to the contrary, the Vice President actively and systematically sought to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction:
(A) We know they have biological and chemical weapons.' March 17, 2002, Press Conference by Vice President Dick Cheney and His Highness Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa, Crown Prince of Bahrain at Shaikh Hamad Palace.
(B) . . . and we know they are pursuing nuclear weapons.' March 19, 2002, Press Briefing by Vice President Dick Cheney and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in Jerusalem.
(C) And he is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time . . .' March 24, 2002, CNN Late Edition interview with Vice President Cheney.
(D) We know he's got chemicals and biological and we know he's working on nuclear.' May 19, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.
(E) But we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons . . . Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.' August 26, 2002, Speech of Vice President Cheney at VFW 103rd National Convention.
(F) Based on intelligence that's becoming available, some of it has been made public, more of it hopefully will be, that he has indeed stepped up his capacity to produce and deliver biological weapons, that he has reconstituted his nuclear program to develop a nuclear weapon, that there are efforts under way inside Iraq to significantly expand his capability.' September 8, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.
(G) He is, in fact, actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.' September 8, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.
(H) And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. March 16, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.
(2) Preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq the Vice President was fully informed that no legitimate evidence existed of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The Vice President pressured the intelligence community to change their findings to enable the deception of the citizens and Congress of the United States.
(A) Vice President Cheney and his Chief of Staff, Lewis Libby, made multiple trips to the CIA in 2002 to question analysts studying Iraq's weapons programs and alleged links to al Qaeda, creating an environment in which analysts felt they were being pressured to make their assessments fit with the Bush administration's policy objectives accounts.
(B) Vice President Cheney sought out unverified and ultimately inaccurate raw intelligence to prove his preconceived beliefs. This strategy of cherry picking was employed to influence the interpretation of the intelligence.
(3) The Vice President's actions corrupted or attempted to corrupt the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, an intelligence document issued on October 1, 2002, and carefully considered by Congress prior to the October 10, 2002, vote to authorize the use of force. The Vice President's actions prevented the necessary reconciliation of facts for the National Intelligence Estimate which resulted in a high number of dissenting opinions from technical experts in two Federal agencies.
(A) The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate stated `Lacking persuasive evidence that Baghdad has launched a coherent effort to reconstitute it's nuclear weapons program INR is unwilling to speculate that such an effort began soon after the departure of UN inspectors or to project a timeline for the completion of activities it does not now see happening. As a result INR is unable to predict that Iraq could acquire a nuclear device or weapon.
(B) The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate also stated that `Finally, the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious.
(C) The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate references a Department of Energy opinion by stating that `INR accepts the judgment of technical experts at the US Department of Energy (DOE) who have concluded that the tubes Iraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment and finds unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the case that they are intended for that purpose.
The Vice President subverted the national security interests of the United States by setting the stage for the loss of more than 3300 United States service members; the loss of 650,000 Iraqi citizens since the United States invasion; the loss of approximately $500 billion in war costs which has increased our Federal debt; the loss of military readiness within the United States Armed Services due to overextension, lack of training and lack of equipment; the loss of United States credibility in world affairs; and the decades of likely blowback created by the invasion of Iraq.
In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.
Article II
In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda in order to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests, to wit:
(1) Despite all evidence to the contrary, the Vice President actively and systematically sought to deceive the citizens and the Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda:
(A) His regime has had high-level contacts with Al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to Al Qaeda terrorists. December 2, 2002, Speech of Vice President Cheney at the Air National Guard Senior Leadership Conference.
(B) His regime aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda. He could decide secretly to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against us.' January 30, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney to 30th Political Action Conference in Arlington, Virginia.
(C) We know he's out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the Al Qaeda organization. March 16, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.
(D) We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on biological weapons and chemical weapons . . .' September 14, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.
(E) Al Qaeda had a base of operation there up in Northeastern Iraq where they ran a large poisons factory for attacks against Europeans and U.S. forces.' October 3, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney at Bush-Cheney '04 Fundraiser in Iowa.
(F) He also had an established relationship with Al Qaeda providing training to Al Qaeda members in areas of poisons, gases, and conventional bombs.' October 10, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney to the Heritage Foundation.
(G) Al Qaeda and the Iraqi intelligence services have worked together on a number of occasions.' January 9, 2004, Rocky Mountain News interview with Vice President Cheney.
(H) I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government.' January 22, 2004, NPR: Morning Edition interview with Vice President Cheney.
(I) First of all, on the question of--of whether or not there was any kind of relationship, there clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to; the evidence is overwhelming.' June 17, 2004, CNBC: Capital Report interview with Vice President Cheney.
(2) Preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq the Vice President was fully informed that no credible evidence existed of a working relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, a fact articulated in several official documents, including:
(A) A classified Presidential Daily Briefing ten days after the September 11, 2001, attacks indicating that the United States intelligence community had no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11th attacks and that there was `scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda.
(B) Defense Intelligence Terrorism Summary No. 044-02, issued in February 2002 by the United States Defense Intelligence Agency, which challenged the credibility of information gleaned from captured al Qaeda leader al-Libi. The DIA report also cast significant doubt on the possibility of a Saddam Hussein-al-Qaeda conspiracy: `Saddam's regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control.
(C) A January 2003 British intelligence classified report on Iraq that concluded that `there are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaeda network.
The Vice President subverted the national security interests of the United States by setting the stage for the loss of more than 3,300 United States service members; the loss of 650,000 Iraqi citizens since the United States invasion; the loss of approximately $500 billion in war costs which has increased our Federal debt; the loss of military readiness within the United States Armed Services due to overextension, lack of training and lack of equipment; the loss of United States credibility in world affairs; and the decades of likely blowback created by the invasion of Iraq.
In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.
Article III
In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran absent any real threat to the United States, and done so with the United States proven capability to carry out such threats, thus undermining the national security of the United States, to wit:
(1) Despite no evidence that Iran has the intention or the capability of attacking the United States and despite the turmoil created by United States invasion of Iraq, the Vice President has openly threatened aggression against Iran as evidenced by the following:
(A) For our part, the United States is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime. And we join other nations in sending that regime a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.' March 7, 2006, Speech of Vice President Cheney to American Israel Public Affairs Committee 2006 Policy Conference.
(B) But we've also made it clear that all options are on the table.' January 24, 2007, CNN Situation Room interview with Vice President Cheney.
(C) When we--as the President did, for example, recently--deploy another aircraft carrier task force to the Gulf, that sends a very strong signal to everybody in the region that the United States is here to stay, that we clearly have significant capabilities, and that we are working with friends and allies as well as the international organizations to deal with the Iranian threat.' January 29, 2007, Newsweek interview with Vice President Cheney.
(D) But I've also made the point and the President has made the point that all options are still on the table.' February 24, 2007, Vice President Cheney at Press Briefing with Australian Prime Minister in Sydney, Australia.
(2) The Vice President, who repeatedly and falsely claimed to have had specific, detailed knowledge of Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction capabilities, is no doubt fully aware of evidence that demonstrates Iran poses no real threat to the United States as evidenced by the following:
(A) I know that what we see in Iran right now is not the industrial capacity you can [use to develop a] bomb.' Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency, February 19, 2007.
(B) Iran indicated its `full readiness and willingness to negotiate on the modality for the resolution of the outstanding issues with the IAEA, subject to the assurances for dealing with the issues in the framework of the Agency, without the interference of the United Nations Security Council'. IAEA Board Report, February 22, 2007.
(C) . . . so whatever they have, what we have seen today, is not the kind of capacity that would enable them to make bombs.' Mohamed El Baradei, Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency, February 19, 2007.
(3) The Vice President is fully aware of the actions taken by the United States towards Iran that are further destabilizing the world as evidenced by the following:
(A) The United States has refused to engage in meaningful diplomatic relations with Iran since 2002, rebuffing both bilateral and multilateral offers to dialogue.
(B) The United States is currently engaged in a military buildup in the Middle East that includes the increased presence of the United States Navy in the waters near Iran, significant United States Armed Forces in two nations neighboring to Iran, and the installation of anti-missile technology in the region.
(C) News accounts have indicated that military planners have considered the B61-11, a tactical nuclear weapon, as one of the options to strike underground bunkers in Iran.
(D) The United States has been linked to anti-Iranian organizations that are attempting to destabilize the Iranian government, in particular the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), even though the state department has branded it a terrorist organization.
(E) News accounts indicate that United States troops have been ordered into Iran to collect data and establish contact with anti-government groups.
(4) In the last three years the Vice President has repeatedly threatened Iran. However, the Vice President is legally bound by the U.S. Constitution's adherence to international law that prohibits threats of use of force.
(A) Article VI of the United States Constitution states, `This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.' Any provision of an international treaty ratified by the United States becomes the law of the United States.
(B) The United States is a signatory to the United Nations Charter, a treaty among the nations of the world. Article II, Section 4 of the United Nations Charter states, `All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.' The threat of force is illegal.
(C) Article 51 lays out the only exception, `Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.' Iran has not attacked the United States; therefore any threat against Iran by the United States is illegal.
The Vice President's deception upon the citizens and Congress of the United States that enabled the failed United States invasion of Iraq forcibly altered the rules of diplomacy such that the Vice President's recent belligerent actions towards Iran are destabilizing and counterproductive to the national security of the United States.
In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.
Letter to Vice President Cheney
Brief summary of impeachment procedure
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS FOR H RES 333
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS FOR ARTICLE I
Article I (1)(A): Transcripts of March 17, 2002 Press Conference by Vice President Dick Cheney and His Highness Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa, Crown Prince of Bahrain at Shaikh Hamad Palace.
Article I (1)(B): Transcripts of March 19, 2002 Press Briefing by Vice President Dick Cheney and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in Jerusalem.
Article I (1)(C): Transcripts of March 24, 2002 Wolf Blitzer interview of Vice President Cheney on CNN’s Late Edition.
Article I (1)(D): Transcripts of May 19, 2002 Tim Russert interview with Vice President Cheney on NBC’s Meet the Press.
Article I (1)(E): Speech of Vice President Cheney at VFW 103rd National Convention on August 26, 2002.
Article I (1)(F & G): Transcripts of September 8, 2002 Tim Russert interview with Vice President Cheney on NBC’s Meet the Press.
Article I (1)(H): Transcripts of March 16, 2003 Tim Russert interview with Vice President Cheney on NBC’s Meet the Press.
Article I (2)(A): Pincus, Walter and Priest, Dana. “Some Iraq Analysts Felt Pressure From Cheney Visits.” Washington Post 5 June 2003: A01.
Article I (2)(B): Hersh, Seymour M. “The Stovepipe.” The New Yorker 27 October 2003.
Article I (3)(A): National Intelligence Estimate, October 1, 2002. pg. 9
Article I (3)(B): National Intelligence Estimate, October 1, 2002. pg. 84
Article I (3)(C): National Intelligence Estimate, October 1, 2002. pg. 9
United States service member deaths: Department of Defense Casualty Report
Iraqi civilian deaths: Lancet Report
Cost of the war: CRS report RL33110
Loss of military readiness: Korb, Lawrence. “A troop readiness crisis.” Boston Globe 11 April 2007.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS FOR ARTICLE II
Article II (1)(A): Speech of Vice President Cheney at the Air National Guard Senior Leadership Conference on December 2, 2002.
Article II (1)(B): Speech of Vice President Cheney to 30th Political Action Conference in Arlington, Virginia on January 30, 2003.
Article II (1)(C): Transcripts of March 16, 2003 Tim Russert interview with Vice President Cheney on NBC’s Meet the Press.
Article II (1)(D): Transcripts of September 14, 2003 Tim Russert interview with Vice President Cheney on NBC’s Meet the Press.
Article II (1)(E): Speech of Vice President Cheney at Bush-Cheney '04 Fundraiser in Iowa on October 3, 2003.
Article II (1)(F): Speech of Vice President Cheney to the Heritage Foundation on October 10, 2003.
Article II (1)(G): Hayes, Stephen. “Cheney v. Powell.” The Weekly Standard 13 January 2004.
Article II (1)(H): Transcripts of January 22, 2004 Juan Williams interview with Vice President Cheney on NPR’s Morning Edition.
Article II (1)(I): Transcripts of June 17, 2004 Gloria Borger interview with Vice President Cheney on CNBC’s Capital Report.
Article II (2)(A): Waas, Murray. “Key Bush Intelligence Briefing Kept From Hill Panel.” National Journal 22 November 2005.
Article II (2)(B): Jehl, Douglas. “Report Warned Bush Team About Intelligence Doubts.” New York Times 6 November 2005.
Article II (2)(C): “Leaked Report Rejects Iraqi al-Qaeda link.” BBC News 5 February 2003.
United States service member deaths: Department of Defense Casualty Report
Iraqi civilian deaths: Lancet Report
Cost of the war: CRS report RL33110
Loss of military readiness: Korb, Lawrence. “A troop readiness crisis.” Boston Globe 11 April 2007.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS FOR ARTICLE III
Article III (1)(A): Speech of Vice President Cheney to American Israel Public Affairs Committee 2006 Policy Conference on March 7, 2006.
Article III (1)(B): Transcripts of January 24, 2007 Wolf Blitzer interview with Vice President Cheney on CNN’s Situation Room.
Article III (1)(C): Transcripts of January 28, 2007 Richard Wolffe interview with Vice President Cheney for Newsweek Magazine.
Article III (1)(D): Transcripts of February 24, 2007 Press Briefing with Vice President Cheney and Australian Prime Minister in Sydney, Australia.
Article III (2)(A): Transcripts of February 19, 2007 Daniel Dombey interview with Director General Mohamed ElBaradei for the Financial Times.
Article III (2)(B): International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors Report, February 22, 2007.
Article III (2)(C): Transcripts of February 19, 2007 Daniel Dombey interview with Director General Mohamed ElBaradei for the Financial Times.
Article III (3)(A): Hirsh, Michael. “Hirsh: A Failed Shot at Peace with Iran?” Newsweek 8 February 2007.
Article III (3)(B): Abramowitz, Michael. “Cheney Says U.S. Is Sending ‘Strong Signal’ to Iran.” Washington Post 29 January 2007: A02.
Article III (3)(C): Hersh, Seymour M. “The Iran Plans.” The New Yorker 17 April 2006.
Article III (3)(D): Londono, Ernest and al-Izzi, Saad. “Iraq Intensifies Efforts to Expel Iranian Group.” Washington Post 14 March 2007: A10.
Article III (3)(E): Hersh, Seymour M. “The Iran Plans.” The New Yorker 17 April 2006.
Article III (4)(A): Article VI of Constitution of the United States of America.
Article III (4)(B): Chapter I, Article 2 of Charter of the United Nations
Article III (4)(C): Chapter VII, Article 51 of Charter of the United Nations
WHAT ARE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES?
Summary: According to the Constitution: "...Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". Treason and Bribery are clear. The definition of "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" was left intentionally vague by the founders but is generally considered to refer to misconduct or a violation of the public trust that is injurious to society. They are not limited to statutory violations (breaking regular laws).
A President often does things that people disagree with. But those actions are not normally something that can lead to impeachment. This leads us to an important question: for what specific actions can a President or Officer be impeached?
The basis for impeachment comes from the US Constitution. Article II, Sec. 4 states that:
"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."
The crimes of Treason and Bribery are fairly straightforward. But what are "high Crimes and Misdemeanors"? The framers of the Constitution deliberately borrowed this phrase from English parliamentary law. It was first used in 1386 to impeach the King's Chancellor. Michael de le Pole, Earl of Suffolk. He broke a promise to parliament regarding improvements in the King's Estate and also failed to pay ransom money for the town of Ghent.
In the midst of Watergate, the Judiciary wrote a report on impeachment.[1] They stated:
'Two points emerge from the 400 years of English parliamentary experience with the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors." First the particular allegations of misconduct alleged damage to the state in such forms as misapplication of funds, abuse of official power, neglect of duty, encroachment on Parliament¹s prerogatives, corruption, and betrayal of trust. Second, the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" was confined to parliamentary impeachments; it had no roots in the ordinary criminal law, and the particular allegations of misconduct under that heading were not necessarily limited to common law or statutory derelictions or crimes.'
The subject of impeachment was debated by the Founding Fathers during the Constitutional conventions. The Federalist Papers give rationale for many parts of the Constitution and are often used to interpret the intent of the framers.
In Federalist No. 65 [2], Alexander Hamilton described the subject of impeachment as:
"those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself"
James Iredell at the North Carolina Constitutional convention, argued that the President:
"Must certainly be punishable for giving false information to the Senate. He is to regulate all intercourse with foreign powers, and it is his duty to impart to the Senate every material intelligence he receives. If it should appear that he has not given them full information, but has concealed important intelligence which he ought to have communicated, and by that means induced them to enter into measures injurious to their country, and which they would not have consented to had the true state of things been disclosed to them,"
The general message from interpreters of the Constitution is that impeachable offenses are not limited to specific violation of criminal statutes. The contitution was intentionally vague on this point to allow flexibility in prosecuting a President. Justice Joseph Story wrote in his Commentaries on the Constitution in 1833:
"Not but that crimes of a strictly legal character fall within the scope of the power; but that it has a more enlarged operation, and reaches, what are aptly termed political offenses, growing out of personal misconduct or gross neglect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard of the public interests, various in their character, and so indefinable in their actual involutions, that it is almost impossible to provide systematically for them by positive law."
A more recent writing reinforces the vague definition of an impeachable offense. In a House Judiciary sub-committee panel discussion on the Clinton impeachment, Rep. Charles Canaday, (R) Florida wrote [3]:
"The House has never in any impeachment inquiry or proceeding adopted either a comprehensive definition of high crimes and misdemeanors or a catalogue of offenses that are impeachable. Instead, the House has dealt with the misconduct of federal officials on a case by case basis..."
Back in 1970, Rep. Gerald R. Ford defined impeachable offenses as "whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." That is probably a reasonable definition, consistent with the intentions of the Founding Fathers.
[1] Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment, House Judiciary Committee, 1974
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/watergatedoc.htm
[2] Federalist Papers #65 by Alexander Hamilton http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed65.htm
[3] House Judiciary Sub-committee 1998 discussing "what is an impeachable offense" as it relates to Clinton.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/july-dec98/impeachment_11-9.html
WHY IMPEACH BUSH, CHENEY AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE ADMINISTRATION/REGIME?
BUSH MISLED AMERICA IN A PREMEDITATION OF LIES ABOUT THE THREAT FROM IRAQ
See also this analysis of the fraud by retired federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega.
Why did we invade Iraq? Was it because, as the White House claimed, Saddam Hussein was an immediate and serious threat to America. Or did Bush mislead the public, the Congress and the UN by consistently overstating this threat.
Bush claims he was forced to to invade Iraq as a last resort. But Bush wanted to invade Iraq from the very beginning of his presidency. Many of his team came from the PNAC, a thinktank which urged the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and pointed out the need for a "new Pearl Harbor". “From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Ron Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”
This is not a situation where Bush said ten things and one of them was wrong. Basically everything Bush said about the threat from Iraq was false. He had no solid evidence of any threat but still led us into this deadly and costly war. Here are the main lies about the threat from Iraq given by Bush and Cheney:
LIE #1 - URANIUM FROM NIGER - Bush said "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." in his State of the Union Address. The documents supporting that statement were forged.
URANIUM FROM NIGER
Lie: The White House claimed that Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium from Niger and that this was evidence of a renewed nuclear weapons program.
Bush knew: Bush had been informed by intelligence officials months before his speech that the sale likely never took place and that the documentary evidence had been forged.
TIMELINE
January 2, 2001 - Niger Embassy is robbed of worthless documents, perfume, stationery and stamps. [VanityFair]
Summer 2001 - Reports of the documents reporting an attempted sale of yellowcake to Iraq are given to the CIA.
February 2002 - Wilson sent to Niger by the CIA after Cheney requested that the uranium sales story be investigated. [1]
February 2002 - Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick told Wilson that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq — and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington. [1]
After a thorough study, Wilson concluded there was no evidence that a sale had occured and that it would be extremely unlikely.
March 9th, 2002 - Wilson report given to White House. [Time]
September 2002 - In a closed Senate hearing, CIA directorGeorge J. Tenet and his top weapons analyst, Robert Walpole, expressed strong doubts about the uranium story. The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, likewise, called the claim "highly dubious." [WashingtonPost]
On or before October 7, 2002 - CIA Director George Tenet argues “personally to White House officials, including deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley,” that the Africa-uranium claim should not be included in Bush's October 7 speech because the allegation is based on only one source. (WashingtonPost, WashingtonPost)
January 28, 2003 - After much discussion with the CIA, Bush uses this story about uranium in his State of The Union speech. Bush said "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.". The phrase "the British Government has learned " is used so they can try to argue that technically Bush didn't lie, because the British government did receive that false information. But according to the definition of fraud, if one makes statements knowing that they are misleading then it is still fraud.
Early February 2003 - IAEA receives copies of the documents purporting a sale of uranium to Iraq from Niger. [FindLaw - letter from the IAEA to Rep Henry Waxman]
March 7, 2003 - In a speech to the UN, Mohamed ElBaradei of the IAEA reports that they have "concluded that Iraq's efforts to import these aluminium tubes were not likely to have been related to the manufacture of centrifuges" and that "documents - which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger - are in fact not authentic". [IAEA][UN]
March 19, 2003 - Bush invades Iraq.
April 18, 2003 - The lie is repeated in a statement titled "Disarm Saddam Hussein" from the White House that said Saddam "recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa, according to the British Government."
RESOURCES
"What I Didn't Find in Africa" by Joseph C. Wilson 4th, July 6, 2003, NY Times
Detailed Timeline 1988-2002 on Daily KOS Political Encyclopedia
Detailed Timeline 2003-present on Daily KOS Political Encyclopedia, mostly detailing the leak of Valerie Wilson's CIA status
"A 'Concerted Effort' to Discredit Bush Critic" [Joseph Wilson] April 9, 2006, Washington Post
"The War They Wanted, The Lies They Needed" on Niger lies by Craig Unger, Vanity Fair, 6/2006.
LIE #2 - IRAQ AND 9/11 - Bush led people to believe that Iraq was involved with 9/11 by repeatedly linking them in his speeches. This was so effective that at one point 70% of Americans actually believed Saddam was behind 9/11. Bush has since admitted that this was not true.
BUSH ADMINISTRATION ON IRAQ 9/11 LINK http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm
US President George W Bush has explicitly stated for the first time that there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 11 September attacks.
Bush maintains Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda are connected.
Mr Bush has never directly accused the former Iraqi leader of having a hand in the attacks on New York and Washington, but he has repeatedly associated the two in keynote addresses delivered since 11 September. Senior members of his administration have similarly conflated the two.
A recent opinion poll suggests that 70% of Americans believe the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks.
Despite his stated rejection of any clear link between Saddam Hussein and the events of that day, Mr Bush continues to assert that the deposed president had ties with al-Qaeda, the terrorist network blamed for the 11 September attacks.
BBC News Online looks at some of the remarks made by Mr Bush and members of his administration both in the run-up to war and after hostilities had officially ended.
Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror.
President Bush in his State of the Union address, January 2002. The speech was primarily concerned with how the US was coping in the aftermath of 11 September.
We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On 11 September, 2001, America felt its vulnerability - even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.
President Bush speaking in Cincinnati, Ohio, in October, 2002, in which he laid out the threat he believed Iraq posed.
Before 11 September 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents and lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons, and other plans - this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.
President Bush in his State of the Union address, January 2003. He made these comments in the context of the links he perceived between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.
The terrorists have lost a sponsor in Iraq. And no terrorist networks will ever gain weapons of mass destruction from Saddam Hussein's regime.
President Bush in his speech to the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia, September, 2003.
For America, there will be no going back to the era before 11 September 2001, to false comfort in a dangerous world. We have learned that terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength.
They are invited by the perception of weakness. And the surest way to avoid attacks on our own people is to engage the enemy where he lives and plans.
We are fighting that enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities.
President Bush in a televised address to defend his administration's policy on Iraq, September 2003.
We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after 11 September, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.
Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of 11 September.
US Secretary of State Colin Powell in a presentation to the UN Security Council, setting out the US case against the Iraqi regime, February 2003.
We don't know.
Vice-President Dick Cheney when pressed on whether there was a link between Iraq and 11 September during a TV interview, September 2003.
We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.
Mr. Cheney in the same interview, commenting on the war against Iraq.
We've never been able to develop any more of that yet, either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it.
Mr Cheney in the same interview, while recounting the controversial claim that one of the hijackers, Mohammed Atta, met an Iraqi official in Prague before the attacks.
[Saddam Hussein posed a risk in] a region from which the 9/11 threat emerged.
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice defending the reasons why the US went to war against Iraq, September, 2003.
BUSH REJECTS SADDAM 9/11 LINK http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm
Bush maintains Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda are connected, AND THEN THE REVERSAL.
US President George Bush has said there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 11 September attacks.
The comments - among his most explicit so far on the issue - come after a recent opinion poll found that nearly 70% of Americans believed the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks.
Mr Bush did however repeat his belief that the former Iraqi president had ties to al-Qaeda - the group widely regarded as responsible for the attacks on New York and Washington.
Critics of the war on Iraq have accused the US administration of deliberately encouraging public confusion to generate support for military action.
At a time when the credibility of government intelligence and information is under the spotlight, President Bush probably had little choice but to scotch the confusion, says the BBC's Ian Pannell in Washington.
But if the public believes that they were given the wrong impression by the administration, then there may be a political cost involved with the presidential campaign under way, our correspondent says.
LACK OF CLARITY
"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks," Mr Bush told reporters as he met members of Congress on energy legislation.
Many Americans believe that some of the hijackers were Iraqi - when none were - and that the attacks had been orchestrated by Baghdad, despite any concrete evidence to support that.
This confusion has been partly attributed to, at best a lack of clarity by the administration and at worst, deliberate obfuscation, correspondents say.
As recently as last Sunday, Vice-President Dick Cheney, refused to rule out a link between Iraq and 11 September, saying "'we don't know".
"We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."
JORDANIAN LINK
On Wednesday, Mr Bush said Mr Cheney was right about suspicions of a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda, citing the case of Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a leader of an Islamic group in northern Iraq called Ansar al-Islam believed to have links to al-Qaeda.
The US believes Mr Zarqawi received medical treatment in Baghdad and helped to orchestrate the assassination of a US diplomat in Jordan.
And Mr Bush denied there had been any attempt by his administration to try to confuse people about links between Saddam Hussein and 11 September.
"What the vice-president said was is that he [Saddam] has been involved with al-Qaeda.
"And Zarqawi, an al-Qaeda operative, was in Baghdad. He's the guy that ordered the killing of a US diplomat... There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaeda ties." --
LIE #3 - CONGRESS KNEW - Bush has stated that Congress had access to all the same information that the White House had. Thus he should not be blamed for making the mistake of going to war. But Bush was briefed many times about the falsehood of various stories and this information never reached Congress. [ZNet]
Bush lied when he said Congress had the same information that he did.
Bush has stated that Congress had access to all the same information that the White House had. Thus he should not be blamed for making the mistake of going to war. But Bush was briefed many times about the falsehood of the various stories he used to persuade Congress to authorize war.
9/17/04 - In North Carolina, Bush said "And the intelligence I looked at and the intelligence Congress looked at said he actually had them there. So I saw a threat. And I went to the United States Congress and said, we got an issue here that we're going to have to deal with. Members of the Congress of both political parties looked at the very same intelligence I looked at -- the very same intelligence -- and they remembered the same history I remembered, and they concluded that Saddam Hussein was a threat, and authorized the use of force." Ted Kennedy has documented over 100 similar statements by Bush.
10/2/04 - In Ohio, Bush said "So I saw a threat. And I went to the Congress. And they looked at the same intelligence I looked at and concluded Saddam was a threat, and they authorized the use of force." [WhiteHouse]
12/15/05 - Bush has access to much broader ranger of intelligence reports than members of Congress do, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Agency report. The Bush team also has access to intelligence sources and also "have the authority to ask U.S. intelligence agencies more extensively for follow-up information". [KRN]
Bush was informed on 9/21/01 in a secret President's Daily Brief (PDB) that there was no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda. Congress did not even learn of the existence of this PDB until summer 2004, after the start of the war. Ted Kennedy has been trying to get copies of the PDB's released but Bush will not reveal their contents. [NJ]
3/9/02 - Joseph Wilson informs White House that Saddam did not try to buy uranium from Niger. But on 1/28/03, Bush told Congress that he did, despite urging from the CIA not to lie.
9/5/02 - Senator Bob Graham, chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, requested a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) from the CIA describing the rationale for a preemptive war in Iraq. The 90 page document, while slanted toward the conclusion that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction stored or produced at 550 sites, contained vigorous dissents on key parts of the information, especially by the departments of State and Energy.
Particular skepticism was raised about aluminum tubes that were offered as evidence Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program. As to Hussein's will to use whatever weapons he might have, the estimate indicated he would not do so unless he was first attacked. Most of the alleged intelligence came from Iraqi exiles or third countries, all of which had an interest in the United States' removing Hussein, by force if necessary.
Troubled by this report, Graham then requested an unclassified document to share with Congress and the public. This new 25 page document omitted the dissenting opinions contained in the classified version. Its conclusions, such as "If Baghdad acquired sufficient weapons-grade fissile material from abroad, it could make a nuclear weapon within a year," underscored the White House's claim that exactly such material was being provided from Africa to Iraq.
Graham, with access to more information than the average Congressperson, voted against the authorization for war.
9/25/02 - Despite secretly knowing there was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, days before a congressional vote authorizing the war, Bush said "Al Qaeda hides, Saddam doesn't, but the danger is, is that they work in concert." And he added "you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." [WhiteHouse]
Bush exaggerated claims of Iraq's biological weapons after being told they were false. According to the LA Times "The German intelligence officials responsible for one of the most important informants on Saddam Hussein's suspected weapons of mass destruction say that the Bush administration and the CIA repeatedly exaggerated his claims during the run-up to the war in Iraq.
Five senior officials from Germany's Federal Intelligence Service, or BND, said in interviews with The Times that they warned U.S. intelligence authorities that the source, an Iraqi defector code-named Curveball, never claimed to produce germ weapons and never saw anyone else do so. According to the Germans, President Bush mischaracterized Curveball's information when he warned before the war that Iraq had at least seven mobile factories brewing biological poisons.
Then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell also misstated Curveball's accounts in his prewar presentation to the United Nations on Feb. 5, 2003, the Germans said. Curveball's German handlers for the last six years said his information was often vague, mostly secondhand and impossible to confirm." [LAT]
RESOURCES
"Key Bush Intelligence Briefing Kept From Hill Panel" by Murray Waas, National Journal, 11/22/05
"What I Knew Before the Invasion" by Senator Bob Graham, Washington Post, 11/20/05
"Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq" by Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 7/7/04
"How U.S. Fell Under the Spell of 'Curveball', The Iraqi informant's German handlers say they had told U.S. officials that his information was 'not proven,' and were shocked when President Bush and Colin L. Powell used it in key prewar speeches." By Bob Drogin and John Goetz, LA Times, 11/20/05
"Congress doesn't see same intelligence as president, report finds", by Jonathan S. Landay, Knight Ridder Newspapers, 12/15/05
LIE #4 - ALUMINUM TUBES - Bush, Cheney, Rice and Powell said that some aluminum tubes Iraq attempted to buy were intended for use in a uranium centrifuge to create nuclear weapons. These were the only physical evidence he had against Iraq. But it turns out this evidence had been rejected by the Department of Energy and other intelligence agencies long before Bush used them in his speeches. [NYTimes] [MotherJones] [CNN]
Bush Lied about the Aluminum Tubes in Iraq
Bush, Cheney, Rice and Powell said that aluminum tubes Iraq attempted to purchase were for use in a uranium centrifuge to create nuclear weapons. These were the only physical evidence he had against Iraq. But it turns out this evidence had been rejected by the Department of Energy and other intelligence agencies long before Bush used them in his speeches. [CNN].
9/8/02 - Bush team leaks classified "intelligence" to Judith Miller and Michael Gordon at the NY Times about Iraq trying to buy aluminum tubes to enrich uranium to build nuclear bombs. Article published here.
9/9/02 - Cheney says on Meet the Press "Specifically aluminum tubes. There’s a story in The New York Times this morning-this is-I don’t-and I want to attribute The Times. I don’t want to talk about, obviously, specific intelligence sources, but it’s now public that, in fact, he has been seeking to acquire, and we have been able to intercept and prevent him from acquiring through this particular channel, the kinds of tubes that are necessary to build a centrifuge. And the centrifuge is required to take low-grade uranium and enhance it into highly enriched uranium, which is what you have to have in order to build a bomb." [MTP]
9/12/02 - Bush, in a speech to the UN General Assembly, says "Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon." [WhiteHouse]
9/23/02 - The Institute for Science and International Security releases a report calling the aluminum tube intelligence ambiguous, citing dissenting views from senior scientists in the Department of Energy. [ISIS]
9/24/02 - A British government white paper says of the aluminum tubing: "there is no definitive intelligence that it is destined for a nuclear programme." [BG]
10/02 - National Intelligence Estimate: INR says the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has "concluded that the tubes Iraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment and finds unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the case that they are intended for that purpose. INR considers it far more likely that the tubes are intended for another purpose, most likely the production of artillery rockets." [GlobalSecurity]
1/28/03 - Bush said "Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." in his State of the Union Speech. [WhiteHouse]
Bush and his team continue to claim the tubes were really for nuclear weapons despite having no credible evidence.
RESOURCES
In 2002, a handful of lawmakers were privy to classified intel about Iraqi WMD. Behind closed doors, there was uncertainty. But in public, Bush officials told a different story. Senator Dick Durbin explains why he didn’t blow the whistle when it might have made a difference. One The Media, May 4, 2007
"West Wing Pipe Dream - Beyond yellowcake: Dissecting the over-hyped threat of those aluminum tubes." by Tim Dickinson, Mother Jones, July 28, 2003
"Misrepresenting Evidence on Iraq's Aluminum Tubes" from Scientific Integrity in Policymaking
LIE #5 - IRAQ AND AL QAEDA - Bush still insists that there was a "relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. But the 9/11 Commission released a report saying, among other things, that there was no "collaborative relationship" between Al Qaeda and Iraq. The nature of the relationship seems to be that Al Qaeda asked for help and Iraq refused. Al Qaeda was opposed to Saddam Hussein because Saddam led a secular government instead of an Islamic government. [ZNet] [CNN] On 9/8/06 a Senate panel reported there was no relationship. [ABC]
IRAQ, AL QAEDA, AND WHAT CONSTITUTES A 'RELATIONSHIP'
By Dante Chinni
WASHINGTON – For the past few days, the dialogue in this town has sounded more like "Sex and the City" than "The McLaughlin Group." Suddenly the question of what constitutes a relationship has come to the fore. We're not talking J. Lo here, we're talking about the Bush administration and whether its definition of "relationship" fits with everyone else's.
Last week, the 9/11 Commission released a report saying, among other things, that there was no "collaborative relationship" between Al Qaeda and Iraq. The press jumped on the story, saying the Bush administration has been proven wrong. The White House, however, quickly countered that it had never said that Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks; it had simply argued that there was a connection.
"There was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda," President Bush said. "The evidence is overwhelming" that there was a relationship, Vice President Cheney said.
What kind of relationship? Well, that's not clear. The commission reported that, beyond the Sept. 11 attacks, there were indeed contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraq but that Iraq rebuffed Al Qaeda's entreaties. Late last week, however, the vice president hinted that might not be the whole story.
When asked if he knew things the panel didn't, Mr. Cheney said, "probably," leaving some to wonder whether the administration has shared all it knew with the panel. Just as quickly, however, a spokesman also said the administration "cooperated fully with the commission," and "the president wants the commission to have the information it needs to do its job."
It may still turn out that there is some bit of bombshell evidence showing a "collaborative relationship" between Al Qaeda and Iraq. It's not really clear though, why the White House would keep such information secret. This administration, like many others, has not been shy about leaking sensitive information that helps its cause.
All of which means, what we probably have here is an issue of semantics. What exactly qualifies as a relationship in the early 21st century? Is it chatter that doesn't lead to anything, or something more? Where are Carrie Bradshaw and her friends when you need them?
These questions may be wonderful for conversation around the campfire. They may even enable you to say you dated the homecoming queen, but they aren't exactly on point. The point, as it so often is in politics, isn't what those in the administration actually said with all their link talk; it's what they implied.
Since it began talking about invading Iraq, this administration pushed two main lines of argument as justification. First, Iraq needed regime change because the government there was amassing or had amassed weapons of mass destruction. Second, Iraq was likely to use those weapons against the US or sell them to someone who would because it was part of the Al Qaeda-led jihad against the United States.
With the first argument largely discredited, the White House is holding on tenaciously to the second - tenaciously, but carefully. For the past year members of this administration have been dancing along the line of connecting, but not completely connecting, Al Qaeda and Iraq.
There are numerous examples, but one of the best is Cheney's comment on "Meet the Press" last September. "If we're successful in Iraq," he said, "we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."
Parse that carefully and you'll see he is 100 percent correct. If the US brings a stable democracy to Iraq, it will strike a blow at "the heart" of "the geographic base" of Islamic terrorism: the Middle East. But the wording, if you will, leads the reader or listener to more dramatic conclusions, particularly when the "9/11" is added in there. They are led toward the idea that Iraq and Al Qaeda are working together.
Of course, members of the administration are generally pretty careful not to cross that line. They're careful not to say it explicitly; they just let the public infer it.
That's not exactly unprecedented. Semantics and careful lawyerly phrasing are all too common here. But straightforward talking is supposed to be this administration's strong point. And for all the talk of restoring honor and integrity to the White House, here we are again arguing over how to define "relationship."
LIE #6 - WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION - Bush insisted that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction but his "evidence" consisted mostly of forged documents, plagiarized student papers, and vague satellite photos. The United Nations was on the ground in Iraq and could find nothing. After extensive searches Bush was finally forced to admit that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.
FAKE IRAQ DOCUMENTS 'EMBARRASSING' FOR U.S.
From David EnsorCNN Washington BureauFriday, March 14, 2003 Posted: 10:43 PM EST (0343 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Intelligence documents that U.S. and British governments said were strong evidence that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons have been dismissed as forgeries by U.N. weapons inspectors.
The documents, given to International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, indicated that Iraq might have tried to buy 500 tons of uranium from Niger, but the agency said they were "obvious" fakes.
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell referred to the documents directly in his presentation to the U.N. Security Council outlining the Bush administration's case against Iraq.
"I'm sure the FBI and CIA must be mortified by this because it is extremely embarrassing to them," former CIA official Ray Close said.
Responding to questions about the documents from lawmakers, Powell said, "It was provided in good faith to the inspectors and our agency received it in good faith, not participating ... in any way in any falsification activities."
"It was the information that we had. We provided it. If that information is inaccurate, fine," Powell said on NBC's "Meet the Press" last Sunday.
"We don't believe that all the issues surrounding nuclear weapons have been resolved [in Iraq]," he said.
How were forgeries missed?
But the discovery raises questions such as why the apparent forgeries were given to inspectors and why U.S. and British intelligence agents did not recognize that they were not authentic.
Sources said that one of the documents was a letter discussing the uranium deal supposedly signed by Niger President Tandja Mamadou. The sources described the signature as "childlike" and said that it clearly was not Mamadou's.
Another, written on paper from a 1980s military government in Niger, bears the date of October 2000 and the signature of a man who by then had not been foreign minister of Niger in 14 years, sources said.
"The IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts that these documents -- which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger -- are not in fact authentic," ElBaradei said in his March 7 presentation to the U.N. Security Council.
Close said the CIA should have known better.
"They have tremendously sophisticated and experienced people in their technical services division, who wouldn't allow a forgery like this to get by," Close said. "I mean it's just mystifying to me. I can't understand it."
A U.S. intelligence official said that the documents were passed on to the International Atomic Energy Agency within days of being received with the comment, " 'We don't know the provenance of this information, but here it is.' "
If a mistake was made, a U.S. official suggested, it was more likely due to incompetence not malice.
"That's a convenient explanation, but it doesn't satisfy me," Close said. "Incompetence I have not seen in those agencies. I've seen plenty of malice, but I've never seen incompetence."
WHO MADE THE FORGERIES?
But the question remains -- who is responsible for the apparent forgeries?
Experts said the suspects include the intelligence services of Iraq's neighbors, other pro-war nations, Iraqi opposition groups or simply con men.
Most rule out the United States, Great Britain or Israel because they said those countries' intelligence services would have been able to make much more convincing forgeries if they had chosen to do so.
President Bush even highlighted the documents in his State of the Union address on January 28.
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," Bush said.
U.S. officials said that the assertion by the president and British government was also based on additional evidence of Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium from another African country. But officials would not say which nation and a knowledgeable U.S. official said that there was not much to that evidence either.
IRAQ HAD NO WMD: THE FINAL VERDICT
Julian Borger in WashingtonSaturday September 18, 2004The Guardian
The comprehensive 15-month search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has concluded that the only chemical or biological agents that Saddam Hussein's regime was working on before last year's invasion were small quantities of poisons, most likely for use in assassinations.
A draft of the Iraq Survey Group's final report circulating in Washington found no sign of the alleged illegal stockpiles that the US and Britain presented as the justification for going to war, nor did it find any evidence of efforts to reconstitute Iraq's nuclear weapons programme.
It also appears to play down an interim report which suggested there was evidence that Iraq was developing "test amounts" of ricin for use in weapons. Instead, the ISG report says in its conclusion that there was evidence to suggest the Iraqi regime planned to restart its illegal weapons programs if UN sanctions were lifted.
Charles Duelfer, the head of the ISG, has said he intends to deliver his final report by the end of the month. It is likely to become a heated issue in the election campaign.
President George Bush now admits that stockpiles have not been found in Iraq but claimed as recently as Thursday that "Saddam Hussein had the capability of making weapons, and he could have passed that capability on to the enemy".
The draft Duelfer report, according to the New York Times, finds no evidence of a capability, but only of an intention to rebuild that capability once the UN embargo had been removed and Iraq was no longer the target of intense international scrutiny.
The finding adds weight to Mr Bush's assertions on the long-term danger posed by the former Iraqi leader, but it also suggests that, contrary to the administration's claims, diplomacy and containment were working prior to the invasion.
The draft report was handed to British, US and Australian experts at a meeting in London earlier this month, according to the New York Times. It largely confirms the findings of Mr Duelfer's predecessor, David Kay, who concluded "we were almost all wrong" in thinking Saddam had stockpiled weapons. The Duelfer report goes into greater detail.
Mr Kay's earlier findings mentioned the existence of a network of laboratories run by the Iraqi intelligence service, and suggested that the regime could be producing "test amounts" of chemical weapons and researching the use of ricin in weapons.
Subsequent inspections of the clandestine labs, under Mr Duelfer's leadership, found they were capable of producing small quantities of lethal chemical and biological agents, more useful for assassinations of individuals than for inflicting mass casualties.
Mr Duelfer, according to the draft, does not exclude the possibility that some weapons materials could have been smuggled out of Iraq before the war, a possibility raised by the administration and its supporters. However, the report apparently produces no significant evidence to support the claim. Nor does it find any evidence of any action by the Saddam regime to convert dual-use industrial equipment to weapons production.
"I think we know exactly how this is going to play out," said Joseph Cirincione, a proliferation expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
"You'll see a very elaborate spin operation. But there's not much new here from what the ISG reported before," he said. "There are still no weapons, no production of weapons and no programmes to begin the production of weapons. What we're left with here is that Saddam Hussein might have had the desire to rebuild the capability to build those weapons."
"Well, lots of people have desire for these weapons. Lots of people have intent. But that's not what we went to war for."
The motives for war, meanwhile, came under fresh scrutiny last night as the Telegraph reported that Tony Blair was warned in Foreign Office papers a year before the invasion of the scale of dealing with a post-Saddam Iraq.
The Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, Sir Menzies Campbell, said that if authenticated, the papers "demonstrate that the government agreed with the Bush administration on regime change in Iraq more than a year before military action was taken".
Mr Duelfer, who is reported to still be in Baghdad, did not respond to a request for an interview on the question of WMD yesterday.
Earlier this year, he told the Guardian that he expected his report would leave "some unanswered questions".
LIE #7 - MOBILE WEAPONS LABS - Bush and his team repeatedly claimed that Iraq possessed mobile weapons labs capable of producing anthrax. Colin Powell showed diagrams of them at his speech before the UN to justify invading Iraq. These claims originated from Curveball, a discredited Iraqi informer who fed Bush many of the stories related to WMD. On May 29, 2003, two small trailers matching the description were found in Iraq.
A team of bio-weapons experts examined the trailers and concluded they were simply designed to produce hydrogen for weather balloons. But, for over a year, Bush claimed these were part of Iraq's bio-weapons program. The expert's report was suppressed and only recently made public. [WashPost] [ABC]
Bush wanted so much to convince people of the need to invade Iraq that the White House set up a secret team in the Pentagon to create evidence. The Office of Special Plans routinely rewrote the CIA's intelligence estimates on Iraq's weapons programs, removing caveats such as "likely," "probably" and "may" as a way of depicting the country as an imminent threat. They also used unreliable sources to create reports that ultimately proved to be false. [Mother Jones] [New Yorker] [Wikipedia]
By lying to Congress, Bush violated US Laws related to Fraud and False Statements, Title 18, Chapter 47, Section 1001 and Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, Title 18, Chapter 19, Section 371.
RESOURCES
Timeline of Iraq Lies by Jodin Morey
SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE REPORTS FROM SEPTEMBER 8, 2006
"Postwar Findings about Iraq's WMD and Links to Terrorism and How They Compare to Prewar Assessments" (PDF 6.9 MB)
"The Use by the Intelligence COmmunity of Intelligence Provided by the Iraqi National Congress" (PDF 9.3 MB)
"Key Judgments" from Rockefeller website
CBS News Report
"IraqOnTheRecord" - database of 237 lies by administration officials about Iraq, compiled by Congressman Henry Waxman.
http://democrats.reform.house.gov/IraqOnTheRecord
'CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES: Misrepresenting the Truth in Order to Sell a War is A “High Crime”' by Elizabeth de la Vega
"Ex-CIA official: Bush administration misused Iraq intelligence", statements by Paul R. Pillar, CNN, 2/10/06
"Bush and Iraq: Mass Media, Mass Ignorance" by Jeff Cohen
List of Lies and News Links from BuzzFlash
"Key Bush Intelligence Briefing Kept From Hill Panel" 11/23/05, by Murray Waas
Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States - Title 18, Chapter 19, Section 371
Fraud and False Statements - Title 18, Chapter 47, Section 1001
Disarm Saddam Hussein, the White House's own summary of lies about Iraq.
"U.S. 'Almost All Wrong' on Weapons Report on Iraq Contradicts Bush Administration Claims" By Dana Priest and Walter Pincus Washington Post Staff Writers, 10/7/04
BUSH EXCEEDED THE AUTHORITY OF HJR114
In October 2002, Congress passed House Joint Resolution 114, which gave Bush limited authority relating to Iraq. Here is a complete text of the bill. HJR114 has been described as legal justification for Bush's invasion of Iraq but that is not the case.
HJR114 authorized Bush to use military force against Iraq "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" but required that he meet certain conditions. Bush did not meet these conditions. In addition the entire resolution should be rejected because Congress was misled into signing it in the first place.
BASIC ASSUMPTIONS WERE FLAWED
HJR114 begins with a series of "whereas" clauses. These give the reasons that Congress signed the resolution. Unfortunately, the most critical of these "whereas" clauses are based on fraudulent misrepresentations by Bush and Cheney.
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
We now know that Iraq did not have WMD and was not seeking nuclear capabilities. Bush knew this at the time and deliberately misled Congress about the threat from Iraq.
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Bush and Cheney tried very hard to connect Iraq with 9/11 and Al Qaeda but there was simply no credible evidence. "Today's reports show that the administration's repeated allegations of a past, present and future relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq were wrong and intended to exploit the deep sense of insecurity among Americans in the immediate aftermath of the September 11th attacks," said Sen. John Rockefeller of West Virginia, the panel's ranking Democrat. [ABC]
Congress did not have access to the same information that Bush had. If they had then it is unlikely that they would have signed HJR114. It is called fraud in the inducement "if the party signing the document knew what he or she was signing, but relied on misrepresentations when induced to sign it."
Basically Bush tricked Congress into signing HJR114 by fraudulent means which negated his authority to invade Iraq.
VIOLATION OF REQUIREMENT FOR DETERMINATION
Bush also violated several terms of the resolution. The first violation relates to Section 3(b), which states:
"In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall ... make available ... his determination that—
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq;"
If Bush had told the truth about Iraq then he would have said Iraq did not pose a threat to America. In that case "diplomatic or other peaceful means" would have given us adequate protection.
Bush accused Saddam Hussein of violating the UN Security Council resolutions by not revealing the presence of his WMD. Bush then invaded Iraq without permission from the Security Council. It then became apparent that Iraq did not have WMD. Ironically, therefore, Bush violated the UN resolutions and Iraq did not.
Because Bush did not fulfill his obligation to truthfully show the need for the invasion, he did not have authority under HJR114 to invade Iraq.
VIOLATION OF WAR POWERS RESOLUTION
The second violation relates to Section 3(c)(2), which states:
"Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution."
This means Bush cannot ignore the War Powers Resolution of 1973 when determining what is "necessary and appropriate". So what does the War Powers Resolution say about this? Section 9(d)(1) states:
(d) Nothing in this joint resolution—
(1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provision of existing treaties.
WHAT EXISTING TREATIES ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF ATTACKING OTHER NATIONS? TWO IMMEDIATELY COME TO MIND: THE UN CHARTER AND THE NUREMBERG CHARTER.
The Nuremberg Charter says that it is a crime to plan a war of aggression. Many people believe that Bush is the aggressor in this situation. Iraq has made no threats or attacks against the United States. They have simply built weapons to defend themselves from attack. They are also cooperating, albeit begrudgingly, with the United Nations. Bush, on the other hand, has surrounded Iraq with a huge military force and has threatened to destroy Saddam Hussein and much of Iraq in the process. Bush has also labeled the UN as irrelevant.
The UN Charter states that "All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means...". War can be used but only as a last resort and only under the direction of the UN Security Council.
Bush attacked Iraq based on false pretenses and without UN permission. He, therefore, violated the UN Charter, the Nuremberg Charter, HJR114, and indirectly the Constitution. These are grounds for impeachment.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
See whether your representatives voted to abdicate their war powers to Bush. If he/she did Email them immediately that are keeping track of THEIR actions as well as those of the administration.
Senate votes for HJR114
"Accountability for an illegal war?" further analysis of HJR114 and War Powers Act by D. Lindley Young, 1/14/2005
BUSH CONDUCTED ILLEGAL WIRETAPS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS
Bush has admitted to authorizing the NSA, a secretive spy agency, to conduct warrantless wire taps on American citizens. The spying even extends to postal mail. The NSA has also been collecting phone records in an attempt to build a database of every phone call that is made.
Latest News: 8/18/06 - In response to a lawsuit filed by the ACLU, US District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled that the wiretaps are unconstitutional.
The Bush wiretaps violated US law because he was required to get approval from FISA. He can start a wiretap of a suspected terrorist at any time but must then seek approval to continue within 72 hours.
Attorney General Gonzales claims HJR114 gave Bush authority to conduct the wiretaps. But HJR114 only grants use of the "Armed Forces". HJR114 does not explicitly suspend the Constitution. Also HJR114 requires "The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3". Congress was not notified of these wiretaps. [HJR114]
Bush may have bypassed FISA because he wanted to listen to and analyze all international signals, not just those of suspected terrorists. He knew this was blatantly illegal so he hid it. Bush says "We use FISA still. But FISAs is for long-term monitoring. What is needed in order to protect the American people is the ability to move quickly to detect." Then later "There is a difference between detecting, so we can prevent, and monitoring.
And it's important to note the distinction between the two." The distinction is that "detecting" requires listening to lots of calls with a computer to see if someone says certain keywords like "bomb" in Arabic, or maybe even "impeach Bush" in English. Monitoring is listening to a specific suspected terrorist. The problem with detection is that you have to listen to all calls, including yours and mine. [This NY Times article confirms this interpretation. Also CNN.]
More evidence that Bush wants to listen to all signals is in Bob Woodward's book "Bush at War," on page 303. " Bush summarized his strategy: 'Listen to every phone call and close them down and protect the innocents.'" [WaPost]
James B. Comey, acting Attorney General, refused to sign an authorization for the NSA program because it "did not comply with the law". On March 10th, 2004, Alberto Gonzales and Andrew Card tried to bypass Comey be getting a disoriented John Ashcroft to sign an authorization from his hospital bed. Comey rushed to the hospital to stop them. On March 11th, Bush intervened personally to get the Justice Department to authorize the program. [NYTimes]
Investigators may have found that Bush applied for an expansion of wiretap capability from FISA, was rejected, and then went ahead and did it anyway. [FindLaw] [FAS]
Bush claims going through FISA is too slow but legal emergency wiretaps helped capture terrorist Mosquera.
According to a report in USA Today, the NSA is collecting the phone records of tens of millions of Americans - most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. The agency's goal is "to create a database of every call ever made" within the nation's borders. The stated goal is to be able to identify who is involved in a network of terrorists.
But this same technique can be used to determine who is involved in a network of political activists who might, for example, oppose the Bush administration. Under Section 222 of the Communications Act, first passed in 1934, telephone companies are prohibited from giving out information regarding their customers' calling habits. All of the major telecommunications companies cooperated with this program except for Qwest. Joe Nacchio, CEO of Qwest, was troubled by the fact that there was no FISA approval and that the program was so pervasive.
8/18/06 - In response to a lawsuit filed by the ACLU, US District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled that the wiretaps are unconstitutional.
RESOURCES
Timeline of Wiretaps by Jodin Morey
Transcript of Bush at a Press Conference discussing the wiretaps, 12/19/05 [CNN]
"An Update on President Bush's NSA Program: The Historical Context, Specter's Recent Bill, and Feingold's Censure Motion", in FindLaw, 3/24/06, by JOHN W. DEAN
"Bipartisan call for wiretapping probe", 12/21/05 [CNN]
Oregan court case determines that reasons for FISA approved wiretaps can remain secret. 3/18/03 [CNN]
US Code Title 50, Chapter 36, Subchapter I, Sec 1805 defining the operation of the FISA Court.
'What are the "Inherent" Powers of the President? How the Bush Administration Has Mistaken Default Rules for Exclusive Right' By Michael C. Dorf, Feb. 13, 2006 - analyses legality of wiretaps.
"Judge Rules Against Wiretaps NSA Program Called Unconstitutional" by Dan Eggen and Dafna Linzer, Washington Post Staff Writers, Friday, August 18, 2006
"Accountability for an illegal war?" further analysis of HJR114 and War Powers Act by D. Lindley Young, 1/14/2005
SUMMARY OF IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES
Click on the link for more details.
Bush lied to Congress and the American public about the reasons for invading Iraq.
Bush conducted illegal wiretaps of American citizens.
Bush violated the Geneva Convention by torturing prisoners of war.
Bush violated International Law by invading a sovereign country for illegal purposes.
Bush held prisoners without formal charges and without legal representation. [CNN]
Bush illegally used government funds for domestic political propaganda related to the administration's Medicare package, paying commentator Armstrong Williams, etc. [NYT, requires free registration] TruthOut: [1] [2] [3]
Bush used uniformed military personnel for Republican party political purposes. [TalkingPointsMemo] [Coloradoan]
Bush was negligent in his slow response to help victims of Hurricane Katrina.
Bush shows contempt toward our Constitution and our democratic ideals.
Bush lied about the fish.
See also our page on "Grounds for Impeachment".
RESOURCES
"Happy Impeachment Day! 10 Reasons to Impeach" - 7/19/06, Excellent summary of Bush crimes by the CCR. OpEdNews.com
WHY IMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY?
This section describes the various impeachable offenses commited by Bush and Cheney, and tells why Congress should impeach them.
Summary of Impeachable Offenses
Lied about Threat from Iraq
Lied about Uranium from Niger
Lied about Aluminum Tubes
Lied about Congress having Same Information as Bush
Illegal Wiretaps
Torture of Prisoners
Violated International Law
TALKING POINTS
These Talking Points are rebuttals to commonly used arguments.
Crimes - Bush has committed impeachable offenses.
Political - Bush should be impeached now for those crimes.
State and City - Arguments for State Legislators or City Councils.
"Impeachment Talking Points", ten impeachable offenses on AfterDowningStreet.org
Talking Points for Local Resolutions from Vermont (see bottom of page)
2 page Talking Points and FAQ from Cape Cod Peace and Justice
OTHER ARGUMENTS
If we can't impeach him, then Bush Should Resign
Bush's Policies make the United States Less Secure
Bush had No Legal Authority to Attack Iraq, Analysis of HJR114
There were Viable Alternatives to Attacking Iraq
Bush Should Not Attack Iraq (an anti-war argument revisited)
How to Impeach Constitution High Crimes Cities and States Grounds Treaties Articles of Impeachment Process History Rules
IMPEACHMENT FOR VIOLATING INTERNATIONAL LAW
George Bush has committed war crimes in violation of the UN Charter and the Nuremberg Charter.
Synopsis: Bush attacked Iraq, against the decisions of the United Nations, and thus violated the UN Charter. Planning and committing a war of aggression is a violation of the Nuremberg Charter. According to the US Constitution these international treaties are part of the "supreme Law of the Land". Bush has violated the Nuremberg Charter and the UN Charter and is, therefore, subject to impeachment.
UN & NUREMBERG CHARTERS PART OF "THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND"
Article VI of the US Constitution states that:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;"
Because Bush violated International Laws that we agreed to by treaty, then he is also violating the supreme Law of the Land which is an impeachable offense. Note that it says "or which shall be made" so treaties signed after the Constitution was adopted are still covered.
Violation of The United Nations Charter
Chapter 1, Article 2 of the UN Charter states:
3.All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4.All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.
Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.
Bush lied to the UN and to Congress about the seriousness of the threat from Iraq, and invaded Iraq in defiance of a vote from the UN Security Council. His actions inflamed the Arab world and set a dangerous precedent for any other country that wants to defy the UN and start their own war.
VIOLATION OF THE NUREMBERG CHARTER
Principle Vl of the Nuremberg Charter states:
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under; international law:
a. Crimes against peace:
i. Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
ii .Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
Bush's invaded a sovereign country that had not threatened the United States and had no ability to do so. Bush had been making plans to invade Iraq even before 9/11.
CORNELL LAW SCHOOL
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002441----000-.html
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 118 > § 2441
§ 2441. War crimes
(a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.
(b) Circumstances.— The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).
(c) Definition.— As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct—
(1) defined as a 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;
(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
(3) which constitutes a violation of common Article 3 of the international conventions signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party and which deals with non-international armed conflict; or
(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.
PRINCIPLES OF THE NUREMBERG TRIBUNAL, 1950
No. 82
Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal. Adopted by the International Law Commission of the United Nations, 1950.
Introductory note: Under General Assembly Resolution 177 (II), paragraph (a), the International Law Commission was directed to "formulate the principles of international law recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the judgment of the Tribunal." In the course of the consideration of this subject, the question arose as to whether or not the Commission should ascertain to what extent the principles contained in the Charter and judgment constituted principles of international law.
The conclusion was that since the Nuremberg Principles had been affirmed by the General Assembly, the task entrusted to the Commission was not to express any appreciation of these principles as principles of international law but merely to formulate them. The text below was adopted by the Commission at its second session. The Report of the Commission also contains commentaries on the principles (see Yearbook of the Intemational Law Commission, 1950, Vol. II, pp. 374-378).
Authentic text: English Text published in Report of the International Law Commission Covering its Second Session, 5 June-29 Duly 1950, Document A/1316, pp. 11-14.
Principle I
Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment.
Principle II
The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.
Principle III
The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.
Principle IV
The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.
Principle V
Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.
Principle Vl
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under; international law:
Crimes against peace:
Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
War crimes:Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or illtreatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
Crimes against humanity:Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.
Principle VII
Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principles VI is a crime under international law.
THE AVALON PROJECT: THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS (YALE UNIVERSITY)
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03.htm
THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS: THE CORE OF INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW
The Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols are international treaties that contain the most important rules limiting the barbarity of war. They protect people who do not take part in the fighting (civilians, medics, aid workers) and those who can no longer fight (wounded, sick and shipwrecked troops, prisoners of war). Links to selected resources.
The Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols are part of international humanitarian law – a whole system of legal safeguards that cover the way wars may be fought and the protection of individuals.
They specifically protect people who do not take part in the fighting (civilians, medics, chaplains, aid workers) and those who can no longer fight (wounded, sick and shipwrecked troops, prisoners of war).
The Conventions and their Protocols call for measures to be taken to prevent (or put an end to) what are known as "grave breaches"; those responsible for breaches must be punished.
The Geneva Conventions have been acceded to by 194 States and enjoy universal acceptance.
KEY ISSUES
The essential rules
Humanitarian law: your questions answered
The Geneva Conventions and the emblems
Who is bound by the Geneva Conventions?
Humanitarian law and human rights
How the founding of the ICRC led to the first Geneva Convention FULL DOCUMENTATION ON International humanitarian law
The first Geneva Convention of 1864 dealt exclusively with care for wounded soldiers; the law was later adapted to cover warfare at sea and prisoners of war. In 1949 the Conventions were revised and expanded:
1st Convention Wounded Soldiers On The Battlefield
2nd Convention Wounded And Shipwrecked At Sea
3rd Convention Prisoners Of War
4th Convention Civilians Under Enemy Control IN 1977 TWO ADDITIONAL PROTOCOLS WERE ADDED:
1st Protocol International Conflicts
2nd Protocol Non-International ConflictsIN 2005 ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL III WAS ADOPTED:
3rd ProtocolAdditional Distinctive Emblem
OTHER DOCUMENTS IN THIS SECTION:
Humanitarian law > Treaties and customary law
IN OTHER SECTIONS:
Humanitarian law\IHL in brief
Index
WWW URL: http://deoxy.org/wc-nurem.htm
The Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT FOR PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH AND VICE PRESIDENT RICHARD B. CHENEYFOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.
Resolved, that President George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:
Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against President George W. Bush and his team for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Article I
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has conspired to exceed his constitutional authority to wage war, in that:
On March 19, 2003, George W. Bush invaded the sovereign country of Iraq in direct defiance of the United Nations Security Council. This constitutes a violation of Chapter 1, Article 2 of the United Nations Charter and a violation of Principal VI of the Nuremberg Charter. According to Article VI of the United States Constitution "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;". George W. Bush has thus acted in violation of the supreme Law of the Land by the following acts:
Invading Iraq with United States military forces.
Sacrificing the lives of thousands of American troops.
Killing tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians and conscripts.
Rejecting possibilities for peaceful resolution of the conflict by rejecting acts of compliance by Saddam Hussein with the United Nations Resolutions, and ignoring the findings by Hans Blix that inspections were working to disarm Iraq.
Violating the Geneva Convention by abducting and transporting human beings to prisons in foreign countries where they can be tortured and subjected to inhumane treatment.
Article II
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has subverted the principles of democracy, by the following acts:
Providing misinformation to the United Nations Security Council, Congress, and the American people overstating the offensive capabilities of Iraq, including weapons of mass destruction, as justification for military action against Iraq.
Repeatedly manipulating the sentiments of the American people by erroneously linking Iraq with the terrorist attacks of September 11th by Al-Qaeda.
Repeatedly claiming that satellite photos of sites in Iraq depicted factories for weapons of mass destruction in contradiction with the results of ground inspections by United Nations teams.
Stating that "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" in his State of the Union Address after being told by the CIA that this was untrue and that the supporting documents were forged.
Influencing, manipulating and distorting intelligence related to Iraq with the intention of using that intelligence to support his goal of invading Iraq.
Repeatedly ordering the NSA to place illegal wiretaps on American citizens without a court order from FISA.
Retaliating against whistle-blowers who try to point out errors in statements made by President Bush.
Directing millions of dollars in government funds to companies associated with White House officials in no-bid contracts that pose serious conflicts of interest. One example is Halliburton, of which Richard Cheney was once CEO.
Article III
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has threatened the security of the American people, by the following acts:
Diverting military resources from pursuing known terrorists such as Osama Bin Laden who have repeatedly attacked the United States of America.
Generating ill will among the peoples of the world with an offensive and aggressive foreign policy.
Weakening the effects of International Law by defying the United Nations thus encouraging other nations to violate International law by example.
Diverting the National Guard to foreign wars where they are unavailable to serve the needs of American citizens at home who, for example, are suffering from Hurricane Katrina.
Appointing unqualified personnel to critical government positions as political favors where their incompetence places American citizens at risk. An example being the appointment of Mike Brown as head of FEMA.
Proposing military strategies involving the first use of tactical or low yield nuclear weapons in violation of the Nonproliferation Treaty, which is an inherently destabilizing strategy that encourages participants in a conflict to strike before the other side can do so.
Wherefore, George Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.
Impeacher
http://impeacher.blogspot.com
Impeach Bush.tv
http://www.impeachbush.tv/impeach/articles_impeach_tally.pdf
Impeach Now.org
http://www.impeachnow.org
News With Views (Devvy –The Dynamic Redhead)
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd264.htm
DD Revival
http://ddrevival.blogspot.com/2006/09/open-letter-to-susan-making-bush.html
Constitution.org (Abuses)
http://www.constitution.org/cs_abuse.htm
Find out just what the people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.— Frederick Douglass, civil rights activist, Aug. 4, 1857
DD League Usa.net
http://ddleague-usa.net
Debunking Of Arguments Against Impeachment
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x277375
Presented in full…
No President or Vice President in the history of the United States was ever more deserving and in urgent need of impeachment and removal from office than George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are now.
Among the myriad of impeachable offenses they have committed: By repeatedly lying to Congress to justify our invasion of Iraq and thereby undermining the rightful authority of Congress to declare war, Bush and Cheney have violated the separation of powers between the Executive and Legislative branches of government guaranteed in our Constitution; by authorizing the National Security Agency and other intelligence agencies to conduct warrantless spying on hundreds of thousands or millions of American citizens, George Bush has violated our Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches, as well as the laws of our country; and in his treatment of thousands of prisoners of war, he has repeatedly violated international law specified in the Geneva Convention of 1949, as well the due process clause of our Fifth Amendment, our Sixth Amendment right to a public trial, to face one’s accusers, to be represented by counsel and to be informed of the charges against one’s self, and our Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
The amount of evidence for each of the above noted assertions, and many more, is overwhelming, but will not be discussed further here. Thus Bush and Cheney have put themselves above the laws of our country and the Constitution that they have sworn to preserve and protect, thereby gravely threatening the continued functioning of our Constitution, which provides the legal foundation for our nation.
Organizations and groups advocating the impeachment of Bush and CheneyConsequently, organizations and groups advocating the impeachment of Bush and Cheney have sprung up all over our country, including:
The Center for Constitutional Rights
AfterDowningStreet
ImpeachBush.org
Impeach for Peace– and see their “action steps to get Bush impeached”
ImpeachBush.tv
Constitution Summer
The National Lawyers Guild
The Green Party National Committee
Impeach Central
Veterans for Peace
Gold Star Families for Peace
Democrats.com
In addition, resolutions calling for the impeachment of George Bush have been introduced into the legislatures of four states – Illinois, California, New Mexico and Minnesota. If any of them passes, the U.S. House of Representatives would be forced to consider those resolutions. Also, the cities of Berkeley and San Francisco have voted on and passed resolutions calling for the impeachment of George Bush.
The debunking of anti-impeachment arguments
Along with the grassroots efforts to impeach Bush and Cheney, many people, including some political opponents of George Bush (including DUers), have put forth arguments against impeachment. Many or most of the organizations noted above have vigorously countered and debunked those arguments (in my opinion). I believe that those counter arguments are well worth considering, as this is perhaps the most crucial issue facing our country today. Here are some of the most important counter arguments to the anti-impeachment arguments:
If we impeach Bush we’ll get President Cheney
Not likely. As AfterDowningStreet notes:
Initiating the impeachment process will lead to an investigation that will implicate lots of people in the Bush administration who are guilty of committing crimes, including Cheney.
Promoting impeachment will seem too extreme – and might have adverse political consequences for those who promote it
Impeachment is not extreme at all. It was placed in our Constitution as a safeguard against tyranny – which IS extreme and extremely dangerous. Here is a compilation of what Democrats.com and AfterDowningStreet say about this:
Shedding light on Bush's crimes and the Republican party's complicity in those crimes is the best way to get democrats elected. Demanding impeachment is one effective way of doing that. Secondly, demanding that crimes be investigated IS NOT extreme. Some previous impeachment attempts were considered extreme because they were pursued for actions that didn't rise to the level of a Constitutional crisis, which is what the impeachment tool is meant to be used for.
Anyhow, the voters from Minnesota’s House District 5 certainly didn’t think that impeachment of George Bush is too extreme. One would think that a Muslim running for the U.S. House in the post 9-11 era would have very good reason to avoid being seen as too extreme. Keith Ellison ran for the Minnesota’s 5th District House seat on a Bush impeachment agenda and was subsequently elected last November as our nation’s only Muslim Congressperson.
Passing much needed legislation is more important to the American people than impeachment
Passing much needed legislation is of course very important. But why should it preclude impeachment? And, as AfterDowningStreet points out:
With unconstitutional Presidential Signing Statements, veto power, and the power of "Commander in Chief" at his disposal, how do you think Congress is going to get ANYTHING accomplished without first impeaching Bush?
A presidential impeachment would hurt democracy
That’s one of the lamest arguments around, and is a manifestation of the “ostrich syndrome”. Taking measures to combat a tyrannical government will not hurt democracy. That’s like saying that reporting about or investigating a problem will make it worse. To the contrary, as pointed out by AfterDowningStreet:
Holding government officials accountable for their actions strengthens our democracy. Letting lawlessness stand weakens it.
The votes do not exist in the Senate to convict Bush and Cheney of impeachable crimes. Therefore, Impeachment is a waste of time.
Along those same lines, it was reported that the odds against impeachment are 1000 to 1! Oh wait, sorry, that was the odds against the impeachment of Nixon – before the evidence starting to accumulate and be made public. Anyhow, as I’ve said many times, the decision to prosecute a crime (or proceed with impeachment) should be based on the evidence for doing so, NOT on a count of the votes. Once the evidence starts to be spread to the public at large, how do you think that Republican Senators will react to the ensuing public outrage? As AfterDowningStreet points out:
Today's impossibility is tomorrow's reality. Republican Congress members will realize that tying their political future to Bush reduces their chances of getting elected. Remember, one way or another, Bush is gone by 2009- but members of Congress may retain their offices beyond that date. Bush's poll numbers are extremely low, and most Americans support impeachment. This is a bipartisan movement. This means that if we make the pressure unbearable for Members of Congress, they'll turn on him to keep their own seats (like they did with Nixon). It's already starting to happen.
Speaker Pelosi took impeachment “off the table”
(Sigh). That is true unfortunately, she did that. Perhaps one reason she did that was because it would be considered a conflict of interest if she pushed for impeachment, since she could be made President as a result. Some would even call it a coup de tat.
But “off the table” does not denote a permanent state of affairs. If a state legislature passes an impeachment resolution and forwards it to the U.S. House of Representatives, or if currently ongoing Congressional investigations “turn up” impeachable offenses (In saying this, I’m pretending for the sake of argument that there isn’t already overwhelming evidence of impeachable offenses), then the House would be obligated to put impeachment back “on the table”.
Impeachment of George Bush would be seen as revenge for Bill Clinton’s impeachment
That’s just plain silly. Again, the decision to prosecute a crime (or proceed with impeachment) should be based first and foremost on the evidence – not on how some people might view it.
The public won’t support impeachment.
Well, a Newsweek poll from October 2006 indicated that 51% of Americans believe that impeachment should be a high (28%) or a low (23%) priority, with 44% against it. Yes, there are some polls that say otherwise (though I doubt that any more recent polls say otherwise). One gets slightly different answers to polls of this nature depending on how the question is asked, and when respondents are given the opportunity to weakly agree to something (as in calling it a ‘low’ priority) they are more likely to indicate at least some agreement. But the point is that half or more Americans are at least mildly in favor of impeachment or neutral on it, and that’s before they’ve sat through weeks or months of impeachment hearings. Certainly, public exposure to the myriad of Bush/Cheney crimes can only cause approval for impeachment to climb.
If we don’t support our President we aid the terrorists
Again I’ll defer to AfterDowningStreet:
We support terrorism when we fail to deal with its root causes (poverty, lack of education, support of dictatorships, etc.). We also support it by enabling a president who creates breeding grounds for terrorists - like Iraq has now become, thanks to our invasion and occupation. Middle Eastern countries are upset with the oppressive international policies of the past and current administration. We might develop more healthy relationships with these countries if we appeared to learn from our mistakes by impeaching a president who has been so instrumental in that oppression.
What happens if we don’t impeach and remove Bush from office
I have three questions, which I think any reasonably well informed and realistic person should be able to answer:
1) Does George Bush fully intend to go to war against Iran, probably using nuclear weapons?
2) Does he intend to present “evidence” to Congress and the American people that Iran poses a grave danger to our country, as a means of justifying that war?
3) Will the “evidence that he presents” be just as bogus as was the evidence that he presented to us for his Iraq war?
If the answer to all three of those questions is yes – and I think it’s obvious that it is – then we need to consider whether Congress will be able to stop him from perpetrating another disaster upon our country and the world, and if removing him from office might not be the best way to stop him. And keep in mind also that if faced with impeachment hearings and trial in the Senate, Bush just might be inclined to drop his war plans in order to avoid providing more ammunition for his conviction.
But beyond that, there is another, perhaps just as important reason, to proceed to impeachment. As Robert Weitzel says about impeachment, our Founding Fathers:
never intended impeachment to be either extreme or rare. It was meant to be used forcefully and unapologetically and as often as necessary to check the excesses of power or wanton corruption of the temporary occupants of the White House. That it has been so rarely used has led us to the unconscionable level of abuse by the Bush administration. They proceed as though they have nothing to fear, as if the Constitution is powerless to hold them accountable. It is this lack of fear that is sounding the death knell of our democracy; the final taps at the twilight of the Republic.
And Thomas Jefferson once said something similar about the impeachment provision in our Constitution:
When once a republic is corrupted there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil.
In other words, since our President and Vice President have failed to accord our Constitution any validity, others must act to do so. Otherwise our Constitution will come to be seen as just a piece of paper, to be ignored for the convenience of those in power. That process is already very far advanced, and as it proceeds we are threatened with the loss, perhaps permanent, of our democracy and the rule of law in our nation.
Impeach Central
http://www.apfn.net/Messageboard/05-16-05/discussion.cgi.109.html
Stumble Upon.com
http://www.stumbleupon.com/tag/impeach
Indy Media.us
http://indymedia.us/en/topic/impeachbush/archive2.shtml
Citizens For Legitimate Government.org
http://legitgov.org/action.html
Bush Screwed America.com
http://www.bushscrewedamerica.com
Serendipity.li
http://www.serendipity.li/impeachment.htm
"The Case for Impeachment" -- An excellent article by Lewis H. Lapham in the March 2006 issue of Harpers magazine. The reasons and justification for impeachment are clearly stated.
The Constitution in Crisis (3.8 megabyte PDF document) -- Investigative status report by the House Judiciary Committee, Democratic Staff, which lists Bush deceptions in the Iraq War
George W. Bush as the New Richard M. Nixon: Both Wiretapped Illegally, and Impeachably -- An article written by John Dean, former White House Counsel to Richard Nixon
Grounds for Impeachment -- Progressive Magazine's editor Matthew Rothschild lists his own reasons for impeachment
AfterDowningStreet -- A coalition of over 100 grassroots organizations that opposes the Bush agenda and are pushing for impeachment
14 Characteristics of Fascism -- A short film making the connection between the Bush Administration and other fascist regimes
ImpeachForPeace.org -- An excellent clearinghouse of information, and features "do-it-yourself impeachment!"
ImpeachBush.tv -- Lots of information and impeachment resources, loaded with links.
ToppleBush.com -- Anti-Bush humor, articles and products.
ImpeachBush.org -- Working toward impeachment with ads and a petition.
BushOnIraq.com -- Excellent documentation of the MANY lies from the Bushies.
ImpeachPAC.org -- A political action committee supporting politicians who support impeachment.
Democrats.com -- These Democrats are a bit more vocal than those in DC.
ImpeachCentral.org -- Another great source of impeachment information.
Bush's lies were used as a justification for launching an invasion and occupation of Iraq which has killed hundreds of U.S. soldiers and thousands of Iraqis and which has and will cost the U.S. taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars (far better spent on health, education and unemployment benefits for the workers whose jobs Bush has shipped overseas). The long-term damage to America is incalculable. Bush's lies amount to a "high crime" under the U.S. Constitution and justify impeachement and removal from office.
And not only Bush. In the run-up to the attack on Iraq Vice-President Dick Cheney claimed that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear program and had recently attempted to purchase uranium, even though he knew (from the report of retired US Ambassador Joseph Wilson, the man he sent to Niger to investigate this) that this was false. He claimed that following an invasion of Iraq the Iraqis would welcome the American soldiers as liberators (instead the Iraqis are killing as many as they can).
For His Lies As Well As His Gross Errors Of Judgment (Amounting To Wishful Thinking) Cheney Should Be Impeached And Removed From Office. The Same Is True Of Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice And The Other Neo-Cons Who Did Israel's Bidding By Launching A War To Remove The Threat To Israel From Saddam Hussein.
All should be swept away. However, as John Kaminski and Michael Ruppert have pointed out, removing Bush and his fellow sleazeballs from power will not fundamentally change the fact (in Ruppert's words), "that the system itself is corrupt and that the people controlling it — both in government, and in America's corporations and financial institutions — are criminals".
ARTICLES
Winning an Oilfield, Losing the World — Superpower Crimes & the Failure of Nationalism
Marc Cooper: Uncensored Gore
[N]obody has ever wrecked the Bill of Rights as he [Bush] has. Other presidents have dodged around it, but no president before this one has so put the Bill of Rights at risk. No one has proposed preemptive war before. And two countries in a row that have done no harm to us have been bombed.
Bev Conover: The True "Servants of Evil"
And on this day [September 11, 2003] he [Bush] has proclaimed Patriot Day of all things, having mired the US military in the depleted-uranium-laden sands of Iraq, showing no remorse for all the innocent people whose deaths he caused, telling the countries on whom he spit they have a duty to help rebuild what he has destroyed, and, after depriving his own people of vitally needed services, asking Congress for another $87 billion as partial payment on the tab he ran up — not to mention the unprecedented $500 billion hole his policies and tax cuts for the rich have put the country in — he further exploits the victims of 9/11 by sacrificing our troops on the altar of his ego and ignorance.
Xymphora: George W. Bush, Cocaine and Community Service
Dr. Robert Bowman: Some Dare Call It Treason — Wake Up America!
It is time for George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and the whole oil mafia to be removed from office and indicted for TREASON.
Ramsey Clark's Articles of Impeachment of George W. Bush et al.
President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and Attorney General John David Ashcroft have committed violations and subversions of the Constitution of the United States of America in an attempt to carry out with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes and deprivations of the civil rights of the people of the United States and other nations, by assuming powers of an imperial executive unaccountable to law and usurping powers of the Congress, the Judiciary and those reserved to the people of the United States, by the following acts: ...
A modified form of these Articles of Impeachment may be found here, on the website of VoteToImpeach.org, along with Ramsey Clark's Notes on Impeachment.
Edgar J. Steele: Bush Must Go!
Daniel Bacher: Bush's Illegal War
By spending taxpayers' money on military adventures, the Bush administration has taken money that could have been better spent for feeding people, building schools and economic and social development in the U.S. and throughout the world.
Drake Bennett and Heidi Pauken: All the President's Lies
More distressing even than the president's lies, though, is the public's apparent passivity. Bush just seems to get away with it. ... [Does] the complicity of the press help to lull the public and reinforce the president's lies?
Jon Roland: Meaning of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"
[The] phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" ... refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons.
George Soros's We Deserve the Truth
Patrick Martin: What happened to Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction"?
... the claim of chemical and biological weapons was a hoax, deliberately concocted by the Bush administration to conceal its predatory aims in the invasion of a country with the world's second largest oil reserves.
Julian Borger: White House 'lied about Saddam threat'
A former US intelligence official who served under the Bush administration in the build-up to the Iraq war accused the White House yesterday of lying about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.
Bush is risking his credibility
What the president doesn't seem to grasp is that criticism over the uranium statement has grown because the White House has tried to kiss it off.
Robert Scheer: What Did He Know and When Did He Know It?
We now know that the threat of deployed WMD was a blatant falsehood. What has not been established is whether the President was in on the lie. If he was, he should be impeached.
John W. Dean: Missing Weapons Of Mass Destruction: Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense?
If the Bush Administration intentionally manipulated or misrepresented intelligence to get Congress to authorize, and the public to support, military action to take control of Iraq, then that would be a monstrous misdeed. ... Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause.
Daniel Meltzer: Was it a high crime?
If President Bush launched a lethal war, one whose ultimate domestic and global consequences still cannot be foreseen, on the basis of evidence he either knew was false or about which he should have been judiciously skeptical, then in the words of Mr. Bush's own father, former President George H. W. Bush, "this cannot stand," and he should resign or be impeached.
Families of soldiers condemn Bush's war
Eric Margolis: Bush Deserves To Be Impeached
The litany of lies produced by the White House and its neo-con allies would be farcical were it not for the deaths of so many Americans and Iraqis.
LaRouche Says Charges Against Cheney Constitute Grounds For Impeachment
The charges against Cheney are centered on the fact that the Vice President repeatedly used documents, allegedly from the government of Niger, purporting to show Iraqi government efforts to purchase large quantities of uranium precursor, "yellow cake" from that African nation, long after he learned that the documents were forged.
Michael C. Ruppert: Blood in the Water: Watergate II
... it is ludicrous to expect that Cheney sent [Joseph] Wilson to investigate [the claim that Iraq had tried to purchase uranium from Niger], and then did not want a report when Wilson returned [with a negative finding]. Yet, that is the Vice President's position.
Francis A. Boyle: It's About the Rule of Law: Impeaching George W. Bush
We need one Member of Congress with the courage, integrity, and principles of the late and great Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez of Texas. Otherwise, the alternative will be an American Empire abroad, a U.S. Police State at home, and continuing wars of aggression to sustain them — along the lines of George Orwell's classic novel 1984.
Investigate and Impeach Bush for Failing to Act on 911 Warnings — And then Lying About It
The following list contains the most serious warnings that were ignored by the Bush administration. ... Collectively, these failures justify the resignation — or impeachment — of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, who are ultimately responsible for the failure of their Administration to protect the American people. ...
A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition Responds to President Bush's National Television Address of September 7, 2003
During his administration, Bush has only rarely felt that he must address the people, and does so when he fears that a sentiment is growing strong enough to challenge his illegal actions. He must then lie more [than he usually does] to convince the people of the U.S. to support his criminal endeavors, or at least acquiesce in them.
Santa Cruz to ask Congress to consider impeaching Bush
With a sweeping 6-1 vote, the Santa Cruz City Council became the first local government in the country Tuesday [2003-09-09] to ask Congress to look into impeaching President Bush.
Walter E. Davis, PhD: September 11th And The Bush Administration: Compelling Evidence for Complicity
Thus the possibility of complicity on the part of the Bush Administration is very real. At the very least, further and more honest investigations must take place and some accountability exacted from those responsible.
Christopher Scheer: Ten Appalling Lies We Were Told About Iraq
What follows are just the most outrageous and significant of the dozens of outright lies uttered by Bush and his top officials over the past year in what amounts to a systematic campaign to scare the bejeezus out of everybody: ...
John W. Dean: President Bush's New Iraq Commission Won't Be Investigating the Key WMD Issue: How the Executive Order Fatally Limits Their Agenda
Bill Vann: Bush at the UN — a war criminal takes the podium
Unlike the American people, the Bush administration is more than willing to accept the resulting increase in young American soldiers, reservists and National Guard members dying daily to secure increased profits for the administration's corporate backers.
The Bush Body Count
This is a list of bodies, a roster of the dead, who might have been called Witnesses had they not met their untimely ends.
John McArthur: Impeach Bush now (Also here.)
Why aren't Americans talking seriously about impeachment? After all, Mr. Bush now stands plausibly accused of the lofty crime of subverting the Constitution of the United States — that is, lying to Congress about an imminent danger to the American people in order to collect enough votes to authorize his corporate/imperial project in Iraq.
GW Bush went AWOL
Xymphora: More on George and Drugs
Lori R. Price: Will Bush play the bioterror card?
Kirwan: When Lives are Written in Invisible Ink
Four Reasons (Five Actually) to Impeach Bush
Fortunate Son: George W. Bush and the Making of an American President
William Rivers Pitt: The Ramadan Offensive
George W. Bush said the intricately coordinated and highly effective attacks [at the start of Ramadan] were a sign that the Iraqi insurgents were becoming "desperate." He described the attackers as people who "hate freedom" and "love terror." This is the reaction of a man residing comfortably in Bizarro World, a land where up is down, black is white, and reality has no place at the table.
To Americans: This is Your President. A lunatic. Despicable. Worse than a disgrace to America. You like this? Do you know that you, the People, have the power to remove him from office, through your elected representatives? Let them know how you feel.
The Bush Hitler Thing
So far, I've seen nothing to eliminate the possibility that Bush is on the same course as Hitler.
And I've seen far too many analogies to dismiss the possibility.
The propaganda. The lies. The rhetoric. The nationalism. The flag waving. The pretext of 'preventive war'.
The flaunting of international law and international standards of justice. The disappearances of 'undesirable' aliens. The threats against protesters.
The invasion of a non-threatening sovereign nation. The occupation of a hostile country. The promises of prosperity and security. The spying on ordinary citizens.
The incitement to spy on one's neighbors - and report them to the government. The arrogant triumphant pride in military conquest. The honoring of soldiers. The tributes to 'fallen warriors'. The diversion of money to the military.
The demonization of government appointed 'enemies'. The establishment of 'Homeland Security'. The dehumanization of 'foreigners'. The total lack of interest in the victims of government policy. The incarceration of the poor and mentally ill.
The growing prosperity from military ventures. The illusion of 'goodness' and primacy. The new einsatzgrupen forces. Assassination teams. Closed extralegal internment camps. The militarization of domestic police.
Media blackout of non-approved issues. Blacklisting of protesters — including the no-fly lists and photographing dissenters at rallies.
A BuzzFlash editorial, 2004-02-02: In Memory of Our Soldiers Dead in Iraq, More than 3,000 Dead On 9/11, and Patriots Outed by Treasonous Bush Staff, No More Sham "Investigations" Aimed at Covering Up the Truth and Protecting the Guilty. Impeachment, Prosecution and Jail Time, Now.
Forget About Condi's Show "Testimony" of Lies Today: That's All White House "Made for Television" Theater. If You Want the Truth, Let's Move on to Plan "B": Impeachment.
William Saletan: Trust, Don't Verify — Bush's incredible definition of credibility
Three times, Bush repeated the answer he gave to Edwin Chen of the Los Angeles Times: "Had there been a threat that required action by anybody in the government, I would have dealt with it." Outside Bush's head, the statement was patently false: The 9/11 threat required action, and Bush failed to deal with it. But inside Bush's head, the statement was tautological: If there were a threat that required action, Bush would have dealt with it; Bush didn't deal with it; therefore, there was no threat that required action.
Sidney Blumenthal: Hear no evil, read no evil, speak drivel
Bush's [April 2004] press conference shows just how ill-informed he is about Iraq
Kirwan: War Has Answered!
... diplomacy [with regard to Iraq] was never even tried — because our anointed one, had talked to god and then decided, "WAR was what it had to be!" Never mind that there were laws about making those kinds of decisions. This mattered not to BUSH, because he was chosen above all men to bring freedom to the waiting world, despite the rights of other peoples, and the Constitution of the USA. Bush had his mission, and nothing as small as the US Congress or the courts were going to get between him and his mission: because he was chosen by god to do this.
Brian Cloughley: America is Committing War Crimes in Iraq
Bush does not actually read newspapers, except the sports sections. ... Bush might prefer to get the "news du jour" through the filter and interpretation of his sycophants [Card, Rice, Rove, Rumsfeld, Cheney and the rest of the loonies running the White House asylum], but it would serve his country better were he to read honest and accurate reports of what is going on in the land he invaded and has destroyed. He has dishonored his own country, and, alas, he has set an example to his armed forces that has resulted in conduct that I would never have thought possible on the part of Americans in uniform.
Dr Susan Block: Bush's POW Porn
Doug Thompson: Bush's Erratic Behavior Worries White House Aides
President George W. Bush's increasingly erratic behavior and wide mood swings has the halls of the West Wing buzzing lately as aides privately express growing concern over their leader's state of mind.
Marjorie Cohn: The Torturer-in-Chief
The Constitution mandates the impeachment of a President for high crimes and misdemeanors. There is no higher crime than a war crime. Willful killing, torture and inhuman treatment constitute grave breaches of the Geneva Convention, which are considered war crimes under The War Crimes Act of 1996. ... Bush impliedly admitted sanctioning willful killing, torture and inhuman treatment in his 2003 State of the Union Address. He would be liable under the doctrine of command responsibility for war crimes committed in Iraq as well. The captain goes down with his ship. It is time to call for the Impeachment of George W. Bush.
Teresa Hampton: Bush Using Drugs to Control Depression, Erratic Behavior
[According to one] long-time GOP political consultant ... "We have to face the very real possibility that the President of the United States is loony tunes," he says sadly. "That's not good for my candidates, it's not good for the party and it's certainly not good for the country."
Eric A. Smith: The Goods on Bush: What We Can Prove
How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power
Alex Salmond joins bid to have Tony Blair impeached
A 99 page report drawn up by two leading academics, details four "impeachable offences" under which Tony Blair could be charged: misleading Parliament and the country and failing to resign in consequence, negligence and incompetence, undermining the constitution and entering into a secret agreement with the President of the United States regarding the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
Frederick Sweet: Just sitting next to a friend who expresses an anti-Bush opinion can get you into big Secret Service trouble in George W. Bush's United States
Karl W. B. Schwarz: Demand Letter Sent To Bush By Corp CEO
Peter Dale Scott: A Post-Election Wrap-Up: Iraq, 9/11, Drugs, Cheney, and Watergate Two, including 9/11 as an Issue for Impeachment
Carla Binion: Bush and Cheney: reprehensible, corrupt, seeking your vote
Shouldn't we be thinking of impeaching George W. Bush and Dick Cheney instead of running them for political office? These are two of the most corrupt politicians in U.S. history. We have factual proof they're serial liars. They've hoodwinked Congress and the American people into a war based on lies.
Open letter to the citizens of the United States of America
George Bush has turned the USA into a pariah state in the international community and before the eyes of the citizens of the world. ...
Killing tens of thousands of civilians is not Christian, it is evil and the callousness with which this issue is faced by the Bush regime is witness to the coldness in their hearts and minds, a coldness which creates shock and revulsion in the community of nations. In Europe, in Africa, in Asia, in Latin America, in Canada.
Stanley Hilton Lawsuit
THE AWOL PROJECT An Examination of the Bush Military Files
FBI Memo: Bush's Executive Order Approved Torture Techniques
Matthew Rothschild: Stripping Rumsfeld and Bush of Impunity
Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist: Bush, The Spoiled Man-Child
Unlike you or me or any human anywhere who happens to be in possession of humility or subtlety of mind, Bush, to this day, admits zero mistakes. He refuses help, rejects suggestions that everything is not dandy and swell. He is confounded by questions that dare suggest he might be somewhat inept, or failing. And he absolutely insists that America exists in some sort of bizarre utopian vacuum, isolated and virtuous and towering like a mad hobbled king over our enemies and allies alike. He is, in other words, our downfall.
George W. Bush Must Answer to the People
Prof. Francis A. Boyle: Campaign to Impeach President George W. Bush
World Net Daily.com (Conyers/Boyle) http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31510
Counter Punch.org (Boyle)http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle01172003.html
Counter Punch.org (Boyle) http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle07252003.html
Since the U.S. Supreme Court's installation of George W. Bush as President in January of 2001, the peoples of the world have witnessed a government in the United States of America that demonstrates little if any respect for fundamental considerations of international law, international organizations, and human rights, let alone appreciation of the requirements for maintaining international peace and security.
What the world has watched instead is a comprehensive and malicious assault upon the integrity of the international legal order by a group of men and women who are thoroughly Machiavellian in their perception of international relations and in their conduct of both foreign policy and domestic affairs.
It is clear that George W. Bush is the most hated U.S. President ever. And for good reason: He is a psychopathic mass murderer who has brought the United States of America into disgrace, despised by the rest of the world. Even worse, he is an instrument in the coming destruction of the U.S. itself. But for the future well-being of all life on Earth maybe that's not such a bad thing.
There are, however, two major problems with the removal of George W. Bush by impeachment and conviction:
It requires a simple majority of the House of Representatives to impeach and a two-thirds majority of the Senate to convict, and both houses are controlled by the Republican party.
It is a slow process which requires months, and in the meantime Bush, an insane psychopath, remains commander-in-chief of the world's largest arsenal and a born-again lackey of that other insane psychopath Ariel Sharon, who apparently (with U.S. assistance) is about to plunge the whole Middle East into war.
There are a few other possibilities for removing Bush. One is: Arrest the President Now! A radical course of action, but perhaps necessary if the world is not to be plunged into major wars, famines and comprehensive disaster. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4582.htm
Another would follow from the public recognition that George W. Bush is, if not certifiably insane, at least mentally incompetent to perform his duties as President. There is clear evidence of this, for example:
WOMAN IN AUDIENCE: I don't really understand. How is it the new [Social Security] plan is going to fix that problem?
DUBYA: Because the — all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculated, for example, is on the table. Whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those — changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be — or closer delivered to what has been promised.
Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the — like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate — the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those — if that growth is affected, it will help on the red.
— Dubya explains the virtues of his Social Security plan, Tampa, Florida, Feb. 4, 2005
This is taken from Fresh Dubya (The 15 most recent Dubya declarations). This statement of Bush's plan to "save" social security is reminiscent of the well-known statement by a Marine commander in the Vietnam War, speaking of a Vietnamese village: "We had to destroy it in order to save it."
This possibility that Bush could be removed from office on the grounds of being mentally incompetent to perform his duties as President was discussed in July 2005 by Jeffrey Steinberg in his article The Plame Affair: Rove and Cheney Are Guilty As Charged:
Cheney's departure, and replacement by a qualified, experienced figure, such as several leading Republican Senators, would create the safe conditions for the removal of President George W. Bush, for the good of the nation.
Procedures for the removal of Bush from office are contained in the 25th Amendment to the Constitution, which spells out the procedures for the removal of the President from office if he is determined to be "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office." The Constitution itself demands that the President meet the standard of competence. And that is where Bush fails, miserably.
It was amusing to watch the press conference given by George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin in Bratislava on January 24th, 2005. While Putin delivered concise, coherent and intelligent answers to the questions put to him by reporters, Bush was only able to mouth platitudes about how important democracy and a free press is, and when he couldn't think of anything else to say he resorted to rambling on about how, when "Vladimir" says something, you can be sure that he means it. As if anyone thought otherwise. Seen standing next to a statesman, Bush was revealed to the entire world as a bumbling fool, and a disgrace to America as well.
A transcript of the press conference was available for awhile on the website of the L.A.Times (here), but they removed it (perhaps because it was embarrassing). The transcript provided by the Washington Post is still available here.
Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey: Putin answers Bush word for word
THE DOWNING STREET MEMO
The Watergate burglary occurred in Richard Nixon's first term as US President. Accusations of a cover-up did not stop Nixon from being re-elected in 1972. Nixon was impeached in 1974.
The US attack on Iraq occurred in Bush's first term. The charge of taking the US into an illegal and immoral war did not stop Bush from being re-elected (by means of rigged voting machines) in 2004. Were history to repeat itself Bush would be impeached in 2006.
The movement for Bush's impeachment gained strength following the publication on May 1st, 2005, of the Downing Street Memo by the Times of London.
President must answer to Downing Street Memo
Xymphora on the Downing Street Memo
Walter C. Uhler: The Case for Impeaching George W. Bush
If intentionally deceiving the U.S. Congress is an impeachable offence, then President Bush deserves impeachment — because every time he assured congressmen that he hoped to avoid war, he deceived them. And if commencing war without receiving Congressional approval is an impeachable offense — which it certainly is — then President Bush merits impeachment. For, strictly speaking, Bush took America to war in May 2002 when he authorized the intense bombings designed to degrade Iraq defense capacity, if not provoke a response by Saddam.
Greg Szymanski: Historic Downing Street Meeting Provides Evidence For Bush Impeachment For Violation of War Powers Act
After the Downing Street Memo: The Case for Impeachment Builds
Steve Cobble, The Nation, 2005-06-06: After Downing Street: A Resolution of Inquiry
The Downing Street Minutes are deserving, in the words of constitutional lawyer John Bonifaz, of an official "Resolution of Inquiry directing the House Judiciary Committee to launch a formal investigation into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach George W. Bush, President of the United States."
Doug Thompson, 2005-06-20: Time to Impeach a War Criminal (Also here.)
FULL TEXT OF BRITISH BRIEFING PAPERS REVEALED: More Evidence Intel Was Fixed
Bernard Weiner: 15 Things Learned About Bush&Co.: An Impeachment List
Finally, there is Iraq, which (as was the case with Lyndon Johnson and Vietnam) will be the death of Bush's legacy and which potentially could get him impeached during his term, or put on trial domestically and in The Hague after he leaves office. Thanks to insiders who have left the Administration, the demonstrable facts, and now the so-called Downing Street Memos from England, I have learned, we all have learned, that there were immense immoralities and crimes perpetrated by our own government (and the Blair regime) in preparing for, launching, and carrying out this war and occupation. And those crimes continue to this day.
IMPEACH NOT ONLY BUSH BUT ALSO CHENEY AND RUMSFELD!
Bush's Impeachable Offenses (Also here.)
Dick Cheney: War Profiteer
Joseph Hillier: President George W. Bush is now impeachable
Impeachment has now clearly become the only logical culmination of the Bush presidency. Of course the conservative, Republican controlled Congress will at first be a major impediment against any attempt to impeach their President, but Bush is neither loved nor respected by most Republicans. As the inevitability of a successful impeachment becomes obvious the rats will desert the sinking ship in droves. None would be willing to sacrifice their political careers by backing Bush, a man already well known by many in his party to be a weak, cowardly, little loser who would betray them and their principles in an instant if he thought he could save himself by doing so.
Former CIA Analyst: Government May Be Manufacturing Fake Terrorism
[Ray McGovern] stressed that the founders [of the United States] wrote the Constitution with far sighted possibilities in mind, and we may now be at that juncture. The founders provided us with the ability to impeach any Government should it take away our liberties or any President, should he attempt to act like a King or an Emperor.
Bill Christison: Evidence Mounts That Bush Wants New Wars
Mike Whitney: The Greatest Strategic Disaster in American History
The 50-Point Drop: How Did Bush Fall This Far?
Bush had 90 percent job-approval rating in days following 9/11 attacks, now has rating in the 30s.
Walter C. Uhler: "Fixed" Intelligence from Feith's "Gestapo Office," the CIA and the Bush Administration's Impeachable Lies about Iraq's Prewar Links to al Qaeda
Edgar J. Steele: The Crack of Doom
John Nichols: Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby and the New Definition of "Honesty"
Bush Had Prior Knowledge Of The Katrina Disaster, Did Nothing, And Lied About It
Bush lied over Katrina
'Bush knew what Katrina would do'
Katrina probe: chaos from Bush down
Video Shows Bush Warned Before Katrina Hit
BUSH HAS CONFESSED TO AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE
2005-12-16: Bush reportedly authorized agency to spy on Americans
CNN, 2005-12-17: Bush acknowledges allowing eavesdropping
Barry Grey: Bush defends illegal spying on Americans: the specter of presidential dictatorship
Bush's open defense of illegality and assertion of quasi-dictatorial powers bring the political crisis in the US to the boiling point. His defiance of Congress, the law and the Constitution are the culmination of a record of criminality. But the Bush administration has concluded, with good reason, that it will face no serious opposition from any section of the political establishment. ...
Whatever its tactical differences with the Bush administration, the Democratic Party fundamentally defends the drive of US imperialism for global domination, with all of its brutal implications for the American people and the entire world.
Bill Van Auken: Bush uses lies, fear-mongering to defend war in Iraq, police state measures at home
Tom Flocco: Evidence indicates Bush wire-tapped alternative mediaIs Bush using warrant-less spying as a pretext to monitor U.S. "enemies" list?
Barry Grey: Bush employs "Big Lie" technique to defend illegal spying on Americans
Bruce Schneier on Project Shamrock
[The] president can't simply decide that the law doesn't apply to him. This issue is not about terrorism. It's not about intelligence gathering. It's about the executive branch of the United States ignoring a law, passed by the legislative branch and signed by President Jimmy Carter: a law that directs the judicial branch to monitor eavesdropping on Americans in national security investigations.
Bush has confessed (on TV even) to a high crime (that is, a crime committed by someone in a high place). Why hasn't Congress begun impeachment hearings?
But now, at last (2006-01-15), things are beginning to move ...
Brian Knowlton: Key senator criticizes Bush anew on spying
Bush Could Be Impeached Over Spying: Senator
Doug Thompson: The 'I-word' comes out of the closet
Elizabeth Holtzman, The Nation: The Impeachment of George W. Bush
Patrick Martin: Bush administration domestic spying provokes lawsuits, calls for impeachment
Impeachment moving toward center stage
James P. Tucker Jr.: Cheney, Bush Can Be Clipped by Voters
American Free Press: Impeachment Drive Grows
John W. Dean: If Past Is Prologue, George Bush Is Becoming An Increasingly Dangerous President
Of course, times have changed since 1974, and rather than retire (with the implicit acknowledgement of wrongdoing) Bush may conveniently die before he can be impeached.
But don't worry — another Bush is being groomed to take over the Presidency in January 2009, Brother Jeb.
But why should we have to wait three years? Bush reportedly (like Cheney) has a weak heart. He could die tomorrow. Then Cheney (affectionately known as "Vicious Dick" among his admirers) would become President. And he could then appoint the brother of the dearly departed as his Vice-President — obviously a fitting tribute, of course, to the valiant war-time President who died fulfilling his duty to the great nation of the United States in its noble quest to bring the blessings of Democracy and Liberty to the formerly oppressed Iraqi and Afghani people. Then Dick could conveniently have another heart attack, this time fatal, and — voila! — we get the third President Bush! And maybe even President-for-Life if some congresscritters (from both parties) succeed in their attempts to repeal the 22nd Amendment.
Of course, President Vicious Dick (currently renowned among his supporters as the author of the Cheney doctrine) would not actually have to have a fatal heart attack in order for Brother Jeb to become the third President Bush. He could simply retire, citing heart problems (brought on, naturally, by the stress of making the world safe and profitable for the likes of Chevron, Bechtel and Kellogg, Brown & Root).
Thus the only obstacle to Brother Jeb's becoming US President within a year or two is the continuing incumbency of his moronic brother. This, however, is a problem that the FBI could solve with a bit of planning, in the same way that it solved the problem posed by Martin Luther King in 1968. Or if the FBI can't handle it then no doubt the CIA would be more than happy to take on the task, though by now they probably have realized that an exploding Cuban cigar won't do the trick. Perhaps an exploding pretzel?
[Note added 2007-04-25: Due to the widespread disgust among the people with George W. Bush, Jeb Bush is currently unelectable and his presidency has been postponed. The betting is now that Hillary will be "elected" in 2008. She will be blamed for the economic collapse within the U.S. during 2009-2012 (actually resulting from George's policies), paving the way for the "election" to the presidency of Brother Jeb.]
Unfortunately the reality in the U.S. in early November 2006 is no laughing matter.
Frank Morales: Bush Moves Toward Martial Law
In the November congressional elections, widely seen as a referendum on Administration policy regarding Iraq, the voters installed a slim Democratic majority in both houses, a clear sign of their wish for American troops to be withdrawn from Iraq. George W. Bush, in typically psychopathic fashion, responded by ordering more troops to be sent to Iraq. It looks like the U.S. is headed for a constitutional crisis, in which the people can win against a ruthless dictatorship only by exposing its crimes. Ideally this will include exposing the role of elements at the top of the U.S. Administration in the planning and implementation of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Jeremy Brecher and Brendan Smith: Start Preparing Now for the Coming "Cataclysmic Fight to the Death"
Paul Craig Roberts: Bush Must Go — Only Impeachment Can Stop Him
When are the American people and their representatives in Congress and the military going to wake up and realize that the US has an insane war criminal in the White House who is destroying all chances for peace in the world and establishing a police state in the US?
Americans don't have much time to realize this and to act before it is too late. Bush's "surge" speech last Wednesday night makes it completely clear that his real purpose is to start wars with Iran and Syria before failure in Iraq brings an end to the neoconservative/Israeli plan to establish hegemony over the Middle East. ...
Nothing can stop the criminal Bush from instituting wider war in the Middle East that could become a catastrophic world war except an unequivocal statement from Congress that he will be impeached.
Bush has made the US into a colony of Israel. The US is incurring massive debt and loss of both life and reputation in order to silence Muslim opposition to Israel's theft of Palestine and the Golan Heights. That is what the "war on terror" is about.
But, as someone said, if Congress had ever had the courage to impeach Bush it would have happened on September 12th, 2001. There has been ample opportunity, and almost nothing was ever been done. Bush won't be impeached. Nor will Cheney. That's real bad news for the rest of us.
Despite multiple offenses and parole violations, Spahn Ranch [residence of Charles Manson and Charles "Tex" Watson] wasn't raided before [the] Tate-LaBianca [murders] because the police were expressly told they should not arrest Manson or his followers. Despite the grievous injuries they've inflicted upon the nation and the constitution, George Bush and Dick Cheney will not be impeached because Democrats have elected, for some reason, to take impeachment "off the table."
Like an unmolested Manson sending his family on "creepy crawly" burglaries of canyon homes Bush will not be stopped by the law, because behind the law are the gods of Helter Skelter who are not yet finished with him. As [Los Angeles County deputy sheriff] Guillory said of Manson, so Bush is "a very ready tool" who currently enjoys the unprecedented and seemingly unaccountable permission to do the unthinkable. And because he can, something big is coming down.
Only after his chaotic work is done and the last doorpost daubed in gore may he be brought low. Not to justice, because American presidents never are, but perhaps to a singular injustice that has sometimes made their acquaintance. Until then, he may as well tell us as another Texan [Watson] reportedly did, "I am the devil, and I am here to do the devil's business."
— Jeff Wells (Rigorous Intuition, 16 January 2007), We Are Family
Let him save himself who can.
.
Seymour Hersh on Iraq, Bush and the Neocons-Bush Flubs it Again-The Madness of George W. Bush
The Letter of May 2006 from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to George W. Bush
Serendipity Home Page
Impeach Bush and Cheney Now!
GREEN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATEShttp://www.gp.org
Tuesday, January 3, 2006
Contacts:Scott McLarty, Media Coordinator, 202-518-5624, mclarty@greens.org Starlene Rankin, Media Coordinator, 916-995-3805, starlene@greens.org
Congress must impeach Bush and Cheney, say Greens, citing White House lawlessness, growing threat to U.S. democracy, and war crimes.
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Citing a litany of alleged high crimes and misdemeanors, abuses of power, and violations of the U.S. Constitution, Green Party leaders urged Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush and Vice President Cheney as soon as possible.
"The evidence that President Bush has abused his office and betrayed the trust of the American people is now so overwhelming that failure to undertake impeachment would make Congress even more complicit in this administration's lawlessness," said Nan Garrett, Georgia Green Party co-chair and spokesperson for the National Women's Caucus. "Three more years of Bush and Cheney will do lasting damage to the rule of law and result in even more death and destruction under Bush's reckless policies."
"The Bush Administration blocked an independent probe into 9/11 while making fraudulent statements about the reasons for invading Iraq, and now admits that it spies on American citizens in disregard of legal limits. What more does Congress need before it says enough is enough?" Ms. Garrett added.
The Green Party of the United States called for Congress to commence impeachment of President Bush in July, 2003, after he ordered the invasion of Iraq. The resolution accused the President of numerous deceptions to justify the invasion, as well as violations of the U.S. Constitution (restriction in Article II on the deployment of Armed Forces to defense of U.S. borders; required adherence to international treaties in Article VI) and of international law (U.N. Charter; Geneva conventions).
"In early 2003, there already existed credible evidence that the war was based on White House fraud: false claims that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs, sought nuclear weapons materials, and colluded with al Qaeda. But most Democrats feared accusations that they'd be soft on terrorism and unpatriotic if they criticized the invasion," said Jody Grage Haug, co-chair of the Green Party of the United States. "Three years later, after more than 2,100 U.S. troop deaths, tens of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians, a continuing military quagmire in Iraq, and indications that the invasion and occupation inflamed anti-U.S. sentiment around the world, especially in Islamic nations, some Democrats have caught up to the Green Party."
In addition to White House falsehoods leading up to the war on Iraq, Greens listed other grounds for impeachment:
President Bush ordered the National Security Agency to spy on American citizens without obtaining a warrant in accord with the Fourth Amendment and the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Recent FBI targets of surveillance (nonviolent peace and human rights organizations, Catholic Workers Group, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Vegan Community Project) prove that his administration's goals have more to do with politics than with preventing terrorism. Mr. Bush's insistence that such surveillance is justified and will continue is further proof of his contempt for the law.
Numerous Bush Administration policies -- denial of due process, extraordinary rendition, secret detention centers, and torture at various sites, including Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay -- have violated U.S. and international law. Vice President Cheney attempted to gain a license from Congress for torture, even though it has been proven ineffective for gathering accurate information (e.g., Ibn Al Shaykh Al Libi's testimony about links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, later recanted). Greens noted that the agreement reached by Mr. Bush and Sen. John McCain purportedly outlawing torture allows a significant loophole (see "Tortured Logic: McCain-Bush deal has a big loophole" by James Ridgeway with Michael Roston, The Village Voice, December 19, 2005, <http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0551,ridgeway,71143,2.html>).
Congress must investigate whether the White House endorsed the use of outlawed weapons materials such as depleted uranium, which causes radioactive contamination of humans (U.S. troops as well as Iraqi civilians) and the environment; white phosphorus, a chemical whose use in warfare is proscribed by international agreement; and cluster bombs, which do not distinguish between civilians and combatants. Their use in Iraq is a war crime for which either the President himself or the Defense Department must be held accountable. Other war crimes, which require impeachment if based on White House orders, include the military targeting of journalists, individual reporters as well as television stations (Al Jazeera and Abu Dhabi), and looting of hospitals, museums, and private homes.
"Many Americans have realized that the Bush-Cheney ideology is about installing a permanent corporate elite in power, buttressed by military power and public fear over perceived and fabricated threats, while missing real dangers to our security," said Jake Schneider, treasurer of the Green Party of the United States. "The response to Katrina, dismissed evidence of global warming, manipulated scientific research, energy policy crafted in secret with corporate lobbies, new prescription drug policy, attack on Social Security, 2000 and 2004 election irregularities, and other evidence should lay to rest any illusion about this Administration's disregard for the interests of the American people."
MORE INFORMATION
Green Party of the United Stateshttp://www.gp.org 1700 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 404Washington, DC 20009.202-319-7191, 866-41GREENFax 202-319-7193
"Congress Must Reject Patriot Act, Ban Warrantless Spying"Press release from the Green Party of the United States, December 19, 2005 http://www.gp.org/press/pr_2005_12_19.shtml
"Greens Call for Impeachment of Bush, Withdrawal of Troops by the Winter Holidays"Press release from the Green Party of the United States, July 21, 2003http://www.gp.org/press/pr_07_21_03.html
Bush and The Black Water Mercenaries (Unconstitutional)
Valerie Plame, Bush, Cheney and Impeachment Grounds
Libby and Impeachment Grounds
Cheney Grounds For Impeachment
Condi Rice and Grounds For Impeachment
Impeachment and The Bush Administration
Bush Prepares For Impeachment
Buzzflash.com (Don’t Miss This One)
Bush Must Pardon Libby In Self Defense (In Other Nations The Charge Would Be Treason)
The Unknown News.org
GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT, AND ARREST:BUSH PREPARES TO SEIZE ABSOLUTE POWER IN 'EMERGENCY'
by Rose, Unknown News May 24, 2007
President Bush's "National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive" (also known as NSPD-51 and HSPD-20) was released on May 9th. It's treason, by the dictionary definition: "the offense of acting to overthrow one's government ..."
With almost no mention in mainstream media, President Bush has quietly enacted new plans for dealing with a "catastrophic emergency". He has given himself authority for leading not just the Executive Branch, but the entire federal government!
While the plan does claim to recognize the needs to ensure "the continued function of our form of government under the Constitution, including the functioning of the three separate branches of government," it almost sounds like lip service because it later states: "The President shall lead the activities of - -
the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government."
Trust George W Bush to "ensure constitutional government"?Why would we trust Bush to ensure anything, let alone the constitutional government???
And note the definition of "catastrophic emergency": "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government function." which includes "localized acts of nature, accidents, and technological or attack-related emergencies."
You know, when I heard about this, the first thing that popped into my mind was the April Fools joke that was circulating around last month, about Cheney challenging the 22nd Amendment (presidential term limits). I actually checked out snopes.com to see if this Presidential Directive was fake before I went to the White House's web site to read the text of it.
Now my question is -- why isn't Congress raising holy heck over this?
A Republican acquaintance of mine tried to dismiss my concern as an overreaction, saying it's only for "extreme circumstances, like if terrorists attacked the Capitol while Congress was in session." But the way this plan is worded it could include a situation like Katrina (and we're entering hurricane season) or other natural disasters.
In other words, in case of just about any emergency, Bush could finally get his December 2000 wish -- remember when he said, "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."
The complete text of the plan (it's seven pages long and is written in excruciating legal-ese) is on the White House website. If you think I'm over-reacting, I dare you to read it.
It's not just "grounds for impeachment" (there are already acres and acres of grounds for impeachment). This is grounds to arrest and prosecute the President.
The Jefferson Manual and Impeachment Strategy
More On That Subject
Impeach on A State By State Basis
The Final Word
FROM THE HIGHEST LAW OF THIS LAND
THAT WHENEVER ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT BECOMES DESTRUCTIVE OF THESE ENDS, IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR TO ABOLISH IT, AND TO INSTITUTE NEW GOVERNMENT, LAYING ITS FOUNDATION ON SUCH PRINCIPLES AND ORGANIZING ITS POWERS IN SUCH FORM, AS TO THEM SHALL SEEM MOST LIKELY TO EFFECT THEIR SAFETY AND HAPPINESS.
BUT WHEN A LONG TRAIN OF ABUSES AND USURPATIONS, PURSUING INVARIABLY THE SAME OBJECT EVINCES A DESIGN TO REDUCE THEM UNDER ABSOLUTE DESPOTISM, IT IS THEIR RIGHT, IT IS THEIR DUTY, TO THROW OFF SUCH GOVERNMENT, AND TO PROVIDE NEW GUARDS FOR THEIR FUTURE SECURITY.
BUT WHEN A LONG TRAIN OF ABUSES AND USURPATIONS, PURSUING INVARIABLY THE SAME OBJECT EVINCES A DESIGN TO REDUCE THEM UNDER ABSOLUTE DESPOTISM, IT IS THEIR RIGHT, IT IS THEIR DUTY, TO THROW OFF SUCH GOVERNMENT, AND TO PROVIDE NEW GUARDS FOR THEIR FUTURE SECURITY.
It is time for all of us to accept that responsibility as American citizens, and to rise up and break and throw of the chains of fear, repression, corruption, criminality and usurpation and perversion of our way of life, our notions of liberty, freedom, justice, equality and morality that this administration has set upon us.
It is time to bring down this regime with one Impeachment after another, one prosecution after another, until every oppressor of the American Dream and spirit in this administration is swept away and/or imprisoned. That is our right; that is our duty!
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.—
Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offencesFor abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy of the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here.
We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
[The 56 signatures on the Declaration were arranged in six columns:]
[Column 1]Georgia: Button Gwinnett Lyman Hall George Walton
[Column 2]North Carolina: William Hooper Joseph Hewes John PennSouth Carolina: Edward Rutledge Thomas Heyward, Jr. Thomas Lynch, Jr. Arthur Middleton
[Column 3]Massachusetts:John HancockMaryland:Samuel ChaseWilliam PacaThomas StoneCharles Carroll of CarrolltonVirginia:George WytheRichard Henry LeeThomas JeffersonBenjamin HarrisonThomas Nelson, Jr.Francis Lightfoot LeeCarter Braxton
[Column 4]Pennsylvania: Robert Morris Benjamin Rush Benjamin Franklin John Morton George Clymer James Smith George Taylor James Wilson George RossDelaware: Caesar Rodney George Read Thomas McKean
[Column 5]New York: William Floyd Philip Livingston Francis Lewis Lewis MorrisNew Jersey: Richard Stockton John Witherspoon Francis Hopkinson John Hart Abraham Clark
[Column 6]New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett William WhippleMassachusetts: Samuel Adams John Adams Robert Treat Paine Elbridge GerryRhode Island: Stephen Hopkins William ElleryConnecticut: Roger Sherman Samuel Huntington William Williams Oliver WolcottNew Hampshire: Matthew Thornton
THESE TOO ARE AMONG THE ROLL CALL OF HONORED DEAD; MAY THEIR LIVES AND DREAMS NOT COME TO COUNT FOR NAUGHT.
![[PDA - Progressive Democrats of America - Stand Up. Take Action. Vote.]](http://pdamerica.org/images/ads/pdalink-150x200.gif)
No comments:
Post a Comment