IndictBushNow

                            Hold Bush Accountable

  Email this page Login


Vote in the
referendum
to Indict Bush

(and other high officials)

 

To cast your vote, enter the information below.

 

*

*

 

*

 

 

 

City:

 

State / Province:

 

ZIP / Postal Code:

 

 



The President is Not Above the Law
A Case for Impeachment Now

Send a letter
and sign the statement

The National Park Service is being flooded with letters demanding that no new restrictions be placed by the Bush Administration on protest assembly on the National Mall. The Statement in Defense of Free Speech Rights on the National Mall has received an incredible 7,500 signers in its first days.  Join the campaign and send your letter or sign onto the statement -- you can do so by clicking here.

Although you would not know it from the mass media, the momentum for impeachment continues to grow across the country. We are less than 7,000 votes away from reaching the one million mark for those who have voted at ImpeachBush.org. City councils around the country are on record supporting impeachment. Between now and the end of March, impeachment supporters will be taking to the streets in anti-war protests marking the 5th anniversary of the start of this criminal war.

Members of Congress are feeling the pressure from their constituencies. As you can see below, the impeachment movement is gaining supporters in Congress.

You can support this movement right now, by making a much needed donation. Please click this link to make as generous a contribution as you can either by credit card or for information if you prefer to write a check.

Elizabeth Holtzman, a leading figure in the impeachment proceedings against Richard Nixon, has issued the well-publicized argument explaining why the impeachment of George W. Bush is imperative even now. Holtzman served on the House Judiciary Committee during proceedings toward Nixon's impeachment. She coauthored the 1973 special-prosecutor statute, and cowrote (with Cynthia L. Cooper) the 2006 book "The Impeachment of George W. Bush."


Judiciary Committee Should Move to Impeach Bush and Cheney
By Elizabeth Holtzman

Since mid-December, members of the House Judiciary Committee Robert Wexler (D., Fla.), Luis Gutierrez (D., Ill.) and Tammy Baldwin (D., Wis.) have called for hearings on the impeachment of Vice President Cheney.

This should not be surprising, given the strength of the case for impeachment. What's surprising is that it took so long for members of this committee, normally tasked with holding impeachment proceedings, to call for them.

They face huge political resistance on Capitol Hill. But they aren't alone. Other Democratic members are joining them. Former senator and Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern recently published an op-ed demanding impeachment proceedings for both Bush and Cheney. Bruce Fein, a Republican who served in the Reagan Justice Department, and many other constitutional scholars also argue for impeachment.

There is more than ample justification for impeachment. The Constitution specifies the grounds as treason, bribery or "high crimes and misdemeanors," a term that means "great and dangerous offenses that subvert the Constitution." As the House Judiciary Committee determined during Watergate, impeachment is warranted when a president puts himself above the law and gravely abuses power.

Have Bush and Cheney done that?

Yes. With the vice president's participation, President Bush repeatedly violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires court approval for presidential wiretaps. Former President Richard Nixon's illegal wiretapping was one of the offenses that led to his impeachment. FISA was enacted precisely to avoid such abuses by future presidents.

Bush and Cheney were involved in detainee abuse, flouting federal criminal statutes (the War Crimes Act of 1996 and the anti-torture Act) and the Geneva Conventions. The president removed Geneva protections from al-Qaeda and the Taliban, setting the abuse in motion, and may have even personally authorized them.

The president and vice president also used deception to drive us into the Iraq war, claiming Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda were in cahoots, when they knew better. They invoked the specter of a nuclear attack on the United States, alleging Hussein purchased uranium in Niger and wanted aluminum tubes for uranium enrichment, when they had every reason to know these claims were phony or at least seriously questioned within the administration. Withholding and distorting facts usurps Congress' constitutional powers to decide on going to war.

Can a commander-in-chief disobey laws on wiretapping or torture to protect the country in wartime?

No. The Constitution requires the president to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." The Supreme Court ruled Harry S. Truman could not seize steel mills to prevent a strike, even during the Korean War. Nixon's claim of national security as a justification for illegal wiretaps was also rejected in impeachment proceedings against him.

What then is the justification for taking impeachment "off the table"? Congressional leaders don't defend the administration, nor do they contend that its actions are unimpeachable or less serious than Nixon's. Instead they argue there is no time, or that impeachment proceedings would distract the Congress from other work, or divide the country. The subtext seems to be fear that impeachment could undermine Democratic election prospects in 2008.

But even these "pragmatic" arguments are wrong. Let's take them one at a time:

Insufficient time. In the case of Nixon, the House officially instructed the Judiciary Committee to act in early February 1974. The committee finished voting on articles of impeachment July 29, less than six months later. No presidential impeachment proceeding had taken place for almost 100 years, so the committee had to start from scratch, analyzing the Constitution and developing procedures for the impeachment inquiry. Now that the relevant legal spade work is done and a road map for proper impeachment proceedings exists, Congress might conduct them even faster than in 1974.

Distraction. During Watergate, the impeachment inquiry didn't prevent Congress from getting its work done. In fact, the House Judiciary Committee also worked on other matters during impeachment, just as the Senate did during its impeachment trial of former President Bill Clinton.

Divisiveness. True, President Clinton's impeachment was a highly partisan process that divided the country - because most Americans didn't support it. They believed his conduct was reprehensible, but not an impeachable offense. Impeachment therefore had negative repercussions for the Republicans who instigated it.

Nixon's impeachment united the American people. The process was bipartisan, demonstrating this wasn't just a Democratic ploy to undo an election. The fairness of the process, the seriousness of purpose, the substantial evidence - all gave the public confidence that justice had been done. This reinvigorated the shared value that the rule of law and preservation of democracy are more important than any president or party.

This value is again asserting itself in grassroots impeachment movements across America. The Vermont Senate, several state Democratic parties, and many municipal governments have adopted resolutions supporting impeachment. More state legislatures would have acted except for pressure from Washington. Many polls show a majority of Americans support impeaching Cheney (a Nov. 13 American Research Group poll says 70 percent of Americans believe he abused his office), and slightly less than a majority support impeaching Bush.

Stonewalling such widespread public sentiment is itself divisive, leading at least half the country to feel their concerns about upholding the Constitution are being ignored. Only a serious airing of evidence in hearings would heal the split.

Undermining election prospects. When the impeachment process began, Nixon had just been reelected in one of the largest landslides in history. Few, if any, worried about whether impeachment was a political winner for Congress or the Democrats. Public opinion simply forced Congress' hand when Nixon fired Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox. After the Judiciary Committee conducted impartial hearings and voted on impeachment, Congress' approval ratings soared. Republicans were swamped in the November 1974 elections.

Whether or not they bring electoral rewards in 2008, impeachment proceedings are the right thing to do. They will help curb the serious abuses of this administration, and send a strong message to future administrations that no president or vice president is above the law.  


Please make a donation

We are making great progress, but cannot succeed without your help. Bush is on a crusade to shred the Constitution. Impeachment is necessary not only to punish the high officials who engage in criminal conduct, but also to send a message to all future presidencies. It is not too late to impeach Bush. Please make a generous needed donation right now to help impeach Bush.

Skip Interest Selector

My Interests |  All >  

Impeachment updates

Add to My Interests

All active news articles
Share


We need
your help.

How much will you give to hold Bush accountable for his many crimes? Please act now -- Make a donation today.


Recent updates

New York Times demands criminal investigation of Bush officials

One former president goes to jail ... Will Bush be next?

Ramsey Clark chosen to head commission to investigate Bush crimes

Ramsey Clark tells crowd of 10,000: We must indict Bush and Cheney

On March 20, We the People will take a stand

A historic step

When is the killing of children not a crime?

On March 20, IndictBushNow is taking to the streets of Washington!

The principles of the U.S. Constitution are not "attack advertisement"

Support swells for Indict Bush bus ad campaign in Washington, D.C.!

Join the Expose & Expunge Campaign

Huge response to Indict Bush Washington D.C. bus ad initiative!

Indict Bush bus ads coming to Washington, D.C.

Ninety-six organizations demand Congressional action against torture

23 CIA agents convicted in kidnapping, torture trial in Italy

New York Times says: Bush cover-up must end!

It's Time for Holder to Go After the Big Fish

Cheney Center at University of Wyoming sparks public outrage

'A free people will not permit torture'

Who will be prosecuted?

Congressional Leaders call for prosecution

The real reason Bush tore up the Geneva Conventions

UN investigator says U.S. has "clear obligation" to prosecute

Cheney continues to write his own indictment

Torture Photos Show Rapes of Detainees, Former Officer Confirms

IndictBushNow Freedom of Information Act Request: Did Bush and Cheney order torture to justify Iraq war?

Bush's 'Smoking Gun' Witness Found Dead

They will not be able to hide from prosecution

June 25: Major Action in DC to Demand Prosecution of Torturers

Breaking News: Dick Cheney Implicated in Torture Crimes

Tide has turned towards prosecution and investigation

Take Action: Demand Justice for Torturers

Red Cross Calls for Prosecution of Bush Torturers

Breaking news: Indictment of Bush Officials May Come in Days

Spanish Court May Indict Bush Officials

Message "Indict Bush Now" Rings Out from Coast to Coast

Statement from Ramsey Clark

Put an IndictBushNow button on your website or blog

Send Your Email to Congress: Indict Bush Now!

'Why indictment is a must.'

 IndictBushNow; 5505 Connecticut Ave. NW, # 299; Washington, DC 20015-2601
]]