George Bush in Chains
Caelan MacTavish
The movement for impeachment is getting nowhere.
Even with the abundant evidence. Regardless of the popular support. The articles of impeachment have even been drafted by a former US Attorney General. All it would take to start the process is for one congressperson to file it under ‘new business.’
Ignoring the repeated calls for impeachment from their liberal constituents, even our own reps have balked at the idea of bringing Bush to justice for his crimes-while he is in office.
And you know what? I have finally come to realize, they’re right. In the words of Nancy Pelosi, “Impeachment is off the table.”
You know what’s great about this?
2009.
The Hague.
War criminals under the power of a Democratic president and a heavily Democratic congress.
Honestly, which would you rather see: George Bush impeached, or George Bush in chains?
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Sep 7, '07
The ICC has no jurisdiction over U.S. citizens, since the U.S. has not ratified the Rome Statute of the ICC.
Sep 7, '07
I believe that it was President Clinton that refused to allow the ICC to have jurisdiction over US citizens.
Unless that is changed by a future President with past crimes being able to be taken into consideration, having Bush brought up on war crimes is HIGHLY unlikely. Too many "ifs".
At this point, the only justice that Bush may... may face is to become a blot on history. Did I mention this is a BIG "may"?
8:54 a.m.
Sep 7, '07
The ICC? No. But if it can be proven that Bush violated an American law after he is out of office, then all bets are off.
But what it will really take is a new set of U.S. Prosecutors who are willing to look back at Gonzo's testimony, and prosecute him for perjury. Of course after Bush is out of office, so he can't just pardon him.
Sep 7, '07
"Honestly, which would you rather see: George Bush impeached, or George Bush in chains?"
How about both?
Sep 7, '07
LiberalIncarnate:
You are incorrect. President Clinton signed the Rome Statute of the ICC, but (the Republican) Congress did not ratify the treaty.
Sep 7, '07
Also... check out Earl Blumenauer's new post on his website, SAYING WE NEED TO MAKE BUSH ACCOUNTABLE FOR HIS DEEDS, UNDERTAKE INVESTIGATIONS ON THE ADMINISTRATION, AND THAT IMPEACHMENT SHOULD BE ON THE THE TABLE AS A POTENTIAL REMEDY .
http://blumenauer.house.gov/Issues/FloorSpeechSummary.aspx?NewsID=1574
9:40 a.m.
Sep 7, '07
Kudos to Earl. About bloody time. Would that Reps Wu, DeFazio, Hooley and hell even Greg Walden would stand up as Rep Blumenauer finally has. That might lead Reps in other states to jump on board. I wonder why it took Earl so long to come to this decision? And what will be his next step?
Sep 7, '07
Enough with this impeachment nonsense. The right wing rightly calls it Bush Derangement Syndrome.
George Bush is a lousy President. He's done a lot of damage. But the Democratic congress can stop any more damage without wasting its time as the 1998 Republican Congress did on a pointless impeachment inquiry. The Democratic Congress can force a government shutdown over funding for the Iraq war by refusing to budget for it. The Democratic Congress has forced Alberto Gonzales to resign. The Bush administration is at bay for the next 17 months, and can be put further at bay to keep the nation out of harm's reach. And George Bush isn't going to invade Iran without a Congressional authorization like he got for Iraq, despite all of Cheney's bluster.
Calm down, blues. Let's work to get a Democratic President to go with our Democratic Congress and get this nation going in the right (I mean "left") direction again. The Bush Presidency is already a dead letter. Don't waste your time with impeachment nonsense.
10:13 a.m.
Sep 7, '07
it has nothing to do with the Bush presidency, and everything to do with correcting the current illegal expansions of executive power that Bush will leave on the books for the next President if it is not corrected.
It's not to punish Bush. It's to restore democracy, and that's more important than a more Democratic Congress--particularly if they're going to behave as the current one is collectively...like abject cowards.
Sep 7, '07
it has nothing to do with the Bush presidency, and everything to do with correcting the current illegal expansions of executive power that Bush will leave on the books for the next President if it is not corrected.
And impeachment does nothing to correct those expansions of executive power, it simply removes Bush from office. If Congress wants to correct those overreaches, it needs to take the appropriate legislative and oversight actions to do so. Repeal the offensive sections of the Patriot Act, restore habeus corpus rights to enemy combatants, investigate the executive branch's implementation of laws and defund any agency that is paying attention to Bush's signing statements rather than the law itself.
Saying that Congress needs to overturn a democratic election in order to fulfill its oversight duties is absurd. Congress hasn't even used all of its routine oversight powers (such as the power of the purse, or overriding one of Bush's threatened vetoes).
11:04 a.m.
Sep 7, '07
Well said TJ, and you are 100% correct. UPO doesn't get it it (just like his old saw that NAFTA, CAFTA and GATT will bring about nirvana) that this is fundamentally about the abuse of the office and the precedence it sets, not about Bush himself. If Hillary was in office with this level of unchecked power and a capitulating Congress, the fright-wingers would be launching themselves over the rose garden wall with explosive laden vests on. For me it isn't about who is in the Oval Office as much as UPO mistakenly assumes. I would not want a Hillary with unchecked power, nor a Gulliani, nor any other person.
11:07 a.m.
Sep 7, '07
Miles, the Bush administration has violated the law (flipping off FISA) and refused to implement the law (signing statements). This is why impeachment must never be off the table. It is the trump card to ensure enforcement of law and check the abuse of power of the executive.
Powers of impeachment are what animates rule of law. Without it always being on the table, there is no rule of law over the executive branch.
11:08 a.m.
Sep 7, '07
"And impeachment does nothing to correct those expansions of executive power, it simply removes Bush from office."
...a strong signal rebuking his actions of aggrandizement, I would say.
"If Congress wants to correct those overreaches, it needs to take the appropriate legislative and oversight actions to do so."
This makes little sense, given that Presidential dismissal of those actions is a key part of the problem.
"Saying that Congress needs to overturn a democratic election in order to fulfill its oversight duties is absurd."
No one's overturning an election. They would be prosecuting crimes by an elected official. And I surely never said they should do it to fulfill some academic principle. They should do it because the executive has set conditions for further Presidents to accrue powers not intended by the Constitution, and to uphold the rule of law.
Sep 7, '07
I never said impeachment should be off the table. But you guys aren't just putting it on the table, you're taking everything else off. What you're advocating is sort of like preemptively invading a country before you've exhausted all means of diplomacy. (Hmmm. . .where have we seen that before?)
The Constitution lays out all kinds of tools that Congress can use to check the power of the Executive branch. Congress hasn't used any of them -- so why in the world would you advocate the nuclear bomb? If you really care about reigning in the president's powers, and not just removing this particular president from office, then impeachment makes even less sense. The president keeps doing these things because Congress lets him get away with it.
11:40 a.m.
Sep 7, '07
Miles stop projecting your mistaken assumption onto us. I am not a member of Congress, and Congress has been using (or trying to) numerous tools of oversight far less than impeachment. However they are being stonewalled and refused documents, testimony, etc. to even perform meaningful hearings. That is obstruction and abuse of office.
Refusing subpoenas, denial of documents? Hell even on the less expansive an issue than the Iraq disaster, like the missing documents and emails, the White House refuses to even reveal the name of the third part company they contracted out the processing of electronic communications and emails which are required by law to be retained by the records act. They are resorting a less substantive defense than my dog ate my homework. That is but one small example, a symptom of an administration wide abuse of the office. That same level of rejection of oversight and accountability goes straight to the top and up to and includes the most critical and dire issues before our nation.
So please Miles, stop. This isn't some rantings of a group of rabble-rousers with a wild hair up our collective butts.
Sep 7, '07
Congress has been using (or trying to) numerous tools of oversight far less than impeachment. However they are being stonewalled and refused documents, testimony, etc. to even perform meaningful hearings.
Congress hasn't even come close to using all of its powers, which is why I oppose impeachment proceedings at this time. Here are some examples of ways Congress can stop Bush:
Illegal wiretapping. Well, the Democratic Congress just passed a law making most of the previously illegal wiretapping legal. So first, repeal that law, then make it clear that no funds can be used to engage in any wiretapping that is not FISA approved. Since using federal funds for something that is prohibited by law is itself a criminal violation, you can bet DOJ staff will stop.
Habeus Corpus. Pass a law guaranteeing habeus corpus rights to all enemy combatants, and requiring that they be tried in the U.S. judicial system.
Signing Statements. Identify signing statements that contradict the law, then investigate the implementation of those laws to see whether the federal agency followed the law or the signing statement. If its the latter, simply demand that the law be implemented as written, and defund the entire agency if it's not.
For those who might argue that Bush will just veto anything the Democrats do, it only takes 2/3 to override a veto, the same number that is needed to remove the President from office. So if you can't get 2/3 to repeal the bad laws and pass new ones, you won't get 2/3 for removal based on any of these issues either.
As for overall White House stonewalling, Congress can subpoena any cabinet or agency official it wants, as well as all agency documents, under threat of jail if they refuse. It's Congress's authority over White House staff and White House documents that is in question. But who cares? If your goal is to limit the power of the executive, you don't need to see those documents or talk to WH staff. Congress can bring its wrath down on each and every federal agency, and basically prevent the White House from doing anything.
If Congress actually grows some balls and starts doing the above, and things still don't get better, then we can start talking impeachment. Until then, you don't have a leg to stand.
2:56 p.m.
Sep 7, '07
Miles, have you been asleep for the past few months? What do you think has happened? Congress has issued subpoenas that the White House flat out ignores. What do you do then, hand contempt charges to the DoJ which has already stated clearly that it will refuse to prosecute?
Sep 7, '07
Lestat, Congress is asking for White House documents and White House staff to testify. Those are protected by executive privilege. Read what I wrote, that Congress can subpoena any cabinet or agency official that it wants. They are required to testify, and in fact they do.
The gray area here -- and perhaps this is what you're referring to -- is that Bush has ordered those folks not to testify on issues that he has claimed under executive privilege (which doesn't include agency operations). Which gets to my other point. . . so what? Why are we sitting around waiting for these people to testify? Just cut their funding, and you can be pretty sure they'll be begging to come testify on anything you want.
Oh, and Congress doesn't need DOJ to prosecute contempt charges. They have the authority to do it themselves, they just don't want to. If you really want to reign in Bush's powers, I suggest you spend less time calling for his impeachment and more time calling on the Democrats in Congress to step up to the plate.
4:37 p.m.
Sep 7, '07
Miles, Clinton asserted executive privilege pertaining to staff back in 1998 and lost in court, when it was ruled Clinton aides can be compelled to testify.
You are correct however that Congress can invoke inherent contempt, and try and have the Senate Sergeant-At-Arms arrest those found in inherent contempt.
Good grief, I have been screaming for them to cite inherent contempt, and withhold funding on everything from Defense emergency funding for thee occupatioon of Iraq (unless it is specifcally earmarked or orderly witdrawal) to shutting off that damn electricity in the White House if need be to reign in this administration. I have for months been saying that Congress needs to shut down the Gov. if need be to hold the line.
But my larger point remains that impeachment must ALWAYS be on the table regardless of president or party occupying the Oval Office. It is what animates oversight powers when you go down the path of an out of control executive branch (which I think we both agree we are faced with).
Sep 7, '07
Impeachment is always on the table, so long as the Constitution is applicable. That doesn't mean it should be the first course (or even the second or third). Miles is right; there are many options open to Congress which they are not using. Every appropriations bill, every mundane update-the-language bill, every Republican Senator's pet project bill, should get riders repealing the PATRIOT Act, upholding the rights of FISA courts, assuring habeas corpus, etc. Congress should make it abundantly clear that until Bush lets democratic reforms across his desk, he'll get nothing else.
And when the Republicans stand up in the Senate and scream that Democrats are stuffing their bills and holding up the process of government, Reid and Pelosi should remind them that the President is holding up the process of representative democracy. Eventually, Republicans will get so sick of their bills getting the veto pen that they'll pressure the President to start compromising, at least on some issues.
<h2>I'm a little skeptical about the possibilities of defunding agencies until they comply with Congressional requests, but I'd love to see it work.</h2>