Jump to content

Efforts to impeach George W. Bush

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 70.84.56.172 (talk) at 10:24, 10 March 2006 (→‎Wiretapping inside the United States: there has been no finding of violations, only allegations). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

The phrase "Movement to impeach George W. Bush" for the purpose of this article is used in two ways. It is used to describe actions by individuals and groups within the public and private spheres intended to support an impeachment of United States President George W. Bush. The phrase is also used in a more broad in referrence to refer to various public opinion polls, some of which indicate a degree of public support for a Presidential impeachment.

Prior to the current controversies of 2005 and 2006, some critics of Bush and certain partisans were already calling for his impeachment, citing various reasons and justifications. The justifications currently being advanced for seeking Bush's impeachment vary, such as questions about the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy.

As of March 2006, the United States House of Representatives as a body, has taken no action of any kind toward the impeachment of President Bush, nor have they scheduled any.

Background

Impeachment in the United States is the proscribed process by which an elected office-holder may be removed from office. A president may be removed from office upon conviction of impeachment for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" [1]. When a preisdent is impeached, formal charges known as "Articles of Impeachment", which state the allegations are introduced at House of Representatives where they may debated and, if consensus for a vote is reached, voted upon. If any of the articles are approved, then the President is considered "impeached" and would then be tried by the United States Senate to determine his guilt or innocence. If a President is found guilty on any charge, he is removed from office and replaced by the Vice President.

There have been nine formal attempts to impeach a United States President. Four of these resulted in articles being referred to the House of Representatives: John Tyler, Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. Of these four, only two were actually impeached by the House: Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. Richard Nixon resigned the Presidency before the House could actually vote. Both Presidents Johnson and Clinton were acquitted by the Senate following their subsequent trials. In addition there have been numerous impeachment movements of various sizes directed at visible members of the government, most notably the movement to impeach former Chief Justice Earl Warren.

Critics of the movement, on both the left and the right, state that a sitting chief executive has never been removed by conviction in the Senate and only one resigned under threat of impeachment. They also point out that getting a Congressional investigation while the Republican Party is in control of the House of Representatives is improbable. However, there are now credible predictions that control of the House will shift to the Democrats after the 2006 elections, particularly owing to the current historic unpopularity of the Bush administration, [2] in which case John Conyers would become chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and an investigation would become a significant possibility.

Many critics on the right dispute the allegations against the Bush administration in their entirety, or deny that the actions of the Bush administration officials currently under investigation constitute anything more than normal handling of politics and national security matters, or are, at worst, legal technicalities.

Political views and actions

Representative Conyers

John Conyers, who has advocated for the impeachment of Karl Rove, has been instrumental in calling for an investigation of the President.

According to Francis A. Boyle, Professor of Law at the University of Illinois School of Law [3], on March 11, 2003, Congressman John Conyers (D-MI) 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, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and Attorney General Ashcroft in order to head off the impending war." Conyers is the Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, which would have jurisdiction over any Bill of Impeachment.

In May, 2005, Conyers began collecting signatures on a letter to President Bush requesting answers to the questions raised by the Downing Street Memo. Conyers delivered a letter with over 540,000 signatures to the President on June 16, 2005.

Also on June 16, 2005, Conyers assembled an unofficial meeting to receive evidence related to the Downing Street memo and to consider grounds for impeachment. Dozens of Members of Congress attended. Witnesses included Ambassador Wilson, constitutional attorney John Bonifaz, and CIA analyst Ray McGovern.[4][5]

In July, Conyers along with Representative Frank (see below) asked for research into the impeachability of Karl Rove with regard to the disclosure of CIA Operative Valerie Plame's identity to reporters.

On December 20, the House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff, at Conyers' request, filed its 273-page report, The Constitution in Crisis; The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Coverups in the Iraq War. The report included copies of house resolutions to to establish a bi-partisan Select Committee in the House - H.Res. 635; to censure the President - H.Res.636; and to censure the Vice President - H.Res. 637.

In comments on the report, Conyers said:

The report finds there is substantial evidence the President, the Vice-President and other high ranking members of the Bush Administration misled Congress and the American people regarding the decision to go to war in Iraq; misstated and manipulated intelligence information regarding the justification for such war; countenanced torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in Iraq; and permitted inappropriate retaliation against critics of their Administration.

The Report concludes that a number of these actions amount to prima facie evidence (evidence sufficiently strong to presume the allegations are true) that federal criminal laws have been violated. Legal violations span from false statements to Congress to whistleblower laws.

The Report also concludes that these charges clearly rise to the level of impeachable conduct. However, because the Administration has failed to respond to requests for information about these charges, it is not yet possible to conclude that an impeachment inquiry or articles of impeachment are warranted.[6]

Conyers wrote a letter to President Bush advising him of his intent and invited citizens to join him in signing it [7].

Conyers filed the legislation on December 18, where it was referred to the House Committee on Rules. According to a search on the Library of Congress's legislative information page, there were 27 co-sponsors as of March 2, 2006, to H. Res. 635, "Creating a select committee to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment." [8]

The cosponsors are: Abercrombie (HI), Baldwin (WI), Capps (CA), Clay (MO), Farr (CA), Hinchey (NY), Honda (CA), Jackson-Lee (TX), Lee (CA), Lewis (GA), Maloney (NY), McDermott (WA), McKinney (GA), Moore (WI), Nadler (NY), Oberstar (MN), Olver (MA), Owens (NY), Payne (NJ), Rangel (NY), Sabo (MN), Schakowsky (IL), Stark (CA), Tierney (MA), Velazquez (NY), Waters (CA) and Woolsey (CA).

In addition, Lofgren (CA) signed on as a co-sponsor on December 22, 2005, but withdrew support on January 31, 2006.

Senator Boxer

On December 19, 2005 Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) issued a press release [9], saying that she had written four undisclosed legal scholars, asking if there were grounds for impeachment, citing the December 16, 2005 New York Times disclosure of Bush's authorization of the National Security Agency (NSA) to monitor Americans without warrants and Nixon counsel John Dean's comments on December 18, 2005 that this constituted an impeachable offense. In a December 20, 2005 CNN interview Wolf Blitzer asked "So you're not ready at this point to say that he should be impeached." Boxer: "Oh, no, but I do have tremendous respect for John Dean." Former Nixon White House counsel John Dean spent four years in jail for his role in the Watergate cover-up.

Representative Lewis

An Associated Press report on December 20, 2005, said that Representative John Lewis told an interviewer at WAOK-AM News radio that the President should be impeached for authorizing the NSA's actions. A news release dated December 19, 2005 posted on John Lewis' official United States House of Representatives website says, "In my opinion, the President has violated the law, and the House and Senate must pursue their inquiries into this illegal program. The President must stop using the threat of terrorism and the tactics of fear to invade the privacy of American citizens. George W. Bush is the president. He is not a king. He is not above the law," and concludes, "There is no question that the U.S. Congress has impeached presidents for lesser offenses."

Representative Nadler

On January 21, the Detroit Free Press reported in a story, "Call is Out to Impeach Bush," that the previous day, at an unofficial hearing of Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee called by Conyers, Scott and Van Hollen, Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), called for the committee to explore whether Bush should face impeachment for alleged high crimes and misdemeanors stemming from his decision to authorize domestic surveillance without court review. The proceedings had no legal authority, as committee chairman, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, (R-WI), rejected Democrats' requests for an inquiry. Nadler is a senior Democrat on the committee's panel on the Constitution. [10]

White House reaction

The January 23-29, 2006 issue of Insight on the News, self-described as "a sister publication" of the conservative Washington Times, included an article, "Impeachment hearings: The White House prepares for the worst." This article said administration sources regard Senate Judiciary Committee hearings into the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy as "a prelude to the impeachment process." The article quotes a source as saying, "Our arithmetic shows that a majority of the committee could vote against the president. If we work hard, there could be a tie." A source criticized Congress, saying, "We will tell the American people that while we have done everything we can to protect them, our policies are being endangered by a hypocritical Congress." [11]

Public opinion

Polling results

File:Impeachment.gif
Results from Zogby International

Poll results show that many Americans support the hypothetical impeachment of Bush. These polls show greater support for the possibility of impeaching Bush than ever seen for the 1998 impeachment of Clinton, though the numbers are comparable to the early Clinton polls that used similar hypothetical wording as in the Bush polls.

In October of 2005, After Downing Street commissioned a poll by the independent Ipsos Public Affairs Research [12], which found [13] that by a margin of 50% to 44% Americans say that President Bush should be impeached if he lied about the war in Iraq. 39% strongly agreed and 30% strongly disagreed with the statement, "If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him." 72% of Democrats favored impeachment, compared to 56% of Independents and 20% of Republicans.

A Zogby International poll from October 29 to November 2, 2005 found that by a margin of 53% to 42% (+/-2.9%) Americans say that "If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment." This was supported by 76% of Democrats, 50% of Independents, and 29% of Republicans. A November 2, 2005 Washington Post-ABC News poll found 55% of Americans believe the Bush administration "intentionally misled the public" in making its case for war.[14]

December 15, 2005, Rasmussen Reports released a poll[15] that showed that 32% of the 1,000 Americans polled would support an impeachment of Bush and 35% would support an impeachment of Cheney. This survey was also commissioned by After Downing Street.[16]

Media response to polls

The major media have largely ignored these opinion polls and protests. Several columnists have endorsed impeachment. Eleanor Clift on the McLaughlin Group predicted on 6 November 2005 that "if the country, according to the polls, believes by a margin of 55 percent that President Bush misled us into war, the next logical step is impeachment and I think you’re going to hear that word come up and if the Democrats ever capture either house of Congress there are going to be serious proceedings against this administration."[17]

When the Washington Post's chief pollster Richard Morin was asked by readers why the Post has not polled on impeachment he responded with "This question makes me angry". According to Media Matters, the Washington Post asked about impeachment in a poll conducted a few days after the revelation of President Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky in 1998. Frank Newport, the director of the Gallup Poll has said he would only run a poll on the subject if it starts to gain mainstream attention and not until then. [18]

Public demonstrations

Rallies and marches

The rally held in Crawford, Texas by Cindy Sheehan and her supporters in late summer of 2005 featured frequent calls for impeachment.

A march in Washington, DC on 24 September 2005 attracted over 100,000 people. The march included calls for impeachment and for investigations leading to impeachment.[19]

On November 2 2005, The World Can't Wait mobilized marches across the country that called for the ousting of Bush. News reports cited thousands of protesters in each of New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco and 500 in each of Washington, DC, Chicago, Atlanta and Seattle.[20][21][22][23][24]

Rep. Maxine Waters founded the Out of Iraq Caucus in the House of Representatives. It has 66 members (as of August 31, 2005). An Out of Iraq event hosted by Rep. Waters in Inglewood, California, attracted 1200 supporters who loudly chanted "Impeach Bush" in response to a speaker explaining high crimes and misdemeanors.

Response to groups formed to support impeachment

Numerous groups have been created to support impeachment. The VoteToImpeach.org website claims to have collected half a million signatures on a petition to impeach Bush. None are known to have been created to oppose it (as MoveOn had been created to oppose the impeachment of Clinton).

See also PledgeBank's webpage on impeaching President Bush.

On December 20, 2005, The AfterDowningStreet.org website mounted an effort [25] to support Representative Conyers' legislation to censure Bush and Cheney and to investigate the administration's lead-up to the Iraq war, in possible preparation to impeachment. Within the first three days, the site reported that over 17,000 people had used the site to write to their congressional representatives requesting that they support Conyers' measures.

Endorsements of impeachment

Politicians and government officials

  • Ralph Nader's 2004 presidential campaign also promoted the cause of a Bush impeachment by raising public awareness of the numerous alleged crimes of the Bush Administration.[26] Nader also wrote an op-ed, (along with Kevin Zeese, director of DemocracyRising.US) favoring impeachment in the May 31, 2005 Boston Globe. [27]
  • Patrick Buchanan called for a bill of impeachment 'charging George W. Bush with a conscious refusal to uphold his oath and defend the states of the Union against "invasion"'[28] in regards to issues with illegal immigration.
  • Dennis Morrisseau, a Republican candidate for the Vermont House of Representatives seat has said he will campaign for impeachment against George W. Bush. [29]
  • Paul Craig Roberts, former assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration stated "The Bush administration is insane. If the American people do not decapitate it by demanding Bush’s impeachment, the Bush administration will bring about Armageddon."[30]
  • Constitutional Law Professor Francis Boyle has written six draft articles of impeachment against Bush.[34]
  • Conservative scholars Bruce Fein (constitutional scholar and former deputy attorney general in the Reagan Administration) and Norm Ornstein (scholar at the American Enterprise Institute) argued on the December 19, 2005 Diane Rehm show [35] that, should Bush remain defiant in defending his constitutionally-abusive wire-tapping of Americans (as he has indicated he will), Congress should consider impeaching him. Said Fein, "On its face, if President Bush is totally unapologetic and says I continue to maintain that as a war-time President I can do anything I want – I don’t need to consult any other branches – that is an impeachable offense. It’s more dangerous than Clinton’s lying under oath because it jeopardizes our democratic dispensation and civil liberties for the ages. It would set a precedent that … would lie around like a loaded gun, able to be used indefinitely for any future occupant. " Said Ornstein, "I think if we’re going to be intellectually honest here, this really is the kind of thing that Alexander Hamilton was referring to when impeachment was discussed."
  • Constitutional Lawyer John Bonifaz has written a book on the case for impeaching Bush, is a co-founder of After Downing Street, and has spoken regularly in favor of impeachment.
  • Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University and a specialist in surveillance, spoke about Bush's admission that he authorized warrantless wiretaps, in an interview for an article, “Bush’s Impeachable Offense” by Michelle Goldberg, published December 22, 2005 on Salon.com. "The president has already conceded that he personally ordered that crime and renewed that order at least 30 times. This would clearly satisfy the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors for the purpose of an impeachment." Turley testified against Clinton in that impeachment hearing and added "Many of my Republican friends joined in that hearing and insisted that this was a matter of defending the rule of law, and had nothing to do with political antagonism. I'm surprised that many of those same voices are silent. The crime in this case was a knowing and premeditated act. This operation violated not just the federal statute but the United States Constitution. For Republicans to suggest that this is not a legitimate question of federal crimes makes a mockery of their position during the Clinton period. For Republicans, this is the ultimate test of principle." [36]

Authors

  • A rundown of authors talking about impeachment was published in Editor and Publisher on December 21, 2005.[37]

Organizations

  • On March 1, 2006 the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a resolution 7-3 calling on the congressional delegates representing California to impeach George W. Bush. The mayor of the city has said he does not know whether he will sign it, and in either case, it will remain a low priority for him even if he does.
  • The left-wing Green Party National Committee passed a resolution calling for impeachment of Bush and Cheney at its national meeting on July 21, 2003, citing a "pattern of making false statements to Congress, the American people, and the world to win support for actions by the American government and military forces", "[s]quandering the resources of the American people to serve the interests of transnational corporations"; and war crimes, including the use of depleted uranium and cluster bombs in the preemptive invasion of Iraq." [38] This was the first known call for impeachment by a mass membership organization.
  • BuzzFlash.com a Chicago based news service, in a call for impeachment on April 4, 2004, editorialized that the administration had “deliberately ignored impending 9/11 hijacking attacks and led us into a disastrous war that has created more terrorism and united feuding religious sects in Iraq against us, that piles lies upon lies in an effort to prolong its stolen reign of power” [40]
  • AfterDowningStreet, an organization begun by liberal activists Bob Fertik and David Swanson and constitutional attorney John Bonifaz, advocates a congressional Resolution of Inquiry into evidence related to what has become known as the Downing Street memo, involving the Bush administration's military operations in Iraq. Such a resolution would be the first step toward a possible impeachment.[41]
  • Impeach Central is dedicated to the impeachment of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for violating the laws of the United States. While the group says the Bush administration has violated the Constitution on numerous occasions, the group is focusing on what it sees as the lies they told the American people and Congress which led the country into the Iraq War.[42]
  • On January 3, 2006, the Green Party of the United States repeated its call to begin impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney as soon as possible, calling evidence that Bush has abused power "so overwhelming that failure to undertake impeachment would make Congress even more complicit in this administration's lawlessness." [45]

Media Editorials and Opinion Pieces

  • Barron's, the conservative business journal published by the Wall Street Journal, editorialized in favor of impeachment on December 26, 2005, "Unwarranted Executive Power: The pursuit of terrorism does not authorize the president to make up new laws" [46] or [47], "Putting the president above the Congress is an invitation to tyranny. ...The most important presidential responsibility...is that he must 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”
The editorial further stated, "Willful disregard of a law is potentially an impeachable offense. It is at least as impeachable as having a sexual escapade under the Oval Office desk and lying about it later. The members of the House Judiciary Committee who staged the impeachment of President Clinton ought to be as outraged at this situation. They ought to investigate it, consider it carefully and report either a bill that would change the wiretap laws to suit the president or a bill of impeachment."
It adds, "It is important to be clear that an impeachment case, if it comes to that, would not be about wiretapping, or about a possible Constitutional right not to be wiretapped. It would be about the power of Congress to set wiretapping rules by law, and it is about the obligation of the president to follow the rules in the Acts that he and his predecessors signed into law."
  • The Capital Times, the progressive Madison Wisconsin newspaper founded in 1917, editorialized on December 30, 2005, in an editorial entitled "Talking About Impeachment" noted “The dwindling circle of right-wing defenders of the Bush-Cheney presidency would have Americans believe that only the most reckless partisans would even consider the prospect of censuring or perhaps even impeaching the president and vice president. But the prospect of officially sanctioning Bush and Cheney, as has now been proposed by U.S. Rep. John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, is gaining ground in unexpected quarters."
"The evidence shows that serious wrongdoing has occurred. And those responsible need to be held to account not just by academics, former White House aides and national publications but by the citizens who can persuade members of Congress to become the watchdogs on executive wrongdoing that the founders intended." display editorial via first Forum item's Full Text link
  • The ultra-conservative John Birch Society magazine, The New American, published an opinion piece on January 9, 2006 in favor of impeachment, “It's Not Just a Piece of Paper”. Talking in the voice of Thomas Jefferson, were he alive today, it stated “'When in the course of U.S. events it becomes necessary for Americans to demand that their duly elected representatives impeach and remove from office a president, a decent respect to the opinions of their fellow citizens requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to such a course of action.’” The piece enumerates the reasons for impeachment, with links to news articles, and concludes, again in Jefferson’s voice, “’A president, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be a leader of a free people.’" Then resuming its own voice, it states, “Mr. President, when you placed your hand over the Bible, raised your arm, and swore an oath before God to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States" (Article II, Section I), that wasn't ‘just a book’ you put your hand on. And it certainly wasn't a mealy-mouthed ‘agreement’ you made before your Maker -- whose name you have no compunction about taking in vain. And Mr. President, the Constitution is not just a piece of paper.” [48]
  • Radio personality and syndicated columnist Garrison Keillor wrote a column on February 28, 2006, calling for impeachment, "What to do when the emperor has no clothes", citing reports of torture at Guantanamo Bay ("When Americans start pulling people's fingernails out with pliers and poking lighted cigarettes into their palms, then we need to come back to basic values."), 9/11 Commission findings that indicate to him that "...our country is practically as vulnerable today as it was on 9/10," and the failure of the Iraq war to provide security for Americans ("Our adventure in Iraq, at a cost of trillions, has brought that country to the verge of civil war while earning us more enemies than ever before." [49]
  • In an October 27, 2005 column, "Hold Bush Accountable," Richard Cohen, of the Washington Post, accused Bush of impeachable offenses and called on the American electorate to figuratively "impeach" Bush by voting against him. [54]

Rationales for impeachment

Proponents of starting impeachment proceedings advance several rationales which they assert could justify charging one or more "high crime(s) [and/or] misdemeanor(s)" for which impeachment is possible.[55][56][57][58][59][60] The Center for Constitutional Rights discusses some arguments in Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush.[61]

Wiretapping inside the United States

Main article: NSA warrantless surveillance controversy

As part of the actions taken by President Bush in the war on terror was the order to authorize wiretapping within the U.S. without a warrant. This allegedly violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which was adopted to remedy similar actions.[62] Additionally, it violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits unlawful searches and seizures - this includes electronic surveillance. Whether this makes it illegal is currently debated.[63][64] In its defense, the administration has asserted that it had the authority to conduct the program under its Unitary executive theory of presidential power, which interprets the commander in chief clause of Article II of the Constitution to grant the President certain powers that are unreviewable by Congress or the courts. [65] (Compare with the theory of Separation of powers and rule of law.)

Some commentators have asserted in response that the Bush administration's interpretation of presidential power overthrows the Constitutional system of checks and balances and ignores other provisions of the Constitution mandating that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"and vesting Congress with the sole authority "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces" and "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." Such critics therefore believe that since the claimed legal authority is invalid, FISA has been violated, constituting a felony and as such an impeachable offense. [66][67][68][69][70][71] A detailed investigation into the matter seems to be averted.[72]

In January 2006, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service released two legal analyses concluding that "...no court has held squarely that the Constitution disables the Congress from endeavoring to set limits on that power. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has stated that Congress does indeed have power to regulate domestic surveillance... the NSA surveillance program... would appear to be inconsistent with the law." [73] [74] On February 13, 2006, the American Bar Association issued a statement denouncing the warrantless domestic surveillance program, accusing the President of exceeding his powers under the Constitution. Their analysis observes that the key arguments advanced by the Bush administration ar not compatible with the law. [75] [76]

Invasion of Iraq

Template:Main4

Many activists charge that Bush committed obstruction of Congress, a felony under 18 U.S.C. 1001, by withholding information and by supplying information Bush should have known to be incorrect in his States of the Union speeches. This law is comparable to perjury, but it does not require that the statements be made under oath.

A number of legislators, journalists, bloggers and citizen activist groups see the heretofore secret Downing Street memo as proof that Bush was willingly and knowingly untruthful about Iraq's possession of WMDs, and had lied in the year (2002) leading up to the Iraqi Invasion of 2003, and that the president intentionally planned to invade Iraq regardless of whether or not Iraq has any such weapons. Congressional Democrats sponsored both a request for documents and a resolution of inquiry. The minority party does not have subpoenas power, and therefore cannot force the production of documents.

Refuting the Geneva Conventions

Main article: Illegal combatant

Following the attacks of September 11, 2001 the Bush administration asserted that Al Quaeda and Taliban operatives captured on the field of combat were unlawful combatants who did not have the protection by the Geneva Conventions. Numerous commentators have dismissed this as not compatible with U.S. and international law.[77][78][79][80]

Extraordinary rendition

Main articles: Extraordinary rendition and United Nations Convention Against Torture

Critics have accused the CIA of rendering suspected terrorists to other countries in order to avoid U.S. laws prescribing due process and prohibiting torture and have called this "torture by proxy" or "torture flights".[81][82] Alberto Gonzales explicitly testified to Congress that the administration's position was to extradite detainees to other nations as long as it was not "more likely than not" that they would be tortured, although he later modified that statement. [83] However, the Convention against torture states:

No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

Under international law rendition is most likely illegal.[84][85]

Abuse of detainees

Template:Main4

As part of the war on terror several memos[86] were written analysing the legal position and possibilities in the treatment of prisoners. The memos, known today as the "torture memos," were written advocating enhanced interrogation techniques but also pointing out that refuting the Geneva Conventions would reduce the possibility of prosecution for war crimes.[87][88][89] In addition, a new definition of torture was issued. Most actions that fall under the international definition do not fall within this new definition advocated by the U.S.[90][91]

To address the multitude of incidents of prisoner abuse the McCain Detainee Amendment was adopted. However, in his signing statement President Bush made clear that he reserved the right to waive this bill if he thought that was needed.[92]

Over the years numerous incidents have been reported and a UN report denounced the abuse of prisoners as tantamount to torture.[93] Several legal analysts have advocated that writing these memos, not preventing or stopping the abuse could result in legal challenges involving war crimes under the command responsibility.[94][95][96][97][98][99][100]

Several top military lawyers including Alberto J. Mora reported that policies equivalent to torture were officially handed down from the highest levels of the administration, and led an effort within the Department of Defense to put a stop to those policies and instead mandate non-coercive interrogation standards. [101] [102] [103]

Hurricane Katrina

Main article: Hurricane Katrina

The alleged responsibility of the George W. Bush administration in the mishandling of Hurricane Katrina has been used to suggest failure by the administration to adequately provide for the need of its citizens.[104]

Leaking classified information

Main articles: Yellowcake forgery and Plame affair

In the State of the Union President Bush said Saddam Hussein was seeking uranium. He referred to what turned out to be falsified documents. After Ambassador Wilson wrote an article debunking this assertion the identity of his wife as CIA employee was made public. Wilson made the allegation that this was done to retaliate after his article. The investigation into the outing classified information by Patrick Fitzgerald is ongoing. It has led so far to the indictment of Lewis "Scooter" Libby and has been widely reported to be focused on a potential indictment of Karl Rove. Additionally, the litigation surrounding Libby has yielded court papers showing that Libby was ordered to disseminate classified information by his "superiors". [105] It has been pointed out that, as Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff to the Vice President, Libby's only superiors were the President and the Vice President.

Abuse of power

Main article: Unitary executive theory

As Commander-in-Chief in the war on terror, President Bush has asserted broad war powers to protect the American people. These have been used to justify the aforementioned policies. In effect, this is about assertions of inherent power in the executive to override constitutional, international, congressional limitations, and judicial limitations.[106][107][108]

See also

Further reading

  • John Bonifaz, Warrior King: The Case for Impeaching George Bush, (2003) ISBN 1560256060
  • John W. Dean, Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush, (2004) ISBN 031600023X
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Efforts_to_impeach_George_W._Bush&oldid=43116221"