A NECESSARY DEBATE

Posted July 29, 2008 by moodylaw
Categories: Bush, Cheney, Impeachment
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Click here for the pdf Version of the Letter

July 29, 2008

VIA FAX

Senator Barack Obama

713 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20510

Senator John McCain

241 Russell Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20510

Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich

2445 Rayburn HOB

Washington, D.C. 20515

Congressman John Conyers Jr.

2426 Rayburn Building

Washington, D.C. 20515

Re: A NECESSARY DEBATE.

For Ignoring and Trampling upon American Values Embodied in, and Encouraged and Fostered by The Constitution of the United States of America, as well as Their Role in the Commission of Domestic and War Crimes, their Seemingly Intentional Damage to this Great Nation, and their Unapologetic Political Attack on America’s Image, Congress has a Constitutional Obligation to Remove President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Bruce Cheney from Office, as a Matter of Law.

Dear Senators Obama and McCain, and Congressmen Kucinich and Conyers:

Surely we are not members of a political party first, but Americans – governed by The Constitution of the United States (the “Constitution”). Our unity in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks demonstrated this. President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Bruce Cheney have demonstrated in nearly eight (8) long and damaging years that they are Mere Ideologues and have no business remaining in Office.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

“Well, when the President does it that means it’s not illegal” is disgraced former President Richard Milhous Nixon’s view of Executive Power under the Constitution.[1] Bush’s and Cheney’s aggressively secret expression, expansion, and implementation, of the power of the executive branch as compared with that of its co-equal branches of government, renders Nixon’s comparative damage to the Constitution and the Office of the President quaint, at best. Yet they remain in office, and one (1) day more than necessary of their failed “policies” is, I respectfully submit, one (1) day too long for this country.

This administration’s conduct – most strikingly the waging of an unnecessary war (which history dictated was probably not “winnable”) on intentionally manufactured falsehoods – has resulted in: the loss of thousands of American lives, and the callous destruction (through permanent physical and/or psychological trauma) of tens of thousands more; the slaughter and torture of tens of thousands of irreparably damaged Iraqis; the (remediable) diminution of America’s global power, leadership and respect; the evisceration of the Constitution (which enabled Our global dominance); and the collapse of the American economy such that many Americans must now choose between feeding their families and driving to work, and many Americans have lost their homes in this, “the Land of Opportunity” where anyone could achieve “the American Dream.”

In furtherance of their war, Bush and Cheney clandestinely declared a simultaneous war on America, its ideals and values, its legacy, and the Constitution.[2] They deserve America’s swift justice with the protections afforded them under the Constitution, just as they sought – belligerently and without American consensus – to mete out their personal savagery.

Millions of Americans apparently agree,[3] as does Congressman Kucinich.[4] But Congressman Conyers “shelved” the issue, perhaps ensuring that it will not be heard.[5] Particularly in light of the release of yesterday’s internal Department of Justice report (see Facts, Point II, A., pp.8-9, below), Impeachment should be put back on the table, and an explanation issued for why it was removed in the first place. I respectfully submit that the immediate exercise of Congress’s impeachment power is not only necessary – the continued occupation of the highest offices in America (and thus on the planet) by Bush and Cheney only risks further damage to the United States – but required by the Constitution. You and your colleagues have a Constitutional and historic obligation to exercise Congress’s impeachment power, no matter what the domestic political or procedural hurdles may be. America’s present and future security and respect may depend on it, and Congress has a Constitutional Obligation to act now.

As a matter of law, Congress’s removal power (particularly when facing an Executive riddled with such politically ideological intransigence) is mandatory, not permissive. Both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution – and most particularly the Impeachment Clause – require Bush’s and Cheney’s removal (see “Argument”, below, pp.11-15). Congress must act, and act promptly.

Do you agree? Senator McCain presumably does since he (apparently) voted to impeach Former President William Jefferson Clinton. If Senator McCain considered Clinton’s stain on the Office of the Presidency to be so serious as to warrant his constitutional removal from office, surely Bush’s and Cheney’s conduct is deserving of at least equal punishment.

FACTS

POINT I

THE IRAQ WAR

A. Pre 9/11.

The Bush administration’s systematic and proven failure to make any effort whatsoever to prevent the attacks of September 11 even though the administration knew of the potentiality of an attack by Al Qaeda prior to September 11 is unfathomable – and notwithstanding the 9/11 Commission, aspects of the administration’s pre-September 11 failures remain secret. It is now documented that our intelligence (the intelligence of the wealthiest and most powerful nation the world has yet witnessed) prior to September 11 was disastrously mishandled by the Bush administration. Those directly responsible for the failures were promoted (for example Condoleeza Rice) while those who turned out to be right were demoted (for example Richard A. Clarke). A less prominent example of an undisclosed individual who failed Our National Security and was promoted after September 11, was an individual known only as “Mike” – whose intentional conduct may have been single-handedly responsible for the success of Osama Bin Laden’s attacks on September 11. As reported by Jane Mayer:

“[P]rior to September 11, [] [t]wice, according to later investigations, [Doug Miller] asked permission of his supervisor [in the CIA’s Counterterrorist Center] to forward this disturbing information [information that may very well have directly enabled the United States to prevent the dramatic loss of American lives, the felling of the World Trade Center, and the damage to the Pentagon] to his colleagues at the FBI. He wrote up a draft memo, to be sent to the FBI, and was ready to send it. But his boss, a CIA desk operative in the Bin Laden Unit of the Counterterrorist Center [which, according to Ms. Mayer was set up in 1996 (The Dark Side, p.34)] who is identified by the 9/11 Commission only as ‘Mike,’ and whose real name has never been revealed, stopped him from passing it on. After the second try, Miller dropped the matter. Oddly, three hours after ‘Mike’ told Miller to hold off on sending the memo, formally known as a Central Intelligence Report, he nonetheless notified his bosses that the information had been shared with the FBI. The CIA from then on assumed that it had been. But it never was. The contradiction was never explained. An investigator with the 9/11 Commission who tried to sort through the details said of ‘Mike,’ ‘He said he couldn’t remember what happened.’ Astonishingly, ‘Mike,’ the investigator later learned, was given a promotion by the Agency after September 11.” See Jane Mayer, The Dark Side (DoubleDay, 2008), pp.15-16 (emphases supplied).

B. Pre-War.

The Bush administration’s now all but admitted lies, distortions, and fabrications to Congress, the American public, and the world brought us (incomprehensibly) into America’s war against Iraq – no matter the repeatedly changing justifications for those lies, distortions, and fabrications. See e.g. “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and What’s Wrong With Washington.” Scott McClellan (Public Affairs Books 2008). This is to say nothing of the absurdity of waging war against Iraq in the first place.

C. During War.

i. Valerie Plame.

In an effort to cover up Bush’s and Cheney’s Propaganda, Bush and/or Cheney either disclosed, or authorized the disclosure of Valerie Plame’s identity – a covert American operative. If there could have been any doubt about Bush’s and Cheney’s motivations, Bush’s subsequent handling of Plamegate laid that doubt to rest forever. Following the announcement of an internal White House “investigation” into the disclosure of Ms. Plame’s identity (in hindsight, this was presumably little more than a strategic stall tactic to implement a willing fall guy), which included a promise by Bush that those involved would be dealt with appropriately, Bush’s and Cheney’s obvious contempt for the Constitution and laws of the United States remained on full display to America and the world. Appropriate under the circumstances, according to Bush, was to permit “Scooter” Libby to be tried and convicted for perjury in connection with covering up the treacherous crime (which, as yet, no one has been prosecuted for), and then to commute Libby’s sentence.

ii. Unbeknownst to Congress or Americans, United States Policy Changes and Torture Becomes “American”.

Well after the declaration of “Mission Accomplished” news broke that the United States military had been engaged in the systematic torture of innocent Iraqi citizens. Although John Yoo secretly authored the “torture memo” and Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld secretly made it United States policy, this cowardly administration permitted low level soldiers – who certainly should have known better, but whose conduct may certainly be justified by virtue of the nonsensical chain of command[6]– to take the fall for policies and conduct that they always knew Bush and Cheney were directly responsible for.

Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld implemented their secret innocent civilian torture program by relying on ideological, unelected, partisan lawyers (for example Alberto Gonzalez, David Addington, and John Yoo), to concoct a legal justification for torture. No right minded American adult could have had any doubt that the Geneva Convention – not to mention quintessential American values that form the bedrock of this country – prohibited torture. Focusing on the law’s letter, rather than its spirit, Yoo determined that phrases stated in plain English were somehow ambiguous. The language’s purported “ambiguity” was exacerbated – in Yoo’s own ideological mind at least – by his historically ill-informed opinion that the Geneva Convention did not contemplate a “War on Terror”, fought against individuals who were citizens of no state residing in easily identifiable territorial boundaries. No matter that the torture was mostly of innocent Iraqi civilians charged with no crime, and guilty of nothing but having been invaded.

The human rights (including the right of habeas corpus) of “enemy combatants” – which in Bush and Cheney’s war included those thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians – were unilaterally suspended by the United States under Bush and Cheney. It is unclear precisely which lawyers were responsible for this suspension and the United States’s resulting barbarism, but David Addington, John Yoo, Alberto Gonzalez, Jim Haynes, and Thomas Flanigan are among them.

iii. A Snap Shot of Bush’s and Cheney’s Barbaric Conduct of the Iraq War.

The most powerful military ever to have existed invades Iraq – an oil rich sovereign nation – on multiple intentionally falsified grounds. Iraq’s dictator is captured and tried in a hastily mismanaged trial, having had pictures of him in his under wear emblazoned across the newspapers of the world. Following his “conviction”, the dictator is hung on Iraqi soil. His hanging – performed by individuals wearing black hoods – is captured by cell phone cameras, and emblazoned across the newspapers of the world. Foreseeable (yet unforgivably unpredicted) sectarian violence engulfs Iraq. Abu Ghraib is established. Former Major General Geoffrey D. Miller – who had been practicing his “interrogation” techniques in Guantanamo in preparation for a transfer to Abu Ghraib – was ultimately given command. Literally thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians were subjected to days, weeks, and months of the most inhuman torture conceivable. There was no evidence against them, and there was no possibility of their escape. Some of them begged to commit suicide rather than stay at Abu Ghraib under General Miller’s watch for one second longer than they had to.

Bush and Cheney’s “sword and shield” interpretation of executive power and privilege – which has been perpetually honed and bolstered by seasoned lawyers who apparently hold the dictates of the Constitution and the laws of the United States in equal contempt – has single handedly permitted the United States military (in spite of its historic ethics) to be permanently labeled a perpetrator of torture.

iv. What Happened to America’s Soldiers?

Thousands died. Their families and friends continue to mourn their loss in an unnecessary war waged upon false pretenses and justifications.

Tens of thousands more were permanently injured. These injuries took the form of both physical and psychological harm. To add insult to injury, the Bush administration continues to fail on every level. Our soldiers – now “safely” back on American soil – have been compelled, because of Bush’s and Cheney’s callous incompetent failures, to file suit against the Veterans Administration which failed to treat these noble war veterans for post-traumatic stress disorder.[7]

Some soldiers – who should have been better trained and equipped – were turned into scapegoats, and punished.

At a bare minimum, as you consider the debate (and result) this letter seeks to encourage, don’t America’s soldiers – who fought valiantly (albeit largely under equipped by virtue of the administration’s incompetence[8]) – deserve immediate attention from America’s government? Doesn’t that begin with the removal from Office of the two callous men who are responsible for these soldiers’ suffering?

POINT II

DOMESTIC CRIMINALITY AND INCOMPETENCE DURING THE IRAQ WAR

A. Department Of “Justice”.

The Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility and Office of the Inspector General released “An Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring by Monica Goodling and Other Staff in the Office of the Attorney General [Alberto Gonzalez]”.[9] The investigation drew numerous conclusions – including the political appointment of immigration judges – but perhaps few conclusions are starker evidence of Bush’s and Cheney’s illegal conduct than the following:

“In sum, we concluded that the evidence showed that Goodling violated both federal law and Department policy, and therefore committed misconduct, when she considered political or ideological affiliations in hiring decisions for candidates for career positions within the Department. In particular, the evidence showed that she considered political or ideological affiliations in deciding several waiver requests from interim U.S. Attorneys, in promoting several candidates for career positions, and in disapproving a candidate for an EOUSA career SES position.”

Indeed, “[o]ne experienced counterterrorism prosecutor did not get a job in Washington because his wife was a Democrat. As a result, the report says, a much less experienced but politically acceptable attorney was assigned to handle counterterrorism issues.”[10] In every aspect of Bush’s and Cheney’s counterterrorism policies, there can be no remaining doubt that their ideology trumped the Rule of Law, American Justice and the Security of the United States. Can the United States risk a day longer than necessary?

Can or should Congress permit the likes of lower level administrators D. Kyle Sampson (Gonzales’s former Chief of Staff)[11] or Monica Marie Goodling (White House Liaison in Ashcroft’s D.O.J.)[12] to take the fall (like the Torture Soldiers and Libby) for Bush and Cheney? Or isn’t it time that Congress hold – under its constitutionally mandated authority – Bush and Cheney responsible for their misdeeds, rather than permitting lower level administrators who were apparently proud to “serve” these men to be prosecuted in Bush’s and Cheney’s stead?

Shockingly, neither Former Attorney General John Ashcroft nor Former Attorney General Gonzales were implicated in the report – though they hired, promoted, and were responsible for the conduct of Sampson and Goodling. Is this solely because Current Attorney General Michael Mukasey is another Bush appointee?

B. Natural Disasters.

The Bush Administration’s handling of Hurricane Katrina, like its handling of the Iraq war was flawed (and hence failed) from prior to Katrina’s land fall, and after it wrought New Orleans’ destruction. The federal government’s response was slow and inadequate.

The United States has recently been battered by massive new natural disasters. The West Coast is burning and the Mid-West has been drowned. If Bush and Cheney remain in power one (1) day longer than absolutely necessary, is it not all too possible – if not likely – that they will cause more damage that might be avoided?

C. The Economy.

When this administration took over the White House from the Clinton administration, there was a significant budget surplus. No matter which way it is now spun – whether Karl Rove is at the helm of that spin, or not – America’s economy is a mess. Unless Former Senator Phil Gramm’s views are to be credited.[13] One need only consider the fact that within the past several months, small foreign exchange booths in Amsterdam refused to take U.S. dollars, and that the U.S. dollar has recently hit historic lows against the Euro.

The Iraq war – in particular the woefully underestimated expense of which was initially forcefully promulgated (and defended) by Rumsfeld – will cost American tax payers trillions of dollars.

At least partially as a result of the Iraq war’s expense, foreign nations now own some of the most valuable and iconic land in America. One example is Abu Dhabi’s ownership of ninety percent (90%) of the Chrysler Building. Many Americans who cannot afford to pay rent, or whose homes have been lost due to foreclosures, have been forced to live in “tent cities”.[14] Ironic, our Superior View of Osama bin Laden’s lowly cave. Apparently the land upon which some of our foreclosed upon homes sits is less valuable than the copper piping in those houses which is being sold to India and China.[15] Many Americans have to choose between driving to work (because the cost of gas is prohibitive) or feeding their families (because the rising cost of food is prohibitive). Some Americans have chosen to ride their horse to work instead[16] and there has recently been food rationing in America![17]

This is the United States of America, and we have led the rest of the world into a position where they are now able to manipulate and own our success and the symbols of our success. American ideas, American values, and American ingenuity has taught the rest of the world, and they are now threatening to hold too great a stake in America while average Americans suffer.

Not only has this all happened on Bush’s watch, after he inherited a robust economy, but it appears to be as a direct result of the crippling expense of Bush’s and Cheney’s war. Shouldn’t their complete and utter failures of competence, planning, and leadership – in connection with the economy alone – and their consequent failures to protect the American populace as a whole, be considered by Congress to, at a minimum, constitute a “Misdemeanor” mandating their prompt removal from office?

ARGUMENT

AS A MATTER OF LAW THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES CONGRESS

TO EXERCISE ITS IMPEACHMENT POWER AND

REMOVE BUSH AND CHENEY FROM OFFICE

Article II, Section 4 (the “Impeachment Clause”) of the Constitution provides:

“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.” (emphasis supplied).

In case there is any Revisionist or Originalist doubt shed upon the meaning of the terms “Treason”; “high Crimes” or “Misdemeanors” as utilized by the Framers and our Founding Fathers, that doubt should be viewed through the legal prism of the Constitution’s “spirit”. No sitting Justice of the United States Supreme Court will disavow the existence – in part because of the lofty (and therefore tantalizingly vague) ideals embodied in its language, and in part due to Our language’s susceptibility to myriad interpretation – of the doctrine that the Constitution must be interpreted and followed not only according to its letter (the actual language utilized), but also according to its spirit (the language’s purpose).

This year, Associate Justice Antonin Gregory Scalia relied upon this concept in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 2808 (2008). In 2005, quoting Chief Justice John Marshall’s adherence to this doctrine, Justice Scalia argued that governmental exercises of authority “must be ‘consistent with the letter and spirit of the constitution.’” Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 39, 125 S.Ct. 2195, 2219 (2005) (emphases supplied). In 2004, in a concurring opinion, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas also confirmed this principle. Sabri v. U.S., 541 U.S. 600, 612, 124 S.Ct. 1941, 1950 (2004). In a dissenting opinion in 2000, Associate Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg also confirmed the Supreme Court’s adherence to the principle that the Constitution must be followed not only according to its letter, but also according to its spirit. Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495, 539, 120 S.Ct. 1044, 1068 (2000).

Bush’s and Cheney’s conduct has openly, notoriously, and repeatedly violated the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Congress has an obligation – beginning with Bush’s and Cheney’s prompt removal from office – to restore the power, durability, and credibility of the language actually used in the Constitution, and to reaffirm that document’s intent.

On taking office, Bush was “sworn in”. The Constitutional oath sworn to by Bush mandated that as President of the United States he would “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution” (Article II, Section I). This mandate did not permit Bush and his cadre of powerful unelected lawyers – Gonzales, Addington, Yoo, Haynes, and Flanigan – to either: a) unilaterally expand the concept of Executive Power as embodied in the Constitution; b) ignore the Constitution’s Separation of Powers doctrine; c) eviscerate the Fourth Amendment’s protections; or d) clandestinely re-interpret America’s obligations pursuant to international treaties (such as the Geneva Convention) without engaging in so much as a discussion with those who disagreed to determine whether such treaties and obligations should be circumvented.

Superficially persuasive, short-sighted, and apparently unchecked lawyering of the sort engaged in by Gonzales, Yoo, Addington, Haynes and Flanigan – which sought to totally re-define American Executive Authority based, in part, upon Political Ideological Savagery and the Convenient Conceit that Al Qaeda was not a “state” – should never have been countenanced by Bush or Cheney under the Constitution. There is little wonder that the vast majority (Yoo’s “Torture Memo” being a notable exception) of this legal chicanery remains secret. The Dark Side, pp.44-71. The Constitution – coupled with appropriate executive authority, Congressional Judgment, and international diplomacy – provides a vast framework within which to fashion a response to terrorism. Indeed, Bush’s and Cheney’s unitary failed approach demonstrates the absolute necessity of utilizing that framework: Bin Laden remains at large, thumbing his nose at Bush’s and Cheney’s school yard arrogance.

Neither Bush’s nor Cheney’s ignorance of the law should provide them with a defense to their unlawful conduct. See e.g. Ratzlaf v. U.S., 510 U.S. 135, 114 S.Ct. 655 (1994) (“We do not dishonor the venerable principle that ignorance of the law generally is no defense to a criminal charge. See Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 199, 111 S.Ct. 604, 609, 112 L.Ed.2d 617 (1991); Barlow v. United States, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 404, 410-412, 8 L.Ed. 728 (1833) (Story, J.).”).

The Impeachment Clause’s removal authority is mandatory, not permissive. If Bush and/or Cheney committed “Treason”, a “high Crime”, or a “Misdemeanor”, then one or both of them “shall be” removed upon conviction. The Constitution withdraws the discretion of Congress to decline to exercise its removal authority (which the framers could have afforded by the use of the permissive phrase “may be”) in the event that Bush and/or Cheney are found guilty of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Cf. Lopez v. Davis, 531 U.S. 230, 241,121 S.Ct. 714, 722 (2001)(use of the word “shall” (as opposed to “may”) imposes “discretionless obligations”). Awareness of the Executive branch’s Criminal and Unconstitutional conduct, it is respectfully submitted, requires the Legislative branch’s exercise of its Impeachment power.

Not only the letter, but the spirit of the Constitution requires this result – the Impeachment Clause is a powerful tool that ensures that the three branches of Our Government remain Co-equal. Our tri-partite system was set up in order to ensure that no branch of government could unilaterally usurp power unto itself, and Congress should not be left to clean up after the executive branch has been left to run rough-shod over the Constitution. While the letter of the Constitution certainly appears to mandate impeachment proceedings for an executive officer’s crimes, the Constitution’s structure and intent – and thus its spirit – requires it. The conclusion must be that Congress has a Constitutional Obligation to exercise its impeachment authority. Congressman Conyers?

The seemingly intentional failure to act – in any way – upon actual intelligence known to the Bush administration (particularly Condoleeza Rice) well in advance of the September 11 attacks constitutes “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Without researching the definition of “Treason”, a common sense approach suggests that the disclosure (or authorizing the disclosure) of the name of a covert United States operative (Valerie Plame) for political gain in a continued fabricated effort to justify a needless war that was only made possible by lying to the American public, and which plainly ran the risk of threatening National Security (in a time of “ war”) satisfies any definition of Treason – whether in letter or in spirit. Moreover, given congressional legislation on the subject making such a disclosure a felony subject to ten (10) years imprisonment, surely constitutes a “high Crime”. Politics be damned honorable gentlemen, this is America we’re talking about – where no man is above the law, whether he be named Nixon, Bush, or Cheney. As stated by John Adams in justification of the principle of the separation of powers (one of the constitutional doctrines tortured by this administration), we are “a government of laws and not men.” Massachusetts Constitution, Part The First, art. XXX (1780). Notably, the United States Supreme Court has upheld Mr. Adams’ concept as “an essential part of [our] government.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 568, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 1385 (1964). In short, Plamegate alone is powerful evidence that Bush and Cheney’s National Security concerns took a seat at the back of the bus to the clandestine policies that drove their personal goals and ideologies.

The perpetration of a deliberate and systematic lie to the American people for political and personal gain – which resulted in the death and maiming of tens of thousands of Americans, the destruction of the American economy, the destruction of America’s global image, and which followed a direct and sustained attack on the Constitution – constitutes Impeachable conduct.

The willful violation of the clear language of the Geneva Convention’s prohibition against torture through legal semantics written into Undisclosed Law by low level unelected administrators responsible to, and acting under, Bush and Cheney constitutes Impeachable conduct. If ever the history of American law needed a starker demonstration of the purpose served by the doctrine of the “spirit” of the law, it is the parsimonious pedantic interpretation – nothing more than a zealous schoolboy philosopher’s manipulation – authored by Yoo (who is currently a professor of law at Berkeley) in the Torture Memo. It is no wonder that memo was not released by the administration until well after the damage to America was done, and it is no wonder that its release was only occasioned by the – as I understand it, unauthorized – release of horrific photographic evidence of this administration’s crimes.

A President’s secret, knowing, and intentional violation of decades (and in some instances centuries) of well settled American law is, for an officer who swore to preserve, protecting, and defend the Constitution, an Impeachable offense.

Bush’s and Cheney’s repeated assaults on the very underpinning of our American democracy – the Constitution – constitutes Impeachable conduct. Ironic the damage that Bush (contrary to his final belligerent justification for waging war against Iraq) has done to the next generation’s efforts to promote and justify American democratic values and ideals worldwide.

Even if none of Bush’s and Cheney’s actions – standing alone, or considered collectively – constitute a “high Crime” or “Misdemeanor”, are they (or should they be, within the spirit of the Impeachment Clause) collectively transformed into a “high Crime” or “Misdemeanor” by virtue of the Bush administration’s simultaneous destruction of America’s legacy and reputation in the eyes of the world, while the economy (together with millions of Americans) has been left to suffer a slow but painful demise?

There are two main arguments that I have encountered that disfavor impeachment. First, there is not enough time. This understandable approach (Bush’s and Cheney’s illegal intransigence is to be expected) is defeatist, weighed down by the very partisan politics that certainly contributed to the mess of the Iraq war in the first place, and too heavily suggests Bush’s and Cheney’s continued ability to find support from their co-conspirators (in whatever halls of power they may lurk, and whatever walks of civilian life they may now be engaged), as well as an unnecessary continued diminution of every Americans’ respect for the Constitution of the United States. More importantly, this approach rewards Bush’s and Cheney’s arrogant disrespect for the Legislative branch (and perhaps encourages similar conduct by viciously partisan politicians). Bush and Cheney have vast resources, to be sure, but those resources should not be permitted to slow down their rapid removal from office. Second, impeachment is a massive responsibility, and its power should be exercised sparingly as it undermines voter choice (even if in this particular instance that subject is open for debate). What weight did this important notion play in the decision to try Clinton? There is no doubt that the power to impeach should not be wielded unless absolutely necessary – and it has been exercised sparingly throughout our history. The Constitution’s system of checks and balances protects against Congress’s ability to remove executive officers for mere mismanagement. See e.g. Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714, 722, 106 S.Ct. 3181, 3186 (1986). Bush’ and Cheney’s conduct transcends mere mismanagement, but they will count on their lawyers’ ability to make just this argument.

Admittedly Congress should be prepared to face Bush and Cheney intransigence. Their conduct thus far demonstrates their belief that the Legislative Branch is vastly inferior and less powerful than the Executive Branch, and this view is of course bolstered by the appointment of ideologues to positions in the Judicial Branch. Congress must act in the absence of doubt as to Bush’s and Cheney’s stance, and in the absence of doubt that Impeachment will take time and work. Witness Bush and Cheney’s Propaganda Minister Rove’s current stance.[18] Lawfully subpoenaed by Congress to testify under oath before Congress, Rove takes the position that because he has previously spoken to Bush on topics unrelated to the subpoena he may not be compelled to testify by Congress. Correct me if I’m wrong, but this is the Congress of the United States of America that we are talking about? How does Rove – who was nothing more than a political imagist and statistician for Bush – summon up the nerve to disobey Congress?

With the precedent that would be set by the Legislative branch’s failure to act against the Executive branch, how would a President Obama or a President McCain view his executive authority over Congress if Bush’s and Cheney’s illegal conduct passes unchecked? Will these individuals, who have already done so much damage to the United States threaten a Constitutional Crisis in order that the clock may run out? Perhaps, but the Constitution requires Congress to push for that potential crisis – its (and thus America’s) continued viability – as a Nation governed by laws, and not men – depends upon it.

CONCLUSION

Let’s frame the question differently. If Congress does not promptly remove (or at least attempt to remove) Bush and Cheney from office, is the United States providing unnecessary evidence (and therefore ammunition for the conclusion) that Bin Laden has won his first battle in his own cowardly and vicious war on American values and ideals?

Is it not absolutely necessary – as an actual symbol of American justice on Our Current Global Stage – that Bush and Cheney be promptly removed from Office lest Americans (and those victims of this administration’s savagery) be left with the impression that with sufficient power a handful of lawyers (one small sub-set of which is known as “The War Council”) can knowingly subvert the Constitution, and its entire history?

Or perhaps Bush and Cheney – without any negotiation as to their post-office fate – are already aware of the damage they have done as a result of their assault on this nation. Perhaps they will promptly step down, acknowledging the depth of their Unconstitutional and Un-American conduct. Hope springs eternal, but I doubt it.

One (1) day more, is one (1) day too many. Remove them from office, and promptly – it is your obligation to your constituents and the American public. At the very least, begin the debate again.

Respectfully Submitted,

Mark Warren Moody

A Concerned Lawyer

cc: Via Electronic Mail Or Facsimile

The White House

The Office of the Vice President

Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Congressman Jerrold Nadler

Congressman Anthony D. Weiner

Congresswoman Nydia M. Velazquez

Congressman Charles B. Rangel

Congressman Robert Wexler

Senator Harry Reid

Senator Mitch McConnell

Senator Lamar Alexander

Senator Hilary Clinton

Senator Chuck Schumer

Rush Limbaugh

Bill O’Reilly

Sean Hannity

Robert Cox

Tom Brokaw

Brian Williams

MSNBC.com

Keith Olbermann

Dan Abrams

Air America (Rachel Maddow)

Newsweek

The New York Times

Patricia Bucklin

Executive Director, New York State Bar Association

Keith J. Soressi

Associate Executive Director, New York State

Bar Association

Undisclosed Recipients

The Blog:

http://impeachbushandcheney.wordpress.com/

[1] See David Frost’s May 19, 1977 interview with Nixon.

http://www.landmarkcases.org/nixon/nixonview.html.

[2] Jane Mayer’s “The Dark Side. The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals” (DoubleDay, 2008) is a lucid account of the ease with which personal ideology and total disrespect for the Constitution turned America into a Torturer.

[3] See http://www.impeachbush.org/site/PageServer.

[4] Information supporting Congressman Kucinich’s proposed Articles of Impeachment against Cheney are available at: http://kucinich.house.gov/spotlightissues/documents.htm.

[5] http://www.pubrecord.org/nationworld/194.html?task=view.

[6] See “The Ghosts of Abu Ghraib”, a documentary by Rory Kennedy, currently available on HBO on Demand.

Comments: 5 Comments