Misplaced Pages

Rationales provided by advocates of the impeachment of George W. Bush: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:38, 4 April 2006 view sourceMerecat (talk | contribs)2,799 edits →Hurricane Katrina: there is no link to any "high crime or misdemeanor" here. Can't be impeached unless such exists - for impeachment for Katrina are not notable and must not be included← Previous edit Revision as of 08:40, 4 April 2006 view source Merecat (talk | contribs)2,799 edits →Invasion of Iraq: the "non-existant" premise for these points is in dispute. I contend that premise is false - so do many others. this links style makes edits here very hardNext edit →
Line 50: Line 50:
===Invasion of Iraq=== ===Invasion of Iraq===
{{main4|Invasion of Iraq|Downing Street memo|Iraq and weapons of mass destruction|Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda}} {{main4|Invasion of Iraq|Downing Street memo|Iraq and weapons of mass destruction|Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda}}

Both the cited ]<ref>Weapons of Mass Destruction
* ], January 07, 2004
* ], January 26, 2004 </ref>and the link with ]<ref>Link with Al Qaeda
* Documents show Administration claims were exaggerated, by ], April 15, 2005
* By Dave Zweifel, The Capital Times
* ] </ref> used as evidence against Saddam Hussein turned out to be non-existent.<ref> By Joseph Cirincione, Jessica Tuchman Mathews, George Perkovich, with Alexis Orton, ], January 2004 </ref> Furthermore, it has become clear that prior to the invasion these arguments had already been widely disputed, which had purportedly been reported to the U.S. administration.<ref>Misrepresenting the facts surrounding Iraq
*, by Elizabeth Holtzman, The Nation, January 11, 2006
* By ], ], July 18, 2003
* By ], FindLaw.com, June 11, 2003
* ], January 29, 2004]
* February 19, 2003 </ref> Until today an in-depth investigation into the nature of these discrepancies has been frustrated.


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. 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.

Revision as of 08:40, 4 April 2006

This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Misplaced Pages's deletion policy.
Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page.
You are welcome to edit this article, but please do not blank this article or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the Guide to deletion.
If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, please join the discussion and consider improving the article so that it meets the Misplaced Pages inclusion criteria.

How to list a page for deletion (log)

Template:AfD doc

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

You must add a |reason= parameter to this Cleanup template – replace it with {{Cleanup|reason=<Fill reason here>}}, or remove the Cleanup template.

Main article: Movement to impeach George W. Bush

Proponents of the impeachment of current President of the United States George W. Bush assert that one or more of President Bush's actions qualify as "high crimes and misdemeanors" under which the president can constitionally be impeached. The Center for Constitutional Rights discusses some arguments in Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush.

Suggested reasons to impeach

Warrantless 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. Whether this is illegal is currently debated, since it allegedly violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Additionally, it allegedly violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits unlawful searches and seizures - this includes electronic surveillance. These allegations have been advanced by articles published in The Christian Science Monitor and The Nation. In its defense, the administration has asserted that it had the authority to conduct the program under the 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. (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." Elizabeth Holtzman, John Dean and Jennifer van Bergen from FindLaw assert that FISA has been violated and the claimed legal authority is invalid, constituting a felony and as such an impeachable offense.A detailed investigation into the matter seems to be averted.

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." 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 are not compatible with the law.

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 formerly 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 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.

Marjorie Cohn asserts that this was not a war in self-defense but a war of aggression contrary to the U.N. Charter it is possibly a war crime.

Refuting the Geneva Conventions

Main article: Illegal combatant

Following the attacks of September 11, 2001 the Bush administration advocated that Al Qaeda and Taliban would be determined to be unlawful combatants. As such it was suggested they did not have the protection by the Geneva Conventions. The American Bar Association, Human Rights Watch, the Council on Foreign Relations and Joanne Mariner from FindLaw have dismissed this as not compatible with U.S. and international law.

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". 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. 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.

Commentators, among which the United Nations and Louise Arbour, have stated that under international law rendition as practiced by the U.S. government is illegal.

Abuse of detainees

Template:Main4

As part of the war on terror several memos were written analyzing 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. 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.

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.

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.

Over the years numerous incidents have been reported and a UN report denounced the abuse of prisoners as tantamount to torture. Several legal analysts -such as Marjorie Cohn, Elizabeth Holtzman, Human Rights First- have advocated that writing these memos, not preventing or stopping the abuse could result in legal challenges involving war crimes under the command responsibility.


Leaking classified information

Main articles: Yellowcake forgery and Plame affair

In his 2003 State of the Union Address, President Bush cited British government sources in saying that 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". 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 policies connected with the war. AlterNet, the St. Petersburg Times and the Santiago Times have claimed that Bush has exceeded constitutional or other legal limitations on such war powers.

See also

References

  1. Arguments in general
  2. Impeaching George W. Bush By Onnesha Roychoudhuri, AlterNet, March 6, 2006.
  3. Wiretapping possibly illegal
  4. LEGAL AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING THE ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY DESCRIBED BY THE PRESIDENT U.S. Department of Justice, January 19, 2006
  5. Wiretapping probably impeachable offense
  6. No official inquiry into wiretapping
  7. Congressional Research Service
  8. American Bar Association
  9. War Crimes: Goose and Gander By Marjorie Cohn, Truthout, March 13, 2006
  10. Violating International Law
  11. Torture by proxy
  12. Gonzales Defends Transfer of Detainees By R. Jeffrey Smith, Washington Post, March 8, 2005
  13. Legal position of rendition
  14. The Interrogation Documents: Debating U.S. Policy and Methods the memos written as part of the war on terror
  15. War crimes warning
  16. US definition of torture
  17. Torture as policy?
  18. U.S. Cites Exception in Torture Ban McCain Law May Not Apply to Cuba Prison, By Josh White and Carol D. Leonnig, Washington Post, March 3, 2006
  19. UN calls for Guantanamo closure BBC, Read the full UN report into Guantanamo Bay, February 16, 2006
  20. Accountability
  21. Libby: 'Superiors' Approved Leak CBS/AP, Feb. 9, 2006
  22. Abuse of Power
Categories: