You are hereImpeachment
By John W. Dean, FindLaw.com
Both claimed that a president may violate Congress's laws to protect national security
On Friday, December 16, the New York Times published a major scoop by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau: They reported that Bush authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to spy on Americans without warrants, ignoring the procedures of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
By ROSA BROOKS, Los Angeles Times
Is Clinton's history in Bush's future?
You know, the Clinton impeachment thing. Remember that? It had something to do with an intern, secretly taped conversations and a cigar. But it happened in the late 1990s, and it's getting harder and harder to remember the details of that long-vanished era.
A Cap Times editorial, December 29, 2005, http://www.madison.com
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.
By David Swanson
Listen to audio of Congressman John Conyers talking about the Bush Administration's crimes, and his efforts to censure Bush and Cheney and to create an investigation that would develop articles of impeachment. I recorded this conversation with the Congressman on December 29th. The bills and the report referred to in the conversation can be found here. The upcoming events discussed can be found here.
This mp3 is 24 minutes and 21 MB: LISTEN.
Here's a Podcast version.
'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for December 27
Guest: John Dean, Bob Bernstein
KEITH OLBERMANN, HOST: Which of these stories will you be talking about tomorrow?
And worse and worse it gets. Did the Bush administration bypass the special wiretap court because the court was refusing to sanction those wiretaps? Did the NSA spying include eavesdropping at the U.N.? And is, as our guest John Dean suggests, the president already guilty of at least one impeachable offense?
By David Swanson
U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has admitted that he "ghosted" a detainee, meaning that he made the decision to hold a prisoner without keeping any records of the fact.
By Hazel Trice Edney, San Francisco Bay View
President Bush’s authorization of a secret domestic spying program – and his fierce defense of his action – is leading to talk of possible impeachment.
Geov Parrish - WorkingForChange.com
"Congress, if it is (in the words the Bush White House once reserved for the U.N.) 'to remain relevant,' must impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney."
12.28.05 - In the waning days of 2005, a number of Beltway developments have pointed to 2006 as a pivotal year in the future -- if there is to be any -- of American democracy.
By Martin Garbus, HuffingtonPost
An hour after the New York Times described Bush’s illegal surveillance program, I wrote on the Huffington Post that Bush had committed a crime, a “High Crime,
By Jack Lessenberry, http://www.metrotimes.com
John Conyers Jr., that cranky old left-wing dude, introduced a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives calling on Congress to impeach the president. I can just see you shaking your head.
By Doug Giebel, http://www.scoop.co.nz
Impeaching President Bush: A Game Of Ambiguity
By Doug Giebel
“im-peach . . . 2. to call in question
The American Enterprise Institute ("The People Who Brought You Eternal War!") have thunk this up: "we should have a serious debate about abolishing FISA and restoring the president's inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes." READ MORE
And read this from AEI: Impeach the President? Bring It On!
By David Swanson
A new report looks into instances in which the Bush Administration leaked classified information to support its case that Iraq was a threat to the United States.
While that case was, of course, ridiculous and the information falsified, the leaking of it was illegal. And the leaks appear to have been part of a coordinated effort. Immediately following important leaks, top administration officials appeared on talk shows to discuss information that they could not have legally discussed had it not appeared in a newspaper that morning.
By Jonathan Schell, The Nation
When the New York Times revealed that George W. Bush had ordered the National Security Agency to wiretap the foreign calls of American citizens without seeking court permission, as is indisputably required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), passed by Congress in 1978, he faced a decision. Would he deny the practice, or would he admit it? He admitted it. But instead of expressing regret, he took full ownership of the deed, stating that his order had been entirely justified, that he had in fact renewed it thirty times, that he would continue to renew it and-going even more boldly on the offensive-that those who had made his law-breaking known had committed a "shameful act." As justification, he offered two arguments, one derisory, the other deeply alarming. The derisory one was that Congress, by authorizing him to use force after September 11, had authorized him to suspend FISA, although that law is unmentioned in the resolution. Thus has Bush informed the members of a supposedly co-equal ranch of government of what, unbeknownst to themselves, they were thinking when they cast their vote. The alarming argument is that as Commander in Chief he possesses "inherent" authority to suspend laws in wartime. But if he can suspend FISA at his whim and in secret, then what law can he not suspend? What need is there, for example, to pass or not pass the Patriot Act if any or all of its provisions can be secretly exceeded by the President?
By Ruth Conniff, http://progressive.org
What sense does it make that some of the same Washington media and political leaders who countenanced the Clinton impeachment over a semen-stained dress, somberly intoning about the "rule of law," consider impeaching Bush beyond the pale?
From the Impeach Bush Coalition:
Tom Delay (R-TX):
"This nation sits at a crossroads. One direction points to the higher road of the rule of law. Sometimes hard, sometimes unpleasant, this path relies on truth, justice and the rigorous application of the principle that no man is above the law. Now, the other road is the path of least resistance. This is where we start making exceptions to our laws based on poll numbers and spin control. This is when we pitch the law completely overboard when the mood fits us, when we ignore the facts in order to cover up the truth.
by Kagro X, www.dailykos.com
Have you heard the news? Daniel Schorr says "nobody's talking about impeachment." Charles Krauthammer says impeachment talk is "nonsense." And Jonah Goldberg says impeachment will actually help W's poll numbers.
By Marty Luster, Ithaca Journal (New York)
As if the lies that took us to Iraq were not enough. As if the knowing use of bad intelligence wasn't enough. As if the ever- shifting justifications for this war were not enough. As if the use of torture by and at the behest of the United States was not enough. As if the disclosure of classified information to retaliate against a critic of the war policy was not enough. As if the shroud of secrecy that binds this administration was not enough. As if the squandering of hundreds of billions of dollars in support of this war at a time when we can't find the money to rebuild one of our great cities, when millions of us go without health care and when the federal government has reneged on its commitment to public education was not enough.
By Katrina vanden Heuvel, Huffington Post
In the late 1990s, House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, currently under indictment on corruption charges, proclaimed: "This nation sits at a crossroads. One direction points to the higher road of the rule of law.... The other road is the path of least resistance" in which "we pitch the law completely overboard when the mood fits us...[and] close our eyes to the potential lawbreaking...and tear an unfixable hole in our legal system." That arbiter of moral politics, Tom DeLay, was incensed about the danger of letting Bill Clinton escape unpunished for his "crimes"--lying about sex.
Elsy Fors (Prensa Latina)
Next year might be decisive for US President George W. Bush, accused of lying, showing total disregard for US and international laws, Constitution violations, living in a bubble, promoting abuses, torture, indefinite detention of and spying on US citizens and foreigners.
By Dave Lindorff, http://www.thiscantbehappening.net
The uproar over the spying on Americans' telephone and email communications that has followed publication of an expose by the New York Times, which has included the first calls in Congress for censure or impeachment, makes it clear that this is an issue that resonates across party lines.
By RALPH NADER
Richard Cohen, the finely-calibrated syndicated columnist for the Washington Post, wrote a column on October 28, 2004 which commenced with this straight talk: "I do not write the headlines for my columns. Someone else does. But if I were to write the headline for one, it would be 'Impeach George Bush'."
James R. Carroll's: Notes from Washington
President Bush's authorization of domestic spying by the National Security Agency has prompted a couple of Democrats to mention the possibility of impeaching him over abuse of power.
By the Santiago Times
Bush’s Slippery Slope Leads To A Police State, Plain And Simple
(Dec. 21, 2005, Ed. Note: It is a sad state of affairs to have the President of the United States admit to the nation and to the world that he is spying on the citizens he is elected to safeguard.
By Andy Ostroy, www.opednews.com
Back in December of 1998, a highly partisan U.S. House of Representatives voted to impeach President Bill Clinton, making him just the second U.S. president in history to be impeached since Andrew Johnson in 1868 following the Civil War. Clinton's offense? Lying under oath about his unimpressive high-school-quality sexual dalliances with intern Monica Lewinsky. Pretty tame stuff, and not quite a threat to anyone or anything except a flimsy red dress and a Rhodes Scholar's dignity.
Bush Impeachment Process Will Begin Early January, 2006
By William McGinnis
Conservative Republicans Will Join Democrats To Remove The Dangerous, Out-Of-Control President-King Before He Does More Harm.
By Stephen Crockett
The generation of American leaders who fought the American Revolution and crafted the United States Constitution examined the most important issues of government. They considered (1) war and peace, (2 ) the limits to government power vs. individual liberties, (3) how officeholders should be controlled by the citizenry and (4) the raising and management of public money. That generation devised impeachment to remove tyrants and corrupt officeholders from positions of public power based on their experience under the government of King George. Under the present circumstances, it is likely that they would vote to impeach and remove from office George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
Nicholas F. Benton, www.FCNP.com
The nation is at one of its most precarious junctures ever at this very time.
If it fails to call the president to account for his admission of a widespread disregard for the rule of law, involving in principle and fact the most invasive violation of the public’s civil liberties possible by any government, then a critical moment will have passed. A precedent will be set that will forevermore forfeit the public’s right to privacy, to live free of Big Brother.
By Dan Froomkin, WashingtonPost.com
Howard Fineman writes in his Newsweek column: "We are entering a dark time in which the central argument advanced by each party is going to involve accusing the other party of committing what amounts to treason. Democrats will accuse the Bush administration of destroying the Constitution; Republicans will accuse the Dems of destroying our security. . . .