The Virginians for Peace and Accountability (http://www.peaceanda...) hosted a forum at George Mason University on Saturday the 23rd of June, "Presidential Accountability: Should Impeachment be ON the Table?" A mixed bag of some 50 attendees heard from 4 diverse panel members, a former Congressional attorney, and the General Manager of Pacifica Radio in D.C.
Panel:
COLONEL LAWRENCE WILKERSON, USMC, Vietnam vet, former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell;
MARCUS RASKIN: George Washington University professor, co-founder of Institute for Policy Studies, author of "Four Freedoms Under Siege;"
BARBARA OLSHANSKY: Stanford Law School professor, former Deputy Legal Director for the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York, co-author of the book "The Case for Impeachment," and one of the original attorneys who helped the 700-2000 detainees secretly swept up on 12 September immediately after 9/11, and "disappeared;"
GIL DAVIS: Parliamentarian for the 11th Congressional District Republican Committee, past Counsel to the Bush Campaign Rules Committee, and the attorney who represented Paula Jones in a successful suit against President Clinton
Others:
MARK LEVINE, host of TV Radio talk-show "The Inside Scoop," former Congressional Attorney, author of the book "Layman's Guide to Bush v. Gore;"
RON PINCHBACK, General Manager of WPFW (89.3 FM), Pacifica Radio in Washington, D.C.
The basic question (?Should Impeachment be ON the Table?) referred to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi?s statement, but it gave panelists and audience an opportunity to cover a lot of tangential territory.
LEVINE's key note speech was a thundering list of specific abuses and impeachable offenses, but he surprised the crowd by saying that history has taught us, ?if you intend to depose a tyrant, you better succeed, and now is not the time to impeach,? because the votes simply were not there. He therefore advised everyone to turn up the pressure on our national leadership, march in the streets and lobby vigorously.
WILKERSON warned that ?America is not eternal,? and said wryly that, when looking at our federal government?s operations he tended to believe incompetence rather than conspiracy. However, he knew that Vice-President Cheney truly believed the Constitution to be an anachronism and irrelevant, so if we did impeach, impeach Cheney first because if Bush were removed, Cheney would immediately declare martial law, thus ending the Republic. In his opinion we are in any case now living in a National Security State, and foreign affairs are conducted by the Department of Defense rather than the Department of State.
MARCUS RASKIN traced the development of the National Security State from post-World War II to its considerable expansion under Bush II, remarking that ?the coup has already occurred,? and was confirmed by the Patriot Act. This President has said he listens to God (not the American people), and clearly believes that the United States can do absolutely anything it wants, regardless of international law or treaties. The war is going to go on and on and on. He basically wanted impeachment, felt it was required.
BARBARA OLSHANSKY talked about her experience with the original detainees, and the later Guantanamo captives, saying that ?Guantanamo is a prison beyond the law,? and asked plaintively How can we be a country that does this sort of thing, using torture, secret rendition, and denial of habeas corpus, grabbing people (including citizens) and holding them without letting their families know where they are, or why they are imprisoned, and denying them access to an attorney? Even if we do not have the votes, we must impeach.
GIL DAVIS: Impeachment questions are: 1) Is there a provable violation of the Constitution, 2) is it ?proportionally? serious enough, and 3) are there other remedies besides impeachment (an election, public scrutiny, court case as he did in the Paula Jones case, or Congressional oversight)? Several Presidents have in the past exceeded their constitutional authority, as Jefferson did when he made the Louisiana Purchase, or Polk in starting the Mexican War, or Lincoln when he suspended habeas corpus and also issued the Emancipation Proclamation, or FDR during the Depression and World War II, or even Truman when he seized the steel mills. Impeachment is a last resort, it is not a remedy for a policy disagreement, and he sees nothing which merits impeachment today.
When RON PINCHBACK asked ?Why is impeachment considered off the table by Nancy Pelosi? is it expediency, complicity, or cowardice?? the panel pretty much settled on expediency, which Davis called ?political calculus,? adding ?no way to know how it will turn out, and what if another 9/11 happened in the middle of it??
Questions from the audience showed a general propensity for impeachment, but one man stated this was all a hoax since the National Emergency Act passed during Hoover?s day permitted any President to declare an Emergency and suspend habeas corpus, so why pick on Bush? Raskin traced the evolution of the Emergency Act through World War II and the 1970's, culminating in the Patriot Act whereby Congress surrendered some of its constitutional powers to the President, and we now absolutely must have a public discussion of what kind of government we want to have. Levine firmly said Article I of the Constitution permitted suspension of habeas only in the event of rebellion or invasion, and neither applied now, so the Patriot Act was unconstitutional.
There was considerable passion in the room, and some insightful comments and tough questions: A lot of the public knew before the invasion of Iraq that there were no WMDs, why did Colin Powell not stop Bush? Answer: Powell was given apparently confirming information (which later proved to be false or fabricated) and, even if he had resigned that would not have stopped the Bush and Cheney from going to war. Doesn?t the Geneva Convention only apply to uniformed soldiers, so Guantanamo detainees are exempt? Answer: No, Geneva 3 and 4 do cover irregulars and guerrillas. Doesn?t violation of a treaty constitute an impeachable offense? Answer: Yes, if serious? at which point Wilkerson said discussion at the very highest level determined that we should ignore any treaty which contravened our national interest (in Bush?s opinion?). How fragile is our democracy anyway? Answer: very fragile in Levine?s opinion, especially since we can no longer depend on the courts, including the Supreme Court if a Republican president gets to fill any upcoming vacancy. Davis maintained we are very strong, we respect the law and the process, and, besides, we are a Republic, not a democracy. Others pointed out we needed impeachment to learn the truth, or to enforce the law because, unless we do, future Presidents would simply continue grabbing power.
Wilkerson tantalized us by suggesting Senator Levin, through oversight investigations, is sitting on some bombshells, but that he will not start impeachment proceedings until the American public is ready for it.
All things considered, despite the earnestness of the audience and the legal opinions of the lawyers, my judgment is that Bush is in no danger of being impeached (nor is even Cheney) at this time. However...
(A fuller discussion of the forum, with additional information, is on my diary page at
http://www.raisingka...)
Cheney's exercise of power on the basis of existing "outside of the Executive branch" in and off itself is worthy of ridicule and impeachment. His actions represent an exceedingly dangerous precedent.
We didn't remove a dictator in Iraq in exchange for one within our own borders. Cheney has taken us several steps in that direction.
The odd person out on the panel was of course Gil Davis. Read my description of him at the beginning in the extended version on my diary page, I hope it will amuse you.
Four heart attacks are bound to do some lasting damage to the brain. This is just a statement of fact--anytime the brain is deprived of needed oxygen--as it is during a heart attack--there is going to be damage. Cheney's behavior certainly suggests that he's lost some higher level brain functioning.
I thought your comment about Gil Davis was on the mark and hilarious. It's ironic that most of the Cheney/Bush defenders at this stage are non-military NeoCon ideologues, large scale lobbyists, and other various and sundry war profiteers. A handful of Americans have gotten obscenely wealthy off the 9/11 security industry and the Iraq War contracting business--Cheney among them.
There are better ways to kill the cat.
Perhaps Bush will be able to accomplish something positive without the Cheney influence.
DON'T Impeach!
by Turkana [Subscribe]
Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 01:27:00 PM PDT
Because the Constitution needed shredding.
Because the rule of law is quaint.
Because all those lies that got us into the war have been proved worth it.
Because the war should never end.
Because being an international pariah is kind of cool.
Because international law is silly.
Because torture is fun.
Because ignoring all the screaming alarms before 9/11 was prudent.
Because New Orleans wasn't all that great, anyway.
Because the people of New Orleans and Iraq were expendable.
Because our military personnel deserve to suffer unprecedented abuse at the hands of their own government.
Because it's exciting knowing we're all being spied upon.
Because we missed out on all the fun that was life in the Soviet Union.
Because the Department of Justice is meant to be used as a political weapon.
Because the way to get rid of election fraud is to get rid of elections.
Because every national regulatory agency should be run by former lobbyists from the industries each agency regulated.
Because corporate executives were underpaid and their employees were coddled.
Because our government should be of, by, and for the fossil fuel industries.
Because billions of dollars needed to be funneled from hardworking taxpayers through off-book, no-bid contracts to corporations owned by members of the Administration, and their friends and relatives.
Because our minds just aren't beautiful enough to appreciate a war president commander guy unitary executive.
Because Congressional lawmaking authority was meant to be nullified with the stroke of a signing-statement pen.
Because Rococo art was actually pretty amazing, so the Divine Right of Kings must also have been.
Because global warming doesn't exist.
Because people suffering from Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and Multiple Sclerosis are less important than single cells in petri dishes.
Because we need to set a precedent that presidents have impunity.
Because Democracy was a failed experiment.
Because the backlash against President Clinton's impeachment proved that the public has no taste for impeachment- no matter the extent of the high crimes and misdemeanors.
Because Congressional Republicans are just dying to sacrifice their careers to defend an imploding Administration.
Because it's scary to be decisive.
Because it's scary to rise to history's challenges.
Because David Broder would write something nasty about the Democrats.
Because all those annoying bloggers might start to believe they were actually right.
Not even Republicans or week and fearful Democrats would have to worry about the false premise that the government would cease to function during the proceedings. And the evidence obtained during the VP impeachment proceedings could then be used to obtain even more evidence for Bush's impeachment. One other great value of impeaching Cheney is that it would tie him up so severely that he would have little time to do more damage, and idiot Dubya would be on his own.
Case made. Impeachment must proceed at the earliest possible time.
T.C.
Why? Cause GWB may appoint someone who will run and he would have a head start in 2008.
I prefer to suffer rather then take that chance of some ass GWB appointee getting a chance at the Presidentcy.
On the other hand there are strong constitutional reasons for undertaking an impeachment at least of Cheney (and Cheney first, see Col. W's comment in the diary about martial law). If we do not yank their chain, given the current egregious violations, why would any brave soul in the future exercise the people's authority--- there will be nothing to stop a future executive; all the expansions of presidential power achieved by Bush will simply be in place and accepted by any future president (no matter what his party, or non-party).
Consider the attitude of Gil Davis (Republican rep on panel) during all the passionate pro-impeachment blather. It was one of concealed, amused patience: The dogs bark but the caravan moves on. Know what I mean?
This country's problems today are too severe for us to worry about "winning" or "beating" the other guy. We need to avoid falling into the trap of confusing the political battles with the realities on the ground, a trap which has so ensnared our Republican counterparts, and instead find real solutions to the challenges with which we find ourselves confronted. I'm disappointed that these folks couldn't be assembled for a colloquium instead on where we're supposed to go from here.
I think your suggestion for a colloquium on where we're supposed to go from here is a great idea. Let's hear from We, the People once again. Leave VP&A a message on their web site. Start organizing a colloquium; hope it is the first of many across the country.
The Service Employees International Union, by the way, actually did run a contest asking average Americans how they would solve some of our current specific domestic problems. It was called Since Sliced Bread, (http://www.sinceslic...) and the results are absolutely fascinating. I plan on doing an article on it soon. Of course, it is not a grand philosophical What Kind of Nation Are We, nor Where are We Going sort of thing, and there are no Faustian bargains suggested in Since Sliced Bread, but it is a remarkable set of practical ideas on things directly affecting everday Americans.
Bush is a lame duck, but nothing will stop our military occupation of Iraq until he is out of office.
My preference would be for the Democratic Congress to show leadership by continuing to pass (or have vetoed) popular progressive legislation and concentrate on electing a Democtratic President and wider majorities in both houses.
Meanwhile, the more talk of impeachment and the legitimate justifications for it, the better.
Oversight is beginning to kick in, and there should be enough coming up there, even if the Bushies ignore the subpoenas, to create adequate public disgust, plus there is always the possibility that the public mood could change and Senator Levin will reveal whatever Col. W. believes he is supposedly sitting on now.
Moreover, I sincerely hope that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, despite their feeling they must be bipartisan and negotiate with the Republicans, do go ahead and send Democratic-style legislation forward to Bush so the stubborn adolescent President can veto it over and over. The Democrats really must begin doing a public relations thing about the Democratic philosophy, so the public understands what is going on. Oh yes, they need to rein in the earmarks and then honor their campaign promises on corruption reform. Nothing to it, you see.
Impeachment is patriotic.
Patriotism means responsibility, and responsibility requires courage.
Regardless of whether Cheney will or won't continue to control Bush during impeachment proceeding, we and the Congress are honor bound to remove him from office. There is no limit to how much more damage he can do.
BTW, if the Vice President is removed from office by impeachment, resignation, incapacity, death or other reason, the President does NOT appoint a replacement. Section 2 of the 25th Amendment, ratified on the 10th of February 1967, states: "Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate [please note that this is nominate, not appoint] a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress". Given that we do have a Democratic majority in both Houses, how likely do you think it might be that both Houses would confirm a VP nominee who would have any chance of being nominated, much less winning in the 2008 general election ? Bush's nomination alone would be the proverbial "kiss of death" for any political aspirations of his nominee.
Where is the political risk of impeaching Cheney ? How many high crimes and misdemeanors must a Vice President commit before he is brought to justice ? Cheney has already set a record that will never be broken.
The fact that one of our own doesn't believe that Cheney is "in no danger" of impeachment is all the more reason to work harder to dramatically increase the danger of his impeachment. Parphrasing Mack McGarvey's statement when he spoke about Jim Webb in that 7 minute video (I do have a few CDs of the video if any of you want one): If we believe it can happen it will, and if we don't believe it can happen it won't.
As John Edwards says, this is not about politics it's about life and death.
Impeach Cheney now.
T.C.
Without being hysterical about this, What If: bin Laden oblidged with another big attack on continental US? Could we expect Bush to implement that semi-secret executive order establishing, in effect, martial law with the President in supreme power and the Congress totally marginalized? I believe it is in fact a good probability. I would put nothing past Bush and the neocons at this point in order to stay in power. After they were surprised by the 2006 election ("we have different figures" was the response before the voting when a possible Democratic victory was mentioned) I am sure Rove and the Rovebots are busy rectifying any errors in planning or execution they noticed. Take nothing for granted.