Home

Bob Regl: Impeachment of Bush and Cheney is essential

SOURCE: OpEdNews

June 24, 2007

Impeachment of Bush and Cheney is essential

By Robert R. Regl

For the survival of our constitutional republic impeachment of Bush and Cheney is absolutely essential, but the Democratic leadership in Congress has made the judgement that: "impeachment is off the table." The calculation seems to be based on two points:

1) After the Republicans’ shameful Clinton impeachment fiasco the American people don’t have the stomach to go through the process again, and

2) Bad as the President and Vice President are, we can tolerate them because they’ll be gone in 18 months.

With regard to the first point: Clinton’s impeachment was a fraudulent Republican political act designed to embarrass him (and by extension, all Democrats) about a purely personal matter having no bearing on the functioning or survival of our constitutional republic (i.e. not a "high crime or misdemeanor").

By contrast, impeachments of Bush and Cheney will be based on many GENUINE high crimes and misdemeanors that threaten our survival as a free people with inalienable rights:

1) lying to the American people, Congress and the UN to gain support for their misbegotten war against Iraq,

2) violating international laws by waging a war of aggression against Iraq,

3) illegally spying on American citizens without legitimate court warrants,

4) authorizing and encouraging "rendition" and torture of those he and he alone decides are enemies or "terrorists",

5) holding prisoners indefinitely without charge and denying them the right of habeas corpus guaranteed in Article 1 of the Constitution and recognized in Common Law since the Magna Carta,

6) issuing over 700 signing statements to avoid the constitutional requirement for him to faithfully execute the laws passed by Congress,

7) using these signing statements to claim unitary executive authority - that he is not bound by the laws that apply to everyone else,

8) encouraging subordinates (e.g. Karl Rove and Alberto Gonzales) to violate the Hatch Act which forbids using government facilities for purely political purposes.

Until now the corporate news media has been loath to expose Bush and Cheney as the despots we know them to be from investigative reporters like Seymour Hersh and Greg Palast, scholars like Chalmers Johnson and countless others. Even Bush’s media sycophants, Fox News, will not be able to avoid at least some coverage of public impeachment hearings where this administration’s crimes will be exposed for all to see. When the people come to understand the full extent to which the Bush/Cheney criminal enterprise has deceived them there will be a groundswell for their removal from office.

Now with respect to the second point it is imperative that Bush and Cheney not be allowed to "run out the clock", but that they be removed immediately because: a) they are preparing for an attack on Iran, probably using nuclear weapons , and b) they have arrogated such extraordinary powers to themselves that it is entirely conceivable (indeed in the opinion of many, highly likely) that they will trump-up an excuse to "justify" a declaration of martial law, render Congress and the Courts powerless, and postpone future elections for the duration of the "emergency" thereby effectively anointing themselves as absolute rulers for life answerable to no one. Under these conditions the people would have no recourse, but to resort to violent revolution to reclaim the country from the despots.

For the above reasons and others too numerous to go into in this short note Bush and Cheney must be removed from office now. Since assassination is the only thing that is truly off the table, the only action available to rescue our democracy is the use of the impeachment process.

Authors Bio: Bob is a retired engineer and lives in Hattiesburg, Mississippi. He contributed significantly to the post-Challenger redesign of the solid rocket boosters for the space shuttle. He has taught engineering at several universities and was involved in the design of Offshore platforms. Since retiring his main activity has become writing directed at ridding America of its fascist president and the right-wing corporatism he represents.
By ntobi at 06/24/2007 - 16:03 | login or register to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click 'Save settings' to activate your changes.

Agreed. Impeachment is essential

if only to correct the mistaken impression left by the impeachment of Clinton that it is a process that's designed as an alternative for high ranking officials who can't be prosecuted in the criminal courts while they are in office--a "protection" that's supposed to prevent politically motivated prosecutions on trumped up charges, which the impeachment of Clinton almost was. I say almost because Clinton come very close to perjury when he didn't tell "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" during a deposition in a civil suit which, cleverly, put him between a rock and a hard place.

On the other hand, I want to dispute the assertion that the Bush/Cheney violations of their oath to uphold the Constitution constitute crimes. They don't. Their behavior is illegal, i.e. against the law, but it's not a crime, mainly because there's no intent to violate a prohibition. What they have violated is an injunction. That is, as public officials they are under a different obligation. Where the ordinary citizen is prohibited from engaging in certain behaviors and merits punishment if he violates those prohibitions, the agents of government are permitted and/or required (usually indicated by "may" or "shall" in the law) to perform certain actions and no others. That's what "limited government" means, as Justice Kennedy has explained in his explication of the rule of law.

What it really boils down to is that Bush/Cheney (even though the V.P. has no executive functions that he must or may perform, as he has recently argued) have been negligent in the performance of their duties to uphold the Constitution (along with implementing international treaties) and provide for the health, safety and welfare of the population. In other words, it's what they DIDN'T DO, rather than what they DID.

Actually, when we consider Cheney, there's a question whether he arrogated executive powers unto himself which he is not entitled by the Constitution to employ. If so, he should be charged with abuse of power. On the other hand, it's possible that Bush delegated some of his responsibilities to a person, a member of the legislative branch, who is not empowered to carry them out, absent an official delegation in peculiar circumstances--a process that has been codified. (Some people arguing that Bush is incompetent or non compos mentis doesn't count).

If one credits the report in yesterday's Washington Post about how the authorization to detain and use force on the captives at Guantanamo was processed through the White House without leaving a hint that the V.P. was involved in drafting what Bush signed, that suggests very strongly that the perpetrators were aware that the V.P.'s involvement was irregular.

BTW, much is being made of Cheney's secretiveness and some people probably think that this behavior is prompted by an effort to hide or cover up some malfeasance. I would argue that's not necessarily the case; that the secretiveness is actually indicative of a conviction that the ruler or chief executive is not to be questioned. What Cheney would like to do is go back to a time when public officials enjoyed the protection of what was a long tradition of "sovereign immunity" which, in essence upheld the notion that government officials are not personally liable for any injury their decisions on the public's behalf might cause.

What has happened is that this principle, a holdover from when we had kings, has been significantly eroded as a consequence of the Federal Tort Claims Act of 1949 and subsequent judicial interpretations in connection with the civil and consumer rights movements of the late '60s. Holding public officials accountable for making poor decisions when they had an opportunity to know better and can be accused of willful negligence has really undermined the power that used to be enjoyed by people who volunteered for government service. True, it's made it harder to reward cronies with contracts and otherwise dispose of the public's assets without any input from the public. But, the chilling effect hasn't just been felt by people who might be up to no good. Well meaning elected officials and appointed administrators at all levels are often in a tizzy because of the threat of being sued for negligence and local government insurance premiums keep rising--as do various training programs for public servants to provide them with protection against charges of negligence (police are frequent targets). All of which accounts for the frequent calls to "tort reform."
The public has been led to assume that "tort reform" is about frivolous lawsuits that increase medical costs. What it's actually about is protecting negligent public and private corporate agents from being held liable, being made to account and compensate someone for their negligent behavior.
Personal liability has really taken the fun out of handling the public's money and may well be a major impetus for "privatization." Of late, however, those pesky people, ordinary citizens, have been calling the managers of so-called private corporations to account, as well. So, there's nowhere left to hide.

Turning the White House into a den of secrecy is a desperate act.

The Bushes' Last Stand.
By monica smith at Mon, 06/25/2007 - 5:53am | login or register to post comments