The movement to impeach George W. Bush includes actions and commentary favoring the impeachment of United States President George W. Bush.

Those who have voiced support for impeachment include some Democratic and Republican members of the United States Congress, various other politicians and government officials, demonstrators, scholars, authors, members of the media and, according to polls, a segment of the American people and international community. The reasons they offer for Bush's impeachment include concerns about the legitimacy, legality, and constitutionality of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the controversy surrounding the National Security Agency's electronic surveillance of American citizens.

American Opinion polls have shown public support, generally ranging between 26% and 42% of the respondents in favor of impeachment. The House of Representatives Judiciary Committee has not considered the impeachment of President Bush and the House of Representatives has taken no action to do so. The Democratic Party leadership has indicated that they have no intention of resolving to impeach President Bush.

Impeachment

To impeach the President of the United States, a majority of the United States House of Representatives must agree to pass a resolution that alleges the President committed "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." This impeachment resolution is commonly called an "Article of Impeachment" and spells out in detail the charges against the President. The House of Representatives then exhibits these Articles of Impeachment to the United States Senate since the U.S. Senate has the "sole Power" to "try all impeachments."

If the U.S. Senate, by two-thirds vote, finds the President "guilty" on any Article of Impeachment, then the President is removed from office and the Senate next votes on whether or not to disqualify him the ex-President from holding further office under the United States. Although already tried by the Senate, the ex-President is still liable to indictment and trial under regular criminal statues for any federal crimes he may have committed. If the U.S. Senate fails to reach a two-thirds majority for conviction, the President is acquitted and the trial is over.

In the House, the Judiciary Committee is the typical committee to where impeachment resolutions are referred. The Judiciary Committee has formally reported to the full House of Representatives impeachment resolutions against four Presidents: President John Tyler, President Andrew Johnson, President Richard Nixon, and President Bill Clinton. Of those four Presidents, only Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were impeached by the House. Both were acquitted by the Senate. President Nixon resigned after the Judiciary Committee recommended impeachment but before the full House considered the report. (Nixon resigned apparently after being told that his impeachment and conviction were near certainties by Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater, a staunch conversative Senator who ran for President in 1964.)

The President's pardon power does not extend to "Cases of Impeachment" and thus a President cannot intervene in either the House impeachment or the Senate trial. Dispute exists about whether the Impeachment exception to the pardon power extends to cases brought in the regular court system after Senate conviction.

Political views and actions

Democrats in Congress

On May 10, 2006 House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) indicated she was not interested in pursuing impeachment and had taken it "off the table", reiterating this phrase on November 8, 2006. ^[1][2]

On June 16, 2005 Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) assembled an unofficial meeting to discuss the Downing Street Memo and to consider grounds for impeachment. Dozens of members of Congress, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson and former CIA analyst Ray McGovern participated.^[3]

On December 20 2005, the House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff, at Conyers' request, filed its report. [11] Regarding this report, Conyers makes several allegations favoring impeachment on his blog.

Conyers filed a resolution on December 18 2005 to create an investigative committee to consider impeachment. His resolution gained 38 co-sponsors before it expired at the end of the 109th Congress. He has not re-introduced a similar resolution for the 110th Congress. ^[4]

As of May 18 2006, Conyers's current position regarding impeachment is "... rather than seeking impeachment, I have chosen to propose comprehensive oversight of these alleged abuses."^[5]

On December 19 2005, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) issued a press release,^[6] saying that she had written four undisclosed legal scholars, asking if there were grounds for impeachment. In the press release, she cited the December 16, 2005, New York Times disclosure of Bush's authorization of the National Security Agency to monitor Americans without warrants. However, in a December 20, 2005, CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer, Boxer stated she was not ready to call for Bush's impeachment.

Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) has said that the President should be impeached for authorizing the NSA's actions.^{[7] [8]}

At another unofficial hearing convened by Conyers on January 20, 2006, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) called for the committee to explore whether Bush should face impeachment, stemming from his decision to authorize domestic surveillance without court review. The proceedings had no legal authority, as committee chairman, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, (R-WI), rejected Democrats' requests for an inquiry. ^[9]

Keith Ellison was the leading figure behind the resolution to impeach President Bush brought to the Minnesota State House of Representatives in May 2006 (see below). Ellison said “I absolutely know and can show that (the president) deserves it; he deserves to be impeached.”^[10]

Ellison was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in November 2006. During the campaign and when he was named to the House Judiciary Committee, Ellison repeatedly called for an investigation into a possible impeachment.^{[11] [12]} In support of his candidacy, he “received a $1,000 contribution from ImpeachPAC”.^[12]

One of Ellison’s Republican counterparts from Minnesota, Rep. John Kline, said “Ellison's views won't matter because House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, has already said impeachment is ‘off the table.’ In all fairness to the gentleman from Minneapolis, he is a freshman member. I understand that he was endorsed by ImpeachPAC and supported financially. ... He probably feels that he made a commitment and he's got to make some noise, but so what?”^[12] On April 22, 2007 Ellison later met with constituents, and listed new conditions for his support for impeachment hearings, such as verifiable facts and the backing of a majority of the American people. ^[13]

On December 8 2006 (the last day of the 109th Congress), then-Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) submitted a resolution, H. Res. 1106, introducing articles of impeachment against President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Secretary of State Rice. The bill expired along with the 109th Congress.^[14]

Republicans in Congress

Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NB) has raised the possibility of impeachment [12] but in an interview on ABC News' "This Week" on Sunday, March 25, 2007, Hagel explained, “I didn't call for it, I didn't predict it. What I was saying, I was laying out options here.”

Several weeks after Ignacio Ramos, one of the borderguards imprisoned for shooting an alleged drug dealer on the US-Mexico border, was assaulted in prison, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-NM) said, ""I tell you, Mr. President, if [Ignacio Ramos or Jose Compean] -- especially after this assault -- are murdered in prison, or if one of them lose their lives, there's going to be some sort of impeachment talk in Capitol Hill." ^[15]

In July 2006, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) stated on Alex Jones' radio show "I would have trouble arguing that he's been a Constitutional President, and once you violate the Constitution and be proven to do that I think these people should be removed from office." [13]

State Legislatures

On April 20, 2007, the Vermont Senate passed a resolution calling for impeachment on a 16-9 vote, without debate.^{[16] [17]} A similar resolution made its way through the Vermont House less than a week later, but was defeated 87-60.^{[18] [19]}

As of June, 2007, eleven state legislatures have considered impeachment resolutions; only one (Vermont) has passed such a resolution. Impeachment resolutions in Wisconsin and Maine were still pending votes; in the other eight states, resolutions have either been defeated or 'died' with the closure of the legislative session without ever coming to a vote. These states were: Illinois (the first state to consider such a measure, introduced April 20 2006), California, Hawaii, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, Texas, and Washington^[20]

On April 20 2006, the Illinois state legislature began to consider Resolution 125 (HJR0125), which brought five specific charges against President Bush. ^[21] On April 25 2006 over a dozen members of the Illinois house co-sponsored the bill, and referred it to the Rules Committee.

In April 2006, an impeachment proposal was introduced in the California state legislature. ^[22] On November 7 2006, voters in San Francisco and Berkeley approved ballot measures calling for Bush and Cheney's impeachment. ^{[23] [24][25]} Both measures call upon the California State Legislature and both houses of Congress to pursue impeachment proceedings.^[26]

On May 4 2006, then-State Rep. Keith Ellison (DFL-Minneapolis) and four other DFL state legislators proposed a "resolution relating to impeachment of President George W. Bush".^{[27] [28]}

On January 23 2007 a resolution was introduced to the New Mexico Legislature.^{[29] [29][30] [31]}

The Democrats hold both chambers of New Mexico’s Legislature, but the resolution has been set to come before three different committee hearings. The New Mexican reported “That many committee assignments generally is thought of as the kiss of death for legislation. Not only are there three chances to kill a measure before it gets to a floor vote, it also increases the chance that time will run out in the 60-day session before a measure can make it through both chambers.”^[30] Republican members told reporters that the were not taking the resolution seriously and cited the number of committee hearings as one of the reasons for their opinion.^[30]

Washington state senator Eric Oemig introduced Senate Joint Memorial 8016 in February 2007 calling on Congress to investigate and consider the impeachment of President Bush.^{[32] [33]}

State Party Conventions

On April 28, 2007, the California Democratic Convention passed a resolution for impeachment by a large margin.^{[citation needed]} On May 19, 2007, the Massachusetts Democratic Convention passed a resolution to impeach Bush and Cheney nearly unanimously.^{[citation needed]} On March 21 2006 the New Mexico Democratic Party, at a convention in Albuquerque, adopted a plank to their platform saying “the Democratic Party of New Mexico supports the impeachment of George Bush and his lawful removal from office.” ^[34]

On 24 March 2007, the Vermont Democratic State Committee voted overwhelmingly to support JRH 15, a state legislative resolution supporting impeachment, calling for its passage as "appropriate action."^[35][36][37]

Local communities

By 6 March 2007 a total of 39 towns in Vermont (up from just five towns in 2006) had passed resolutions calling on the U.S. Congress to file articles of impeachment against President Bush for misleading the nation on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and for engaging in illegal wiretapping. On May 17, 2007, the Detroit City Council passed a unanimous, non-binding resolution calling for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice-President Cheney. The resolution was sponsored by Monica Conyers, wife of Rep. John Conyers.

As of June, 2007, a number of local community governments had passed similar impeachment resolutions, as follows^[38]

• California: 6 cities
• Illinois: 1 city (Urbana)
• Massachusetts: 17 townships
• Michigan: 2 cities (Detroit; Ferndale)
• New Hampshire: 1 township (Hanover)
• New York: 4 townships; 1 county (Tompkins)
• North Carloina: 2 towns (Carrboro; Chapel Hill}
• Ohio: 1 city (Oberlin)
• Vermont: 39 townships
• Washington: 11 state legislative districts; 1 city (Olympia)

Reported White House reaction

The January 23-29 2006 issue of Insight on the News, self-described as "a sister publication" of the Washington Times, included an article, "Impeachment hearings: The White House prepares for the worst." This article said administration sources regard Senate Judiciary Committee hearings into the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy as "a prelude to the impeachment process." An anonymous source criticized Congress, saying, "We will tell the American people that while we have done everything we can to protect them, our policies are being endangered by a hypocritical Congress."^[39]

Public opinion

2005 polls

In October 2005, an anti Iraq war organization, After Downing Street, commissioned a poll by the independent Ipsos Public Affairs Research,^[40] which found that by a margin of 50% to 44% Americans say that President Bush should be impeached if he lied about the war in Iraq.^[41] A Zogby International poll from October 29 to November 2 2005 confirmed this result by a margin of 53% to 42%. This was supported by 76% of Democrats, 50% of Independents, and 29% of Republicans. A November 2 2005 Washington Post-ABC News poll found 55% of Americans believe the Bush administration "intentionally misled the public" in making its case for war.^[42]

On December 15 2005, Rasmussen Reports released a poll that showed that 32% of the 1,000 Americans polled would support an impeachment of Bush and 35% would support an impeachment of Cheney.^[43]

2006 polls

A March 16 2006 poll by American Research Group showed that 42% of American adults favored impeaching Bush and 49% oppose this.^[44]

A September 2 2006 poll conducted by CNN/Opinion Research Corp. indicated that 30% of the American people supported impeachment, and 69% were opposed. One percent had no opinion.^[45] This support for impeachment was similar to the 29% who favored impeachment for Bill Clinton during the height of the Lewinsky scandal.^[46]

An October 2006 Newsweek poll found support for the impeachment of President Bush as follows: 28% felt that impeachment should be a "top priority", 23% a "lower priority", and 44% that it should not be done.^[47]

2007 polls

According to Angus Reid, an InsiderAdvantage poll around May 1, 2007, found 39% of American voters to favor impeachment of George W. Bush and vice-president Dick Cheney.^[48] Analyzing these numbers, Bob Barr, who initiated the Clinton impeachment hearings, said that "this indicates the surprising depth of dissatisfaction with Bush."^[49]

Online polls and surveys

A number of organizations provide online voting and petitions regarding Bush/Cheney impeachment. The MSNBC "Live Vote: Should Bush be impeached?" is ongoing and has garnered in excess of 480,000 votes, 88% in favor of impeachment. Democrats.com has an active online petition, "Ten Reasons to Impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney", which has received more than 95,000 of its targeted 100,000 signatures.

MoveOn has not officially taken up the cause for Bush/Cheney impeachment; however, they have quietly initiated an online survey entitled "Dealing with the Administration". Ironically, MoveOn's reluctance to act more forcefully has led to yet another online petition, "It's Time for MoveOn to Start Talking about Impeachment", endorsed by such luminaries as Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, with more than 2,300 additional signatures.

Media response to polls

The major media have largely ignored these opinion polls and protests. However, several columnists have endorsed impeachment. Eleanor Clift on The McLaughlin Group predicted on 6 November 2005 that "if the country, according to the polls, believes by a margin of 55 percent that President Bush misled us into war, the next logical step is impeachment and I think you’re going to hear that word come up and if the Democrats ever capture either house of Congress there are going to be serious proceedings against this administration."^[50]

When the Washington Post's chief pollster Richard Morin was asked by readers why the Post has not polled on impeachment he responded, "This question makes me angry." According to Media Matters for America, the Washington Post asked about impeachment in a poll conducted a few days after the revelation of President Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky in 1998. Frank Newport, the director of the Gallup Poll has said he would only run a poll on the subject if it starts to gain mainstream attention and not until then.^[51]

Rallies and marches

An anti-Iraq war protest march in Washington, DC on 24 September 2005 attracted over 100,000 people. The march among other things included calls for impeachment and for investigations leading to impeachment.^[52]

On November 2 2005, The World Can't Wait mobilized marches across the country that called for the ousting of Bush. ^{[53][54][55][56][57]}

Rep. Maxine Waters founded the Out of Iraq Caucus in the House of Representatives. It has 66 members (as of August 31 2005). An Out of Iraq event hosted by Rep. Waters in Inglewood, California, attracted 1200 supporters who loudly chanted "Impeach Bush" in response to a speaker explaining high crimes and misdemeanors.

On January 6 2007, over 1000 people gathered in Nancy Pelosi's district, on Ocean Beach in San Francisco, to spell out the message "IMPEACH!".[14]

On April 28, 2007, thousands of Americans in over 125 cities from North Pole, AK to Miami, FL gathered in protest to support impeachment of President Bush.[15]

Groups formed to support impeachment

Numerous groups have been created to support impeachment. The ImpeachBush.orgwebsite claims to have collected 897,200 signatures (as of May 31st 2007) on a petition to impeach Bush, an increase of 26,413 in only eight days.

World Can't Wait.orghas taken steps to impeach George W. Bush, planning to add in ads in the New York Times to reach millions about future protest.^{[citation needed]}

On December 20 2005, The AfterDowningStreet.org website mounted an effort^[58] to support Representative Conyers' legislation to censure Bush and Cheney and to investigate the administration's lead-up to the Iraq war, in possible preparation to impeachment.

Constitution Summer[16], a nonpartisan coalition of students and young people at law schools and universities nationwide, helped the cities of Berkeley and San Francisco put impeachment on their municipal ballots, and are working to help other cities pass city council resolutions.

Advocates of impeachment

Organizations

• Impeach For Peace.org advocates "do-it-yourself" impeachment initiation by U.S. citizens.^{[59][60] [61][62]}

• Even before Bush took office, on December 13 2000, the ImpeachBush.tv[17] organization was formed.[18]

• On June 27 2006, the Berkeley City Council voted unanimously to place Articles of Impeachment on the municipal ballot. The ballot initiative was based on the Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush by the Center for Constitutional Rights. It was drafted by the Berkeley Peace and Justice Commission, and was lobbied for by Constitution Summer. On November 7 2006, the measure passed with a 68.9% majority.
• On August 8 2006, Constitution Summer announced that the San Francisco Supervisors Chris Daly, Ross Mirkarimi, Tom Ammiano, and Jake McGoldrick had placed an initiative favoring impeachment on the San Francisco municipal ballot.

• The National Lawyer's Guild has drafted an impeachment resolution [19].

• On March 1 2006, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a resolution 7-3 calling on the congressional delegates representing California to impeach George W. Bush. The mayor of the city has said he does not know whether he will sign it, and in either case, it will remain a low priority for him even if he does.

• The Green Party National Committee passed a resolution calling for impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney at its national meeting on July 21 2003.^[63]

• At the most recent state convention, the Democratic Party of Wisconsin called for the Impeachment of George Bush, Richard Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.^[64]

• On July 9 2006, the Wisconsin Green Party and the Libertarian Party of Wisconsin called for impeachment of George W. Bush.^[65]

• AfterDowningStreet, an organization begun by liberal activists Bob Fertik and David Swanson and constitutional attorney John Bonifaz, advocates a congressional Resolution of Inquiry into the Downing Street Memo and related evidence. ^[66]

• Impeach Central is dedicated to the impeachment of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. ^[67]

• United for Peace of Pierce County (WA) adopted statements calling for the impeachment of President Bush on April 21, 2005,^[68] and again on May 19, 2005.^[69]

• Veterans for Peace has called for the impeachment of George Bush.^[70]

• Gold Star Families for Peace sent a bus to Crawford, Texas, emblazoned with the words "Impeachment Tour" in August 2005.

• On June 4 2006, the board of governors of the American Bar Association voted unanimously to investigate whether or not Bush has exceeded his constitutional authority by using signing statements.^[71]

• Tim Carpenter, president of Progressive Democrats of America, has made statements supporting impeachment.^[72]

Politicians and government officials

• Ralph Nader's 2004 presidential campaign also promoted the cause of a Bush impeachment.^[73] Nader also wrote an op-ed, (with Kevin Zeese, director of DemocracyRising.us) favoring impeachment.^[74]

• Elizabeth Holtzman, former Congresswoman who served on the House Judiciary Committee that voted to impeach Richard Nixon, advocates impeaching Bush in her 2006 book, coauthored with Cynthia L. Cooper, The Impeachment of George W. Bush,^[75] and in numerous articles^[76] and public appearances.

• Pat Buchanan, in his syndicated column, called for a bill of impeachment^[77] in regards to issues with illegal immigration.

• Dennis Morrisseau, a candidate for the Vermont House of Representatives seat has said he will campaign for impeachment against George W. Bush. Although Morrisseau is campaigning for the Republican nomination, he has previously run for public office only as a Democrat, and says he voted for John Kerry for president in 2004.^[78]

• Paul Craig Roberts, former assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration has repeatedly stated support for impeachment.^{[79] [80]}

• Former Clinton Administration Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury J. Bradford DeLong has called for Bush's impeachment.^[81]

• ^ On March 7 2006, Vermont town meetings in Brookfield, Dummerston, Marlboro, Newfane and Putney called for impeachment of the president, and instructed then-Rep. (now Senator) Bernie Sanders (I-VT) to pursue this end. Five Vermont towns endorse move to impeach the president After initially labelling the request as "impractical", Sanders added his name to Conyers' impeachment investigation bill.

Legal and academic professionals

• John Dean, former White House Counsel to President Richard Nixon, and convicted to serve four months in prison for obstruction of justice during the Watergate scandal, ^[82] was an early advocate of a Bush impeachment.^[83][84] [20]
• Ramsey Clark, United States Attorney General under Lyndon Johnson, and lawyer for Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic, has set up a website, VoteToImpeach.

• Constitutional Law Professor Francis Boyle has written six draft articles of impeachment against Bush.^[85]

• Scholars Bruce Fein (constitutional scholar and former deputy attorney general in the Reagan Administration) and Norm Ornstein (scholar at the American Enterprise Institute) argued on the December 19 2005 Diane Rehm show^[86] that Congress should consider impeachment.
• Constitutional lawyer John Bonifaz has written a book on the case for impeaching Bush, is a co-founder of After Downing Street, and has spoken regularly in favor of impeachment.

• Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University and a specialist in surveillance, spoke about Bush's admission that he authorized warrantless wiretaps and indicated that the authorization might be an impeachable offense. ^[87]

• Attorney Barbara Olshansky of the Center for Constitutional Rights and journalist Dave Lindorff published a book in May 2006 entitled, The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office (ISBN 0-312-36016-9).

Musicians

• One of the songs on Linkin Park's latest album Minutes To Midnight, "No More Sorrow", contains lyrics critical of the President, such as "Your time has come to be replaced".
• Neil Young's 2006 studio album Living with War has songs titled "Let's Impeach the President" and "Lookin' For a Leader".
• Roger Waters did a performance of his Dark Side of the Moon Live tour on September 9 at the Tweeter Center in which "Impeach Bush Now" was written on the Pink Floyd Pig.^{[citation needed]}

Media editorials and opinion pieces

• The right-wing John Birch Society magazine The New American published an opinion piece on January 9 2006 in favor of impeachment, titled “It's Not Just a Piece of Paper” in reference to the US Constitution. ^[88]

• Radio personality and syndicated columnist Garrison Keillor wrote a column on February 28 2006, calling for impeachment.^[89]

• Robert Scheer, columnist formerly at the Los Angeles Times and currently at the San Francisco Chronicle, and contributing editor of The Nation, has repeatedly called for impeachment.^{[90][91][92][93]}

• In an October 28 2004 column, "Hold Bush Accountable," Richard Cohen, of the Washington Post, accused Bush of impeachable offenses.^[94]

• On the September 11th, 2006 episode of Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Keith's Special Comment on that day, from Ground Zero, made reference to impeachment.

Rationales for impeachment

Proponents of impeaching President George W. Bush assert that one or more of his actions qualify as "high crimes and misdemeanors" under which the president can constitutionally be impeached.^[95][96]

This section collates a list of pro-impeachment advocates' rationales as suggested by commentators, legal analysts, members of the Democratic Party, the Center for Constitutional Rights^[97] and others. However, since impeachment is inherently political, and not a legal process, there is no exact definition of what constitutes an impeachable offense. Therefore, this list is not necessarily accurate. Simply stated, it is up to Congress to determine if something rises to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors."

NSA warrantless surveillance controversy

In the context of the War on Terror, President Bush ordered the wiretapping of certain international calls to and from the U.S. without a warrant. Whether this is legal is currently debated, since the program appears to violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which was adopted to remedy similar actions in the past (e.g. Operation Shamrock, Operation Minaret, Church Committee). Additionally, it may violate the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution,^[98] which prohibits unlawful searches and seizures of US citizens, including electronic surveillance. These allegations have been advanced by articles published in The Christian Science Monitor and The Nation.^[99] In its defense, the administration has asserted that FISA does not apply as the President was authorized by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) and the presidential powers as Commander-in-Chief inherent in the Constitution, to bypass FISA.^[100] In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld the Supreme Court majority held that neither the AUMF nor the president's role as Commander-in-Chief trumps explicit federal law, in this case the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Presumably the same would hold for FISA.

In January 2006, the 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.^[101]

In addition, the American Bar Association, in February 13 2006, issued a statement denouncing the warrantless domestic surveillance program, accusing the President of exceeding his powers under the Constitution. Their analysis opines that the key arguments advanced by the Bush administration are not compatible with the law.^[102] David Kris and five former FISC judges, one of whom resigned in protest, have also voiced their doubts as to the legality of a program bypassing FISA.^[103][104]

Aside from these organisations, others (i.e. John Conyers, John Dean, Elizabeth Holtzman, and Jennifer van Bergen) have stated that the Bush administration's justification of the program, using its 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." The Senate Committee voted along party lines, and decided a detailed investigation into the matter was unwarranted.^[105]

Former House member Elizabeth Holtzman (who played a key role in House impeachment proceedings against President Richard Nixon), John Dean (former counsel to the president) and Jennifer van Bergen from FindLaw assert that by authorizing warrantless domestic wiretapping, President Bush violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act without legal basis, constituting a felony and as such an impeachable offense.^{[106][107][108]}

On August 17 2006, the case, ACLU v. NSA, in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan ruled that the Bush administration’s program to monitor the phone calls and e-mails of Americans without warrants was unconstitutional and must be stopped.^[109] It was the first ruling by a federal court to strike down the controversial National Security Agency surveillance program. In the judge's ruling, Judge Taylor dismissed the government’s argument that the president "has been granted the inherent power to violate not only the laws of the Congress but the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, itself." In the conclusion of the ruling, Justice Warren was quoted from the case U.S. v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258 (1967) where he wrote:

Implicit in the term ‘national defense’ is the notion of defending those values and ideas which set this Nation apart…It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of…those liberties…which makes the defense of the Nation worthwhile. Id. at 264.^[110]

In response to this decision, on September 20 2006, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence as both committees approved H.R. 5825, the "Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act." According to the ACLU, that bill, authored by Representative Heather Wilson (R-NM) would give the president unprecedented power and authorize the warrantless surveillance program conducted by the National Security Agency.^[111] Some civil liberties groups opposed the bill commenting that the new bill gives the president tacit approval to ignore the Constitution.^[112]

It should be noted that President Bush did notify Congressional leaders of his decision to authorize warrantless wiretapping at the time of the decision. However, none was totally informed, nor were they allowed to take notes or confer with others to assess the possible ramifications of this program.

2003 invasion of Iraq

Constitutionality of invasion

In February and March 2003, John Bonifaz served as lead counsel for a coalition of US soldiers, parents of US soldiers, and Members of Congress in John Doe I v. President Bush,^[113] a constitutional challenge to President Bush’s authority to wage war against Iraq absent a congressional declaration of war or equivalent action. Bonifaz argued in court that the President’s planned first-strike invasion of Iraq violated the War Powers Clause of the US Constitution.^[114] As a corollary to his lawsuit, Bonifaz has argued publicly and in writing that Bush ought to be impeached for this. However, Bonifaz's lawsuit was dismissed in February 2003 and in March 2003 the dismissal was upheld on appeal. Regarding the dismissal, Attorney Bonifaz said:

"They’re not supposed to sideline... Courts cannot shirk from responsibility when it looks like a political battle."^[115]

Regarding the affirmation of the dismissal, the appeals court held:

"...the text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an 'authorization' of such a war."^[116]

Nevertheless, Francis Boyle (professor of international law at the University of Illinois) also uses this argument as reason in his Draft Impeachment Resolution.^[117]

Justification for invasion

Furthermore, the arguments put forward for the invasion of Iraq^[118] — the continued possession and development of previously used weapons of mass destruction and active links to al Qaeda — have been found to be false, according to all official reports.^[119][120] A report by the Defense Department in 2007 conclusively stated the claimed working relationship with Al Qaeda did not exist. Or as the Washington Post described it:

"the intelligence community's prewar consensus [was] that the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda figures had only limited contacts, and ... that reports of deeper links were based on dubious or unconfirmed information."^[121]

The Bush administration advocated that this was due to failure by the intelligence community. However, it has become clear that, prior to the invasion, these arguments had already been widely disputed,^[122] which had purportedly been reported to the U.S. administration. An in-depth investigation into the nature of these discrepancies by the Senate Intelligence Committee has been frustrated. Or, as a New York Times editorial states:

Mr. Roberts (chairman of the Senate panel) tried to kill the investigation entirely, and after the Democrats forced him to proceed, he set rules that seem a lot like the recipe for a whitewash.^[123]

Supporters of impeachment argue that the administration knowingly distorted intelligence reports or ignored contrary information in constructing their case for the war.^[124][125] The Downing Street memo and the Bush-Blair memo are used to substantiate that allegation.^[126] Congressional Democrats sponsored both a request for documents and a resolution of inquiry.^[127] A report by the Washington Post on April 12 2006, corroborates that view. It states that the Bush administration advocated that two small trailers which had been found in Iraq were "biological laboratories," despite the fact that U.S. intelligence officials possessed evidence to the contrary at that time.

"The three-page field report and a 122-page final report published three weeks later were stamped "secret" and shelved. Meanwhile, for nearly a year, administration and intelligence officials continued to publicly assert that the trailers were weapons factories."^[128]

U.N. Charter

By Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, Senate-ratified treaties such as the U.N. Charter are "the supreme Law of the Land." John Conyers, Robert Parry and Marjorie Cohn– professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, executive vice president of the National Lawyers Guild, and the U.S. representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists – assert that this was not a war in self-defense but a war of aggression contrary to the U.N. Charter (a crime against peace) and therefore a war crime.^{[95][117][107][129]} Also, Kofi Annan called the war in Iraq a violation of the UN Charter and therefore "illegal." A war of aggression refers to any war not initiated out of self-defence or sanctioned by the UN. Such a violation of international law would constitute an impeachable offense according to Francis Boyle, John W. Dean, from FindLaw, Marcus Raskin and Joseph A. Vuckovich, from the Institute for Policy Studies.^[117][130]

In response to this, the administration, and its supporters, claim that the firing on US and UK airplanes in the no-fly zones alone constitutes an Act of War.^{[citation needed]}

Geneva Conventions controversy

Unlawful combatant status

Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration advocated that suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban members would be designated as unlawful combatants. They suggested that, as such, they were not protected under the Geneva Conventions. To address the mandatory review by a "competent tribunal" as defined by article five of the Third Geneva Convention, Combatant Status Review Tribunals were established. The American Bar Association, Human Rights Watch, the Council on Foreign Relations and Joanne Mariner from FindLaw have dismissed the use of the unlawful combatant status as not compatible with U.S. and international law.^[131] In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court held that Common Article 3 (CA3) of the Geneva Conventions applies to detainees in the Global War on Terror. Per the War Crimes Act of 1996, any US national who "commits a war crime [e.g., violates CA3] shall be fined ... or imprisoned ... , and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death."

The US Congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to provide a legal framework for the designation of unlawful combatants, their detention, and trial through military commission. This was described as unconstitutional by several Senators during the floor debates, so it has not changed the views of those advocating impeachment on these grounds.

Extraordinary rendition

The CIA has "rendered" suspected terrorists, such as Maher Arar, to other countries. Critics accuse them of doing this in order to avoid U.S. laws prescribing due process and prohibiting torture, calling this "torture by proxy" and "torture flights".^[132] 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.^[133] 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, including the United Nations and Louise Arbour, have stated that, under international law, rendition as practiced by the U.S. government is illegal.^[95][134] Conyers has called for investigating whether these violations of international and US law constitute an impeachable offense,^[95] whereas Boyle thinks it does, and included this in his Draft Impeachment Resolution.^[117]

A report, on May 19 2006, by the UN Committee against Torture concluded that the US should not send suspects to countries where they face a risk of torture, since that would violate international law.^[135]

Treatment of detainees

As part of the war on terror several memos^[136] were written analyzing the legal position and possibilities in the treatment of prisoners. The memos, known today as the "torture memos," advocate enhanced interrogation techniques, but point out that refuting the Geneva Conventions would reduce the possibility of prosecution for war crimes.^[137] 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.^[138]

Several top military lawyers including Alberto J. Mora reported that policies allowing methods 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.^[139]

Notwithstanding the suggestion of official policy, the administration repeatedly assured critics that the publicised cases were incidents, and President Bush later stated that:

"The United States of America does not torture. And that's important for people around the world to understand."^[140]

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.^[141]

Over the years numerous incidents have been made public and a UN report denounced the abuse of prisoners as tantamount to torture.^[142] Representative John Conyers has advocated investigating these abuses to see if they violate the Geneva Conventions and are thus cause for impeachment, while Francis A. Boyle, Elizabeth Holtzman and Veterans For Peace hold that violating these laws is grounds for impeachment.^{[95][117][106][107][143]} An article in the Progressive supports the view that these alleged violations of US and international law could be an impeachable offense too.^[107]

Several legal analysts -such as Marjorie Cohn, Elizabeth Holtzman, Human Rights First- have advocated that writing the so-called "torture memos," not preventing or stopping the abuse could result in legal challenges involving war crimes^[117] under the command responsibility.^[95][144] This view was confirmed when the US Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that, contrary to what the Bush administration advocated, the Third Geneva Convention (regarding the treatment of prisoners) applies to all detainees in the War on Terror and as such the Military Tribunals used to try suspects were violating the law. The Court reaffirmed that those involved in mistreatment of detainees violate US and international law.^[145] Dave Lindorff contends that by ignoring the Geneva Conventions the US administration including President Bush, as Commander-in-Chief, is culpable for war crimes, and as such that constitutes an impeachable offense.^[146]

On May 19 2006, the UN Committee against Torture issued a report stating the USA should stop, what it concludes, is "ill-treatment" of detainees, since such treatment, according to the UN-report, violates international law. It also calls for cessation of the US-termed "enhanced interrogation" techniques, as the UN sees these methods as a form of torture. The UN report also admonishes against secret prisons, the use of which, is considered to amount to torture as well and should be discontinued.^[135]

Leaking of classified information

Possible involvement in the CIA leak

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 ultimately turned out to be falsified documents. After Ambassador Wilson wrote an OpEd article in the New York Times denouncing the yellowcake basis and other justifications for the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, the identity of his wife as a CIA employee appeared in media reports for the first time. Wilson later made the allegation her identity was leaked as personal retaliation against him for his pointing out misrepresentations regarding the uranium claim. An investigation into this by Patrick Fitzgerald led to an indictment of Lewis "Scooter" Libby on perjury charges and for obstructing the investigation into the release of Plame's covert status. Hence, nobody has been indicted for divulging the name of a covert agent. The actual first source of Plame's name to the media was Richard Armitage.^[147]

At one point, Libby's indictment states:

"Prior to July 14 2003, Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community."^[148]

The litigation surrounding Libby has yielded court papers showing that Libby was authorized and instructed to disseminate formerly classified information by his superiors.^[149] No court papers have alleged that Bush or Cheney authorized the release of Plame's name. On April 13 2006, Bloomberg.com reported Libby has testified that Bush and Cheney did not authorize the release of Plame's name.^[150] Libby's position is that he did not leak Plame's name.

Libby was found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice. A court filing by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald during his sentencing hearing revealed that Plame was indeed a covert agent.^[151]

Declassifying for political purposes

On April 6 2006, court papers were filed in the CIA leak grand jury investigation, stating that Libby had testified that President Bush authorized the disclosure of select portions of the then classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq.^[124][152] The position of the Bush administration is that a Presidentally authorized release of material is not a "leak" in the sense that Presidents are authorized to de-classify material and the release of de-classified material is not leaking.^[124][153] Some argue that this contradicts previous statements by Bush in which he made clear that leaking information is unacceptable.^[124][154] According to the court filings by Fitzgerald:

“Defendant (Libby) testified that this July 8 meeting was the only time he recalled in his government experience when he disclosed a document to a reporter that was effectively declassified by virtue of the President’s authorization that it be declassified.”^[155]

Elizabeth de la Vega, Ray McGovern and Greg Mitchell have noted that the Bush Administration's asserted motivation — that this declassification was needed to counter misinformation spread by opponents of the Bush administration's casus belli — is odd, since only an obscure part of the NIE, which supports the claims advanced by the US government, has been released, while the rest of the report, in which the CIA in 2002 allegedly dismissed that claim as unlikely, is still classified.^{[122][155][156]} Bush's misrepresentations on this point and his allegedly declassifying of information for a political purpose, is seen by some as impeachable offense.^[156][157]

Politicization of the United States attorney offices

In March 2007 it became known that eight United States Attorneys were dismissed. The Bush administration has issued changing and contradictory statements about the timeline of the planning of the firings, persons who ordered the firings, and reasons for the firings.^{[158][159][160][161]} Congressmen investigating these dismissals stated that sworn testimony from Department of Justice officials contradicts internal Department memos and e-mails.^[162] Because of that, and the uncommon nature of these firings,^[163] critics suggest ulterior motives. Among them Elizabeth Holtzman and Cynthia L. Cooper wrote that: "we may be witnessing criminal acts of obstruction of justice at the highest levels of government."^[164] They allege that the attorneys were fired as retribution for prosecuting Republicans,^[164] or for failing to prosecute enough Democrats.^[165] for non-existent voter-fraud.^[166] This supposed fraud led the New York Times to the following response:

"Last week, we learned that the administration edited a government-ordered report on voter fraud to support its fantasy. The original version concluded that among experts "there is widespread but not unanimous agreement that there is little polling place fraud." But the publicly released version said, "There is a great deal of debate on the pervasiveness of fraud." It's hard to see that as anything but a deliberate effort to mislead the public."^[167]

The article continues to suggest that emphasising voter-fraud facilitates regulations, such as voter-ID laws, which hinder the "poor, the elderly, minorities and other disenfranchised groups that tend to support Democrats." Greg Gordon for McClatchy Newspapers concurs, commenting that it might be part of a scheme "to restrict voter turnout in key battleground states in ways that favor Republican political candidates."^[168] The same is implied by Greg Palast in In These Times where he reports that Timothy Griffin, Arkansas’ new attorney general, was involved in suppressing minority voters.^[169]

The investigation has drawn attention to the prosecution and subsequent conviction, during an election season, of Georgia Thompson for corruption, which the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit immediately reversed because the prosecution's evidence was "beyond thin."^[170] Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin of Madison^[171] and the Senate Judiciary Committee are investigating this case.^[172][173]

Commentators have further observed the possible connection with the Jack Abramoff Guam investigation, which was discontinued after the chief prosecutor for Guam, and the instigator of the indictment, Frederick A. Black was unexpectedly demoted and removed from office.^[164][174]

For the involvement in these alleged wrongdoings^[175] and the subsequent cover-up Marjorie Cohn, Elizabeth Holtzman, Cynthia L. Cooper, and Thom Hartmann have suggested that impeachment proceedings are warranted.^[164][176]

Hurricane Katrina

The alleged responsibility of the George W. Bush administration in the mishandling of Hurricane Katrina^[177] has been used by Ramsey Clark, Francis Boyle, PopMatters, Green Party of Humboldt County and the Sunday Independent to suggest failure by the administration to adequately provide for the need of its citizens. And as such they hold that the allegations of incompetence amount to an impeachable offense.^[117][178]

The administration, and its supporters, contend that the principal responsibility lies with the local authorities.^[179] Therefore, according to the President's supporters, any accusation of inadequate handling of the disaster should be addressed to Governor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco.^[180]

Furthermore, the seizure of weapons in the aftermath of Katrina constitutes a violation of the second amendment.

Abuse of power

President Bush has asserted broad executive powers, attributing them to his position as Commander-in-Chief and to the war on terror. These have been used to justify policies connected with the war. Constitutional law expert Glenn Greenwald attributes Bush's interpretation of the authority of the president to a series of legal memos by John Yoo, identifies this expansive interpretation as the common thread shared by the other Bush controversies, and indicates that this interpretation is based on combining the powers of all three branches of government in the single person of the President, and is therefore the diametric opposite of the text and the Founding Fathers' intended meaning of the U.S. Constitution.^[181]

Elizabeth Holtzman, John Dean, Elizabeth de la Vega, AlterNet, the St. Petersburg Times and the Santiago Times have claimed that Bush has exceeded constitutional or other legal limitations on such war powers.^[95][182] The Draft Impeachment Resolution by Boyle advocates that this is an impeachable offense.^[117]

Criticism of the impeachment movement

Columnist Byron York of The National Review has suggested that proponents of impeachment are almost entirely left-wing bloggers, that Conyers had "already decided the conclusions he will reach" before the Judiciary Committee's investigation had even started, and that "interpretive structure of the [Conyers] report" indicates that it "is not the product of a real investigation."^[183]

While noting that the latest poll "numbers show true trouble" for Bush-Cheney, columnist Matt Towery, in reporting the results of the May 2007 InsiderAdvantage poll, stated "Those few in the Democrat-controlled House who are advocating impeachment are on the fringe of political thought -- at least for now." He further opined that their rationale for impeachment "looks specious", and went on to say "It's not beyond consideration that what now seems silly political grandstanding could get much more serious, especially if the Iraq war continues to go badly, current scandals surrounding the attorney general or White House political adviser Karl Rove get worse, or new White House scandals emerge."^[184]

See also

• Impeachment of Bill Clinton
• HR 333 to Impeach Richard Cheney
• Impeachment in the United States

References

Further reading

• John Nichols, The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism, (2006) ISBN 1-59558-140-5
• Center for Constitutional Rights, Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush, (2006) ISBN 1-933633-08-5
• John Bonifaz, Warrior King: The Case for Impeaching George Bush, (2003) ISBN 1-56025-606-0
• John W. Dean, Worse than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush, (2004) ISBN 0-316-00023-X
• Charles Black, Impeachment: A Handbook (Yale Fastback Series), (1998 Reissue) ISBN 0-300-07950-8
• Glenn Greenwald, How Would a Patriot Act? Defending American Values from a President Run Amok, (2006) ISBN 0-9779440-0-X

External links

• Rosa Brooks: Did Bush commit war crimes?, Los Angeles Times, June 30 2006
• Bill Moyers interviews John Dean (video) (Transcript)
• Is Lying About War An Impeachable Offense? by John Dean
• Polling Report, which reports a Zogby Poll which shows 42% of Americans agree that "if President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment?"
• The Impeachment of George W. Bush an article in the January 30 2006 issue of The Nation magazine
• Impeach Bush Coalition
• Salon.com on the mainstreaming of "The I-word"
• [http://www.impeachbush.org Group's web site where over 868,000 people have voted for the impeachment of the top characters of the Bush regime. Site includeds "Articles of Impeachment" and "Notes for the consideration of Impeachment" by former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark
• Impeach Bush: When the emperor has no clothes by Garrison Keillor
• Concerning The Impeachment Of President Bush
• CNN - Is lying about 'the reason for a war' an impeachable offense?
• CNN - Gore: Resist Bush's 'excessive power grab'
• CBS - San Francisco's Impeachment of Bush Now Law
• MSNBC - Spying, the Constitution — and the ‘I-word’
• MSNBC - Live Vote: Should Bush be impeached?
• ABC - Feingold Calls for Bush's Censure; Library Of Congress link to Feingold's Senate resolution
• Harper's Magazine Editor Lewis Lapham discusses the case for impeachment (Real Media)
• The Sunday Times: "Impeach bush chorus grows"
• NY Times: In Court Filings, Cheney Aide Says Bush Approved Leak
• C-Span Book TV Program: Dave Lindorff and Barbara Olshansky discuss their book The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office
• MSNBC - Countdown with Keith Obermann: "Beginning of the End of America
• "Impeachment of Bush is not an option for the Democratic Congress" argument diagram at HonestArgument.com
• "Top 10 reasons to impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney"
• Impeach Bush Group News and Resources
• Impeachment Info, links and more information from the WikiYourRights.com wiki.
• A28, website showing examples of movements with pictures and support for impeachment process of the President and the Vice President