" "Actually, I think Josh is wrong on substantive grounds. Congress has tried to exercise oversight at various points over various issues, and has continually been stymied by the Bush Administration. At the end of the day, Congress has usually caved because they've been unwilling to take the next step- impeachment.good points, all.
But more importantly, the question in my mind has said "if it is determined that a President deliberately withheld or gave false and/or misleading information to Congress in order to send the country to war, leading to the deaths and maiming of thousands of people, foreign and domestic, does that constitute an impeachable offense"?
That IS a political decision but I would strongly stand in favor of the proposition that it IS an impeachable offense. Why? Because of Bush is not impeached for this conduct, future Presidents will feel free to do exactly the same thing.
Is Bush the first President to lie the U.S. into war? Absolutely not. Scott Horton has documented pretty well that nearly every American military action since the Revolution has been based on one lie or another. But just because past Presidents were allowed to get away with their lies is not a justification to allow the lying to continue. An argument can be made that with the advent of nuclear weapons, and the threat of total destruction of both sides from war, that NOW is the time to start holding the Executive Power to account on these types of issues.
The other point I'd like to make is a purely political one. It's true that an overzealous impeachment movement could turn off middle america and backfire in the midterm elections. On the other hand, being overzealous has never been one of the Democrats problems. Being overly cautious and passive HAS BEEN and CONTINUES TO BE a problem for the Democrats. So maybe, just maybe, its time for the antiwar movement and Democrats to stop being so timid and start taking a few political risks."
I disagree with josh's main thesis - that Bush shouldn't be impeached until there is sufficient push-back from the other two branches. We already know that Bush ignores both congress (cf 'signing statements') and the courts (cf padilla) - and there are many other examples. (putting aside the issue of whether congress would impeach, absent any evidence that they have tried to pushback).
I also have problems with this:
"(Impeachment is) treated as a given by most Beltway Democrats that a push for impeachment is bad politics because it will take attention off the president’s abysmal record and put it on the hot-button issue of impeachment"The problem with this argument is that we have seen scandal after scandal come and ago (see peter daou) without any real impact, apart from steadily deteriorating poll numbers. The impeachment process would put the spot-light ON all of these issues, individually and collectively, not as josh suggests OFF.
5 comments:
Miguel, you spoke in relation to misleading Congress in order to send the country to war and said: "That IS a political decision but I would strongly stand in favor of the proposition that it IS an impeachable offense. Why? Because of Bush is not impeached for this conduct, future Presidents will feel free to do exactly the same thing."
That's true, but it goes beyond setting a precedent. The current LEGAL features are unequivocal: Bush has usurped the Consitution on at least 4 grounds:
(1) Misleading Congress re WMDs in Iraq. Under the Constitution only Congress can authorise war; Bush swore an oath to uphold the Constitution; ergo, as a matter of the law itself, any attempt by Bush to mislead Congress into war violates both these aspects.
(2) FISA and warrantless eavesdropping. The Pres is required to uphold and carry out the law. He has certain discretionary rights in time of war (again, only when legally declared by Congress). In all other cirumstances he has no legal authority to ignore or transgress the law. Bush admitted to breaching FISA and stated his intention to do so again.
(3) Illegal war in Iraq and crimes against humanity. The US is signatory to international treaties in relation to the conduct of war. The pre-emptive attack on Iraq was outside those provisions and is therefore illegal. The actions constitute crimes against humanity. (It ought to be remembered that Nazi's were convicted at Nuremburg for exactly these crimes. In fact, Chomsky goes so far as to claim that ALL US leaders since WW2 met the Nuremburg standards that would attain convictions).
(4) Katrina and criminal malfeasance.Choosing not to take action that has the reasonably forseable result of illegal deaths is a crime.
(link) (link)
Damien,
On point number 3, it's interesting to note that no politician in the U.S. has even brought up the Nuremburg issue. Even the Democrats hide behind the facade that the U.N. Security Council Resolution (I can't remember the number now) gave Bush authority to invade Iraq if Iraq "didn't comply" with U.N. weapons inspections. However, I believe even Tony Blair's legal adviser warned that an invasion of Iraq without specific U.N. authorization was illegal. The reality is that it's not even debatable now: the Iraq invasion was an act of what Ronald Reagan used to call "naked aggression". It was not a pre-emptive strike because absolutely no evidence existed that Iraq had any intentions of attacking the United States- or of illegally acquiring prohibited weapons.
However, from an internal debate in the U.S. I think it would be useful to separate the issue of "aggression"- the fact that the war itself was illegal by international standards-from the "conduct" of the war, i.e. the torture issue. The reason for this is that if you question the legality of the war itself, the argument could be made that Bush only did what Congress authorized him to do, which might hold the Congress at least partially liable for the Iraq invasion. I have heard John Dean make the argument that Bush lied to the Congress when he sent some letter that he was required to send right before the invasion, but I still think any impeachment movement would have a better chance of succeeding if it focused on lies about WMD, wiretaps and torture.
Lukery, I really wish we could do a "vote of no confidence" like they have in parliamentary systems. If I understand correctly, you don't really need a reason to kick a prime minister out of office with such a vote.
Miguel, you're right, of course, to make the distinction between what's true and what's saleable. At best, in the current US political setting, you could only go forward with (1) WMDs in Iraq and (2)FISA. Spot on.
On the matter of a "vote of no confidence" a great deal of British-derived parliamentary practices are conventions only. They have no legal effect (although newspaper and public outrage usually completes the job).
For instance, if a PM has a no confidence motion sustained against them they will resign and their own party will then elect a new leader from their own sitting parliamentary members. In the unheard of circumstances that the PM refused to resign then his party - fearing disapproval at the ballot box - would withdraw his party membership. Since it is the party with the majority of seats that forms the government the PM would have no legal basis for remaining PM. He would be, effectively, sacked.
You are right to assume you don't need a reason to kick a PM out of office in this way. There are enormous discretionary powers held by parliaments in the Westminster (British)system. Although the powers are only rarely used in this way, parliaments can overturn laws, backdate laws (!) even overturn specific judicial decisions made by the courts.
What they cannot do is change the Constitution or make decisions that breach the Constitution. The High Court adjudicates on that.
If a no confidence motion were against the government of the day rather than the PM(and was successful because some majority party members supported it) then the convention is that the government is dissolved and elections called. However, that's only the convention. (On every occasion that it's happened, as I recall, the convention has been followed).
In 1975 a constitutional crisis emerged in relation to convention. Labor PM Gough Whitlam was facing a Liberal party opposition leader Malcolm Fraser who - defying routine practice - refused to pass in the upper house (the Senate, where he had a majority) a money bill enabling the payment of public servants. People were in uproar on both sides. Whitlam decided to tough it out. But the Governor General (normally a figurehead representative of the Queen who grants and withdraws the legal authority of government according to -again!- established conventions) decided the situation was untenable and dismissed the Whitlam government and called for new elections which Whitlam, unpopular at the time, then lost.
Whitlam argued (rightly, I believe) that the GG should have ordered Fraser to pass the money bill. The effective result was that a hostile 'house of review' (Senate) could defeat the will of the elected government of the day by forcing a consitutional crisis.
Despite this crisis, the Australian system is a good one that has served the country well.
My understanding is that the US system has effective disciplinary powers (impeachment) available to Congress to reign in any wayward President - especially one who believes that 'signing statements' and 'unitary presidency' make adherence to the laws discretionary. A very dangerous situation indeed.
yeah - what he said
actually, i know very little about australian politics(!)
i had to vote today for the state elections - and didnt even know (including names!) a single politician.
we have compulsory voting here - which sounds kinda odd - but is probably a good idea.
I think I set some kind of record for bad grammar.Apologies to all.
Post a Comment