Against Impeachment

[HamdenRice]

Like many fellow DUers, I was stunned and disappointed when I heard Madame Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi say that impeachment was “off the table,” and until Tuesday's election results, I was deeply committed to the idea that we as a nation need to impeach, remove from office, convict and imprison the treasonous, murderous criminals who hijacked our country six years ago.

But since then, I've come to the conclusion that the House Democrats should not pursue impeachment against Bush or Cheney. I think Speaker Pelosi is correct, but perhaps for different reasons.

First of all, let me state what I think should be our goals. First, we need to show that we are a country of laws, that lawbreakers, even lawbreakers in the highest office of the land, will be punished and held accountable. Second, I hope that the toxic form of conservativism that has taken over the Republican party is thoroughly discredited and destroyed forever, and my ultimate hope is that the Republican party will be forced to dissolve, like the purely criminal RICO (Racketerring Influenced and Corrupt Organization) enterprise that it is, hopefully to be replaced by a party or parties that represent conservative voters within the boundaries of discourse set by the law and Constitution. And I hope that the Democratic Party attains power in Washington so that it can address in a empirical, logical, reality-based manner, the truly global, planet-threatening challenges faced by the people of the United States and of the world.

I assume that many DUers share these goals.

The question is: what is the best way to achieve these goals?

An incorrect assumption has taken root in the DU debate about impeachment -- namely that it is the only means the people and Congress have of addressing accountability for the criminality that has occurred over the last six years.

I agree that the many perpetrators of the various criminal enterprises and conspiracies of the Bush administration must be punished for reasons best explained by Latin American human rights activists after the age of Pinochet and South Africans after the age of apartheid: If society doesn't punish wrongdoers in high office, then society implicitly condones their behavior, says that one can commit crimes in high office, disappear people, torture, and it won't be punished. This means that the next dictator down the line will reason that he too can get away with lawless criminality. The post-Pinochet Latin Americans and post-apartheid South Africans called this the "culture of impunity," and believed it was very important to uproot that aspect of their political culture from their legal and political systems. The potential development of a culture of impunity, especially within the Republican Party, is why I fear allowing Bush and his criminal co-conspirators to get away with their crimes.

But I think we are confusing two things: impeachment on the one hand, and punishment and accountability on the other. Impeachment is not the only means of punishing the members of the Bush criminal enterprise. It isn't even the most efficient, fastest, certain or politically feasible. It happens to be the most nationally paralyzing, time-consuming, uncertain of outcome, politically costly means of punishment, and the means with the greatest threat of backlash from Republicans and independents.

But it is not the only means of punishment. Impeachment takes an incredibly long time, if past experience is any indication. It is highly unlikely that impeachment could be accomplished in the two years remaining in Bush's term. I think that Madame Speaker Pelosi was simply recognizing the unpleasant likelihood that Bush may manage to let the clock run out on his presidency without being impeached, and if that is so, why invest so much political capital in such a losing and risky proposition. (Could you imagine starting impeachment proceedings and Bush and Cheney being acquitted in the Senate??!) But that doesn't mean Bush and Cheney won't be punished.

We are creating a false equation, in other words: no impeachment = no punishment or accountability. That's just not so.

Congress will no doubt immediately begin investigating the crimes of the Bush administration. Within a few months, no doubt enough evidence will have been disclosed to justify the appointment of a special prosecutor or independent counsel, with the single minded focus and dedicated staff that Democratic House staff simply would not have.

Breathtaking horrors will be uncovered by Congressional and other investigations. I am sure we will learn of massive theft of billions of dollars by Halliburton, a company that in securities law parlance, was essentially under the control of the vice president when its looting started. I suspect that investigations will disclose evidence that monstrous elements within the Department of Homeland Security intentionally allowed thousands of people to die in New Orleans (Chertoff practically admitted as much on CNN live) and bussed the survivors to the far corners of the country in order to remove a blue spot from a red state. I suspect that we will learn that the NSA wiretapping program was used to spy on, blackmail and intimidate domestic opponents -- something already virtually proven in the British press, when it disclosed that John Bolton used NSA intercepts to spy on Colin Powell and disrupt his diplomatic efforts. I suspect we will learn that Cheney and Bush knew that there were no WMDs in Iraq and lied to Congress and the American people to get us into this hellish war. We will learn that certain high ranking officials in the Defense Department had treasonous allegiances to the Likud wing of Iraeli politics, and that Dennis Hastert was bribed, bought and paid for by Turkish intelligence elements and/or drug cartels. We will surely learn as has already been disclosed in the press, that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld took gleeful and sadistic personal pleasure in following and intervening in individual cases of torture. And most shattering to the remaining brain dead members remaining left of the toxic rump conservative movement who believe that Bush's one undeniable accomplishment is that he has "kept us safe" from another 9/11, we will learn that leading elements of the Bush administration knew of or even facilitated the attacks of 9/11 and allowed them to occur so they could implement their fascist agenda.

The question is what should be done with this knowledge? What will best serve our purposes?

I am reminded of the psychological reconditioning scenes in the book and film versions of A Clockwork Orange, or the torture scene at the end of Orwell's 1984. Imagine some horrific, pornographic image, something almost unbearable to watch. What would have a stronger impression on you: seeing it briefly and having it snatched away, or being forced to endure it for weeks, months or even two years.

Once the criminal horrors of the Bush administration are made clear to the general public, what would truly realign American politics for the next two decades? What would happen if the public watched all these facts come out, and also had to watch this horrific, ignorant, cruel little man on television, day after day, giving speeches and press conferences trying to explain away ever more disclosed crimes with pathetic and obvious lies -- with half of his handlers gone, under indictment -- undergoing a public Nixonian mental breakdown, making clear to the general public that their president and the entire leadership of the Republican Party was capable of the most murderous, treasonous crimes?

Compare that to what would happen if these same facts were disclosed, and he and Cheney were swiftly removed from office and replaced by some senior so-called "clean" Republican, probably John McCain or Colin Powell, preparing the way for a “rehabilitated” Republican party to run in 2008? (And don't get me started on the idea of President Pelosi -- anyone who thinks that will happen doesn't understand presidential succession or the process by which we got Gerald Ford as president.)

I apologize for being so pragmatic about crimes against humanity and the Constitution, but I for one think the former scenario, the spectacle of a president stripped of power, exposed as a traitor and war criminal, horrifying the public day after day with his evil stupidity would do more to permanently realign politics than impeachment -- while in the meantime, the House Democrats and Dr. Dean's 50 state Democratic Party re-enfranchise all voters, draft legislation for universal health care, engage in public diplomacy over the administration's head.

There will be accountability. Congressional investigative committees, independent counsel, career Justice Deparment lawyers, would all be preparing the indictments that will greet George Bush and Dick Cheney and the many other criminals in this administration, so that the minute they leave office the handcuffs will be slapped on and they can be frog marched to the federal prisons they so richly deserve.

[shraby]

1. You fogot one thing. That the perpetrators

from the President down are liable for their crimes, impeached or not. So it's no problem if we impeach Bush and Cheney, they are still liable for prosecution after impeachment.

[HamdenRice]

2. No, actually that's my point

I think a lot of DUers don't understand what impeachment is: it is a way of removing someone from office. It is not conviction of a crime. The constitution allows Congress to impeach officials so that they can then be prosecuted.

So the issue of impeachment is different from criminal liability. Of course they are criminally liable, and we need to prosecute them for their crimes whether they are impeached and removed from office or not.

[John Gauger]

3. You have convinced me.

The important thing is to ensure that Bush's crimes are met with swift and stark justice, to ensure that this never happens again. It is important that every crime, every misdeed, every abuse be answered in the public square. Impeachment will not show the American people, and the world, everything that Bush has done. It is more important that we take the long term into consideration. We must show him to be the despicable man-child that he is. As we approach the 2008 election, there cannot be any doubt as to the true character of Bush and Cheney.

[HamdenRice]

4. Thanks, because I'm worried that DU

is confusing impeachment with criminal accountability. The most important things are (1) getting all the dirt out and plainly known by everyone and (2) prosecution and conviction.

The issue is whether impeachment helps or hinders those goals.

[Zodiak]

22. The threat of impeachment does

once 1) is taken care of, then the threat of impeachment will make him far more malleable in signing our legislation and getting things done.

#2 will actually be far more effective if it is left until after election time. Citizen Bush will not be tried with a jury of his peers who will vote for political reasons and presided over by his own judicial appointee once Bush leaves office.

But the threat needs to be there, and hearings are necessary to put that threat front and center.

In that way, those that press impeachment and those that press hearings are on the same page.

[HamdenRice]

26. I agree

First, I agree with your conclusion that we are all in basic agreement about the crimes and the need to punish them. I'm amazed that some pro impeachment posters have characterized the other side as urging forgiveness or bipartisanship. It's a strategic decision.

I also agree that Bush, stripped of his handlers and threatened with impeachment, could create a very favorable environment for the Democrats.

[JudyM]

5. I agree about 'rehabilitation' of the GOP before 2008. Burnishing the resumes

of whoever would be the replacements for Chimp/Cheney will only make the race harder for Dems in '08. Much as I grimace at the thought of leaving them in office, I feel better that at least they'll be in check. And I'd love to see Congress pass some restrictions on presidential pardons so that prosecutions can actually take place.

[HamdenRice]

6. The threat of presidential pardons

is the scariest part of the scenario of leaving him in office to twist in the wind, and would be one reason I would reverse my position.

[TahitiNut]

17. That's EXACTLY what must be forestalled.

The flood of Presidential Pardons (irreversible!) will make Iran/Contra pardons look like a drop in the bucket! It doesn't take much looking around to see the horrendous degree to which this cabal has done everything in their power so far to evade any accountability for their crimes. The Military Commissions Act, the immunity extorted from the Afghani and Iraqi puppet governments, the withdrawal from the ICC, the attack on the Belgian War Crimes Act, and many other legislative codicils inserted in the dark recesses of the cabal's caves to eviscerate the laws and exempt them for being held accountable. The major strength of impeachment and conviction is that it's not subject to pardon or appeal to an owned SCOTUS.

As I've said before, I dislike 'arguments' based on prognostication. They tend to boil down to whose bottle of Windex is better on their crystal ball. That's why I'm a deontologist - I believe that principle and integrity are the navigation aids for us hopelessly myopic humans. Do The Right Thing. Whether one is dogmatic or agnostic, the collected wisdom of many millennia of human interactions affords us the moral imperatives (Kant's Categorical Imperative anyone?) because we're shitty at consequentialism.

[HamdenRice]

20. Pardons must be forestalled; so must an incumbent John McCain in 2008

There are big risks on both sides. The risk on the other side is that after Cheney and Bush are impeached and removed we have to live with the MSM meme, "the country breathed a sigh of relief" thanks to the "clean government of John McCain," or worse, "the first black president," Colin Powell, who "ended the war and brought the troops home," or some such nonesense.

Because that's what is going to happen if they are impeached and removed. Just as Nixon had the opportunity to appoint genial Gerald Ford, with Congressional approval.

Do you want a perhaps popular Republican incumbent in 2008? Or a disgraced and powerless Republican incumbent?

[H2O Man]

7. I want to thank you

for making an intelligent, well-reasoned contribution to the discussion about impeachment. I agree with most of what you write, and I certainly respect everything you had to say. I am sure that no two people in America think exactly alike -- and that's a good thing.

The thing that I feel differently about is simply this: the Constitution of the United States details the correct method for the Congress to address corruption in the Executive branch. That there are other things that can happen, including potentially actions in the Judicial branch, the Constitution is very clear about the duties of the Congress.

[HamdenRice]

8. Thanks to you too

I also understand the impulse to use the tool of impeachment to address corruption and criminality in the executive branch. If the Bush administration is not considered deserving of impeachment, then no president, no matter how lawless, will feel restrained by the threat of impeachment.

But I think the issue is whether impeachment is the exclusive tool to do so. I read the Constitution as giving the Congress and people a whole tool kit of which impeachment is one tool. For political reasons, under the current circumstances other tools may be more appropriate for our goals.

[H2O Man]

One correction:

I think it is important to point out that there is no "impulse" involved in the desire to follow the Constitution. The word "impulse" implies that this is a sudden result of something very recent -- such as the election. And that ignores that people such as myself have been pointing out the crimes of Dick Cheney for some time, and our investment in grass roots activism which played a role in the elections.

The Constitution clearly covers a wide tange of issues. But in terms of corruption in the executive and judicial branches, it is very specific about the duties of the Congress.

[H2O Man]

13. dupe

[AliceWonderland]

9. Thank you for the thoughtful post

I especially appreciated you bringing up the Latin American and South African examples. I was telling someone that it feels like this country needs a full-blown truth and reconciliation process... which made me think about the South African case. So, this has been on my mind -- how societies deal with various situations, all of them unique.

You have a very good point: criminal prosecution would be preferable to merely being thrown out of office. A thorough investigation process into the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, NSA spying, energy scandals, the use of torture, the MCA, etc, is the first step. This is why I'm aghast at this talk of bipartisanship in the media -- with such serious violations of constitutional powers, and moreover, with violations that are ongoing situations, we can't simply "let go." We still have Guantanamo; we still have the Military Commissions Act. Clearly something has to be done -- I'm watching the process just initiated in Germany. In the meantime, you offer some very thoughtful ideas.

[HamdenRice]

10. Truth and Reconciliation Commissions

Good point, and one of the peculiar aspects of the South African TRC was that it gave amnesty to any person who confessed his crimes.

I certainly don't want amnesty offered to any member of the Bush administration, but the TRC example does show that there are many ways of rooting out the culture of impunity.

I am not against impeachment, but I'm not sure it's the best way for us to ensure that this never happens again, here. I'm for getting the truth out and making these people look to the public in general as criminal as we know they are.

[BlooInBloo]

11. Unless he pardons them all. Sheesh.

The equation that claimed was false is actually true.

[HamdenRice]

15. Why is the equation true?

First of all, I agree, that the biggest danger of not pursuing impeachment is presidential pardons. I would hope that the Congress would tell Bush that if tries it, it will come back double either in immediate impeachment or much harsher prison sentence.

But as for the equation, if Bush, Cheney et al were sentenced to long prison terms, and Cheney were forced to caugh up all his ill gotten wealth, wouldn't that amount to accountability, even if they were not impeached?

[BlooInBloo]

16. Because the Constitution says so. Impeachment is THE remedy...

... to a dictatorial President. Not *a* remedy, THE remedy.

You just want to delay actual Constitutional justice in favor of some ersatz-bastard-stepchild-justice - for no reason other than fear.

Screw that.

[HamdenRice]

18. This is what the Constitution says:

Article 2 - The Executive Branch
Section 4 - Disqualification
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

<end quote>

It does not say that the House must impeach if it believes the president committed crimes. It says that these officers must ("shall") be removed if they are impeached, which is two different things.

Just as every prosecutor has prosecutorial discretion, Congress has discretion whether to impeach or not.

I would not be unhappy with impeachment, but we do have to ask ourselves what is the best course to preserve the Constitution, gain political power and ensure this kind of lawlessness never happens again.

[TahitiNut]

19. "Shall" is prescriptive ... not optional.

The implication is clear. It's a duty. When one considers the oath to "protect and defend" the Constitution, I don't believe it's validly arguable.

[HamdenRice]

21. "shall be removed" not "shall be impeached"

the shall is prescriptive, but it wells us what the result of successful impeachment is, not that the officer "shall" be impeached.

[canetoad]

12. Thank you HR

A good read, and as I have come to expect from you, well considered and wise words.

[canetoad]

14. Almost forgot...

K & R

:kick:

[Swamp Rat]

23. I think America needs impeachment

"It happens to be the most nationally paralyzing, time-consuming, uncertain of outcome, politically costly means of punishment, and the means with the greatest threat of backlash from Republicans and independents." - I believe it would be better for our national psyche if we went through the impeachment process. It would be very therapeutic. AND, I am not worried at all about some potential backlash. This is NOT about votes; this is about JUSTICE and healing. We first must cut out the cancer that is the Bush administration.

I have heard the arguments against impeachment and I disagree with the theory that impeachment would hinder or preclude other important issues.

"There will be accountability. Congressional investigative committees, independent counsel, career Justice Deparment lawyers, would all be preparing the indictments that will greet George Bush and Dick Cheney and the many other criminals in this administration, so that the minute they leave office the handcuffs will be slapped on and they can be frog marched to the federal prisons they so richly deserve." - This should and will likely happen before, during, and after impeachment.

We also have international treaties by which we must abide. The spectacle on TV will humble us in the eyes of the international community and go a long way toward healing the damage in our relationships abroad.

[Blue-Jay]

24. I trust that Speaker Pelosi knows how to get things done.

Hell, I'd like to see the kind of accountability that some DUers like to post in ALL CAPS, but I trust that she knows what she's doing moreso than I trust random internet screamers.

Call me crazy, but she's more qualified than me to do her job.

[HamdenRice]

25. One more thing: Impeachment = President John McCain or Powell

As I pointed out in a post above, Nixon was allowed to appoint Ford, with Congressional consent. Who do you think the Republicans will get Bush to appoint as Cheney's replacement?

It's got to be McCain or Powell. One or the other (or both, pres & vice) would become incumbents for 2008.

[mogster]

27. The immediate push for impeachment illustrates the lack of confidence

From the people towards politicians in general. I agree that there need to be some elbow room for the Dems to do politics now. You don't start out a majority congress by throwing down the glove on day one, but plan ahead. And there are too many good people in this to just not trust them at all.
My guess is people are afraid this won't make real change, but only minor adjustments to cocoon Bush, control him. There's something to that line of thought. The string of draconian laws passed by help from the right wing of the Dem. congress does show there is a support for the current policy of less liberties. The Military commission act is indefensible under a democratic banner. The thought that Bush, and especially Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Hastert, will go unpunished for what amounts to an incredible number of crimes against the state and humanity must be almost unbearable to people that is genuinly afraid of their government, and fear that they may be arrested or harrassed. Or just left in the lurch in times of emergency, like the Gulf coast. They have a moral right IMHO, to be heard.
Priority one must be to end hostilities in Iraq and Afghanistan, to stop the killing. We never get back those people, no matter what side they're on. The peace will also remove Bush' last trumf card.

My bet would be that the impeachment movement won't go away, and even more damage to people's trust in govt. and politicians will be the result if it was tried swept under the carpet. It's not about revenge, it's about respect for law and order, for justice. It's made worse by two elections which creates serious doubt if Bush ever had the democratic mandate needed to be the president of the United States. If his presidency was to be nullified, all his actions would be reversed and all the people he has promoted/assigned will be out of work. Including supreme court nominations and internationally assigned personnell. He would be Mr. Bush, the citizen, and could be tried by an ordinary court as an ordinary person for mass murder of 600.000 + people.

That's usually what happens, you know, when the power swings and the puppet king suddenly finds himself without large support, but many enemies.
Norway tried and prosecuted 50.000 citizens after the WWII nazi occupation (out of a total population of roughly 3 million), most of them got only token sentences because what we needed back then was not more enmity but cooperation and healing as a nation. But the people in the know, and the people in charge, was punished and 25 people was executed as traitors. Membership in the party Nasjonal Samling (National Unity), Quislings party, after the occupation took effect April 9, 1940 was declared as being the same as being a traitor.
Back then it was a simple situation; a foreign country invades and you have a choice to support your government or the invading force. Most people makes the right choice.
The situation in the US today is different, the world is different and the politics of modern day is much more complicated.
But the mood is the same; you want justice to be done, as much to reaffirm your own belief in society as to see actual justice being carried out. Spring cleaning in politics, that's what people want.

[fooj]

28. Agreed.

Patience, grasshopper.:patriot: