By Jesse Jackson - The Chicago Sun-Times - 05 December 2006
http://www.suntimes.com/news/jackson/15975...jesse05.article
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/120606J.shtml
QUOTE
Should President Bush be impeached? The very idea seems extreme, if not loony. Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has explicitly ruled impeachment off the Democratic majority's agenda. But activists and legal scholars are organizing to pressure Democrats to begin impeachment hearings. And the incoming chair of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. John Conyers, has issued two remarkable studies on abuses of presidential authority, raising the question of impeachable offenses.
The Gingrich Congress' attempt to railroad President Clinton out of office gave impeachment a bad press. It is scorned as irresponsible, vindictive, partisan spitball politics. Rather than addressing the challenges the nation faces, impeachment, many pundits argue, wastes months on harsh, divisive wrangling. And of course, in 1998, the public punished Republicans - ultimately leading to the toppling of Gingrich himself.
But in the current circumstances, the question isn't merely rhetorical or partisan. While in office, Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have asserted an extraordinary array of extra-constitutional powers. Bush argues that he has the right to declare war on his own. He claims he can designate any American an "enemy combatant." For those under that suspicion, he claims the right to wiretap them without warrants, arrest them without charges, detain them without lawyers, torture them without judicial review and hold them until the war ends. He also says that neither Congress nor the public has any right to review his decisions, or to gain access to the papers that he chooses to keep secret. Because Bush himself says the war on terror will last for decades, the scope of this assertion is staggering.
Bush and his men drove us into the war of choice in Iraq, distorting intelligence to gain public support and undermining our credibility across the world. His policies led directly to the disgraces of Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. His assertions have trampled the rights of American citizens, as well as those from other countries. Lack of accountability squandered billions in taxpayer dollars on waste, fraud and abuse of major contractors in Iraq. The list goes on.
Bush's remarkable assertions would make the president an elected king. That is not what the founders intended. They wrote the Constitution to create a system of checks and balances to limit presidential power. They gave Congress the right to declare war, arguing that "no one man" should ever have that power in a republic. They passed the Bill of Rights to guarantee rights to the people.
How do we hold presidents accountable when they trample these limits? Presidents cannot be indicted. They are immune from civil lawsuits on the basis of their official actions. The only recourse in the Constitution is impeachment.
The Democratic Congress has a duty to the Constitution to investigate Bush's claims to be above the law. Conyers may well put off any consideration of impeachment - but he has a duty to convene serious hearings on the scope of the president's claims, the abuses to the Constitution and to citizens resulting from those claims, and the remedies to them.
Whether we're Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, we all should support defending our Constitution. We need a careful consideration of whether the Constitution can or should be changed in the light of the threats we now face. If it is to be changed, then surely it should be changed by amendment, not by the unilateral acts of a president. If changes are not needed, then Bush's claims must be clearly rejected.
What if the president and his administration refuse to cooperate with Congress in this inquiry? What if they deny access to all documents, refuse to testify and issue "signing statements" stating that the president will not abide by the laws that Congress passes? Then the Constitution offers only two options: Vote the president out of office, and Bush is due to depart in 2009. Or impeach Bush for high crimes and misdemeanors. In my view, it should not come to that - but Congress must act to defend the Constitution before America turns completely into an elected dictatorship.
The Gingrich Congress' attempt to railroad President Clinton out of office gave impeachment a bad press. It is scorned as irresponsible, vindictive, partisan spitball politics. Rather than addressing the challenges the nation faces, impeachment, many pundits argue, wastes months on harsh, divisive wrangling. And of course, in 1998, the public punished Republicans - ultimately leading to the toppling of Gingrich himself.
But in the current circumstances, the question isn't merely rhetorical or partisan. While in office, Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have asserted an extraordinary array of extra-constitutional powers. Bush argues that he has the right to declare war on his own. He claims he can designate any American an "enemy combatant." For those under that suspicion, he claims the right to wiretap them without warrants, arrest them without charges, detain them without lawyers, torture them without judicial review and hold them until the war ends. He also says that neither Congress nor the public has any right to review his decisions, or to gain access to the papers that he chooses to keep secret. Because Bush himself says the war on terror will last for decades, the scope of this assertion is staggering.
Bush and his men drove us into the war of choice in Iraq, distorting intelligence to gain public support and undermining our credibility across the world. His policies led directly to the disgraces of Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. His assertions have trampled the rights of American citizens, as well as those from other countries. Lack of accountability squandered billions in taxpayer dollars on waste, fraud and abuse of major contractors in Iraq. The list goes on.
Bush's remarkable assertions would make the president an elected king. That is not what the founders intended. They wrote the Constitution to create a system of checks and balances to limit presidential power. They gave Congress the right to declare war, arguing that "no one man" should ever have that power in a republic. They passed the Bill of Rights to guarantee rights to the people.
How do we hold presidents accountable when they trample these limits? Presidents cannot be indicted. They are immune from civil lawsuits on the basis of their official actions. The only recourse in the Constitution is impeachment.
The Democratic Congress has a duty to the Constitution to investigate Bush's claims to be above the law. Conyers may well put off any consideration of impeachment - but he has a duty to convene serious hearings on the scope of the president's claims, the abuses to the Constitution and to citizens resulting from those claims, and the remedies to them.
Whether we're Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, we all should support defending our Constitution. We need a careful consideration of whether the Constitution can or should be changed in the light of the threats we now face. If it is to be changed, then surely it should be changed by amendment, not by the unilateral acts of a president. If changes are not needed, then Bush's claims must be clearly rejected.
What if the president and his administration refuse to cooperate with Congress in this inquiry? What if they deny access to all documents, refuse to testify and issue "signing statements" stating that the president will not abide by the laws that Congress passes? Then the Constitution offers only two options: Vote the president out of office, and Bush is due to depart in 2009. Or impeach Bush for high crimes and misdemeanors. In my view, it should not come to that - but Congress must act to defend the Constitution before America turns completely into an elected dictatorship.