0
   

The US, UN & Iraq III

 
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2003 09:44 am
.
It's About the Rule of Law: Impeaching George W. Bush

By FRANCIS A. BOYLE
Professor of Law, University of Illinois School of Law

07/25/03: With another Bush Family war of aggression against Iraq staring the American People, Congress and Republic in their face, on Tuesday 11 March 2003, Congressman John Conyers of Michigan, the Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, which would have jurisdiction over any Bill of Impeachment, convened an emergency meeting of forty or more of his top advisors, most of whom were lawyers, to discuss and debate immediately putting into the House of Representatives Bills of Impeachment against President Bush Jr., Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and Attorney General Ashcroft in order to head off the impending war. Congressman Conyers kindly requested me and Ramsey Clark to come in to the meeting and argue the case for impeachment. Ramsey had launched his own campaign to impeach Bush Jr. et al. in mid-January 2003 at a peace rally held in Washington D.C.

This impeachment debate lasted for two hours. It was presided over by Congressman Conyers, who quite correctly did not tip his hand one way or the other on the merits of impeachment. He simply moderated the debate between Clark and me, on the one side, favoring immediately filing Bills of Impeachment against Bush Jr. et al. to stop the threatened war, and almost everyone else there who were against impeachment. Obviously no point would be served here by attempting to digest a two-hour-long vigorous debate among a group of well-trained lawyers on such a controversial matter at this critical moment in American history. But at the time I was struck by the fact that this momentous debate was conducted at a private office right down the street from the White House.

Suffice it to say that most of the "experts" there opposed impeachment on the grounds that it might hurt the Democratic Party get their presidential candidate elected in the year 2004. As a political independent, I did not argue that point--it was not for me to tell Democrats how to get their candidates elected. Rather, I argued the merits of impeaching Bush Jr., Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft under the United States Constitution, U.S. Federal Laws, U.S. Treaties and other International Agreements to which the United States was a contracting party. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution provides that Treaties "shall be the supreme Law of the Land." This so-called Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution also applies to International Executive Agreements concluded under the auspices of the U.S. President such as the 1945 Nuremberg Charter.

Congressman Conyers was so kind as to allow me the closing argument in the debate. Briefly put, the concluding point I chose to make was historical: The Athenians lost their Democracy. The Romans lost their Republic. And if we Americans did not act now we could lose our Republic! The United States of America is not immune to the laws of history!

After two hours of most vigorous debate, the meeting adjourned with a second revised draft Bill of Impeachment sitting on the table. Despite these efforts, President Bush Jr. started his war of aggression against Iraq on the evening of Wednesday 19 March 2003 with an attempt to assassinate Iraqi President Saddam Hussein by means of a so-called "decapitation" strike, which was clearly illegal and criminal. Since then, Clark and I have accelerated our respective grassroots campaigns to impeach President Bush Jr. et al. Don Quixotes tilting at windmills?[ii] Not at all!

In the run-up to his 1991 Gulf War, President Bush Sr. feared impeachment. Writing in his diary on 20 December 1990 about the impending war against Iraq, President Bush Sr recorded his fears of impeachment as follows: "But if it drags out, not only will I take the blame, but I will probably have impeachment proceedings filed against me."[iii] There are thus good grounds to believe that fear of impeachment compelled Bush Sr. to terminate the war early on 28 February 1991 with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein still in power, thus avoiding innumerable and horrendous casualties for Americans and even more so for Iraqis.

Thirteen years later, after President Bush Jr.'s invasion of Iraq, flush with "victory" and the arrogance of power, members of the Bush Jr. administration publicly threatened to attack Iran, Syria, and North Korea. In direct reaction to these threats, on 13 April 2003 former U.S. Secretary of State (under President Bush Sr., no less!) Lawrence Engleburger told the BBC:[iv]

"If George Bush [Jnr] decided he was going to turn the troops loose on Syria and Iran after that he would last in office for about 15 minutes. In fact if President Bush were to try that now even I would think that he ought to be impeached. You can't get away with that sort of thing in this democracy."

Almost immediately after Eagleburger's BBC broadside against them, the Bush Jr. warmongers cooled their public rhetoric and threats against Iran and Syria--but not North Korea.

So the Bush Jr. administration has already stood down for the time-being from two further aggressions because of at least one public threat of impeachment. But as of this writing U.S. military, political and economic preparations are underway for a Bush Jr. war of aggression against North Korea. The American People and Congress must put the fear of impeachment into the highest levels of the Bush Jr. administration in order to prevent such a catastrophic war that could readily go nuclear.[v]

Certainly, if the U.S. House of Representatives can impeach President Clinton for sex and lying about sex, then a fortiori the House can, should, and must impeach President Bush Jr. for war, lying about war, and threatening more wars. We need one Member of Congress with the courage, integrity, and principles of the late and great Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez of Texas. Otherwise, the alternative will be an American Empire abroad, a U.S. Police State at home, and continuing wars of aggression to sustain them--along the lines of George Orwell's classic novel 1984 (1949). Despite all of the serious flaws of the United States government that this author has amply documented elsewhere during the past quarter century as a Professor of Law, the truth of the matter is that America is still the oldest Republic in the world today.[vi] We, the People of the United States, must fight to keep it that way![vii] And for the good of all humanity, we must terminate America's Imperial Presidency and subject it to the Rule of Law.[viii]

WWW.VOTETOIMPEACH.ORG

Francis A. Boyle, Professor of Law, University of Illinois, is author of Foundations of World Order, Duke University Press, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence, and Palestine, Palestinians and International Law, by Clarity Press. He can be reached at: [email protected]

Notes

. Ethan Wallison, Time to Impeach?, Roll Call, March 13, 2003, at 1.

[ii]. Liz Halloran, Wartime Snapshots of American Life: Tilting at Presidents, Hartford Courant, March 30, 2003, at A3.

[iii]. Laura Myers, Bush Describes Gulf War Quandary, Associated Press, Sept. 10, 1998, quoting from Bush's memoir A World Transformed (1998), which he co-authored with his National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft. See also Bush: Worried about Impeachment for Gulf War, The Hotline, Sept. 10, 1998; Institute for Public Accuracy, Bush Worried About Impeachment, Too, 28 Sept.1998 Press Release.

[iv]. Ben Russell, U.S. Warns Syria Not to Provide Haven for Wanted Iraqis, The Independent (UK), April 14, 2003; Former Sec. Of State Lawrence Engleburger: Bush Should Be Impeached If He Invades Syria or Iran, Antiwar.com, April 14, 2003 (link to audio).

[v]. Francis A. Boyle, The Criminality of Nuclear War Deterrence: Could the U.S. War on Terrorism Go Nuclear? (2002).

[vi]. See Akhil Reed Amar & Alan Hirsch, For the People (1998).

[vii]. Francis A. Boyle, Defending Civil Resistance Under International Law (1987; Special Paperback ed. 1988).

[viii]. Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., The Imperial Presidency (1989). See also Michael Parenti, Against Empire (1995); John Pilger, The New Rulers of the World (2003).
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2003 09:57 am
Gels, Thanks for sharing the article on impeachment of this president. It supports my position. c.i.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2003 10:57 am
ehBeth wrote:
i've been very taken with the op-ed piece in Forward this week. http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.07.25/oped5.html


I like it, too.

Quote:
So where is the dilemma?

If we stay, it may well be years before we can withdraw with dignity, leaving behind a plausibly democratic sovereign Iraq. Those years will cost us dear, in life and in treasure. (By the way, Iraq today is costing us more than the much debated and quite stingy prescription drug program that we're told is all we can afford.) Yet we cannot simply pack up and leave. Imagine the chaos that would ensue. As bad, imagine the collapse of America's stature, hence also power, in the larger world. The Israeli-Palestinian effort at peace would implode, and an America sulkingly chastened, turned radically and divisively inward, entirely hesitant to use its power whether for good or for gain, would embolden would-be tyrants and evil-doers everywhere.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2003 03:21 pm
Sigh, there are none so blind as they who will not see.

Ok, the US didn't give them a chance to surrender and they were "assassinated" Rolling Eyes

Of course that's a bloody stupid word to call it since we are at war. Anywho, I'm giving up on this crowd. Conspiracy theorists and the ragingly biased are no fun to talk to.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2003 03:37 pm
The semantics of the word "war" has been bandied around enough to now make it almost meaningless. Bush declared the war was over. Of course, this was the same chance the law gave Bonnie and Clyde when they lured them into a trap. Or John Dillinger.
I thought that method of law enforcement had been abadoned because it matyred the criminals and they become legends. As Jay Leno said, Uday and Qusay's bodies are now being auctioned at EBay.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2003 03:42 pm
"Auctioned at eBay." Thanks for a great belly laugh. Smile c.i.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2003 03:45 pm
LW,

What on earth are you talking about? Even in law enforcement if the criminals fire at the cops the cops return the fire.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2003 04:24 pm
In the U. S. Government, there is a lot more incompetence and a
lot less conspiracy than is generally believed.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2003 04:28 pm
Amen, I'd only add that it is true of just about everything.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2003 04:29 pm
Very interesting account of the Conyers meeting. Impeachment seemed like a great idea several months ago, but now (somewhat off the top of the head) I'd have to say that uncovering skullduggery AND depriving Bush of a second term would seem more effective. I'd worry that an impeachment could create a festering wound not confined to the Republicans, and that moderates would also pay the price for decades.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2003 05:34 pm
Targar, American's memory isn't that long. Wink c.i.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2003 05:47 pm
My observation is that law enforcement fires when there's even a suspicion of the possession of a weapon. I suspect they went in firing, that the CIA information from the informant was that good
(at last!) -- I was being flippant about comparing it to Bonnie and Clyde although it fits that Qusay and Uday are common criminals as the war is supposed to be over so one can't call them combatants. I think the orders were bring them back dead or dead. Would they qualify as war criminals?

Confusing, isn't it?

They want to make it all confusing and there's really no defense in my book for the amateurish salesmanship. This bunch couldn't sell fertilizer to a poppy field farmer. OOOPs, but wait, they have been doing that! Well, there are things that are just too easy to sell.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2003 05:51 pm
The war is not over and the administration made no such declaration.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2003 05:53 pm
I'd have to look for it but I remember Bush stating the war was over, qualifying as saying there was a lot of work ahead in reconstructing Iraq.
Have you suddenly found Dubya trustworthy?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2003 06:01 pm
Actually, what Bush said was "major operations are over." If that's true, we have more American GI's getting killed after the "major operations are over." c.i.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2003 06:03 pm
Bush did not say the war is over, and it has nothing to do with whether I think he's trustworthy. You based a great deal of spin on the issue of the war being over or not and nobody ever declared it over.

What is supposed to be over is the "major" part. That was just a tactic to get people to cheer at how fast it was while the real work was yet to be done. The war is certainly not over. It's unfair to expect the footsoldier to act like he is dealing with criminals just because of perceptions from over here that the war is supposed to be over.

And even if the dealings were with mere criminals, those who shoot get shot at.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2003 06:04 pm
And if anyone is talking about the so-called "War on Terrorism" that seem to be a dead horse in Iraq. There's been no connection made with the Muslim terrorists and Hussein nor any responsibility for 9/11. I can remember Hussein saying something like "now you know how it feels" after the attack but that's hardly leading one to believe he had anything to do with it. Just what is this continuing war in Iraq? Is it now just the gorilla war we were warned about? Looks like it to me. We're mow trying to save face with the people of Iraq who are coming to believe we are occupiers. And just what are we?
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2003 06:04 pm
True about more Americans killed, but far less Iraqi's killed.

Between 6,000 and 7,000 Iraqi civilians have died, many more of their soldiers. Most of those deaths were in the "major" part so the difference is positive for at least someone.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2003 06:06 pm
I'm in full agreement about this having nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism (other than it being in the mid-east and that there are Americans stupid enough to believe anything).
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2003 06:06 pm
You're probably right that he used that euphemism "the major operations are over." So what can be concluded is we haven't as yet won a war in Iraq. It's all corporate projections -- from Dubya. Yeah, right.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The US, UN & Iraq III
  3. » Page 171
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/08/2025 at 12:20:17