Friday, May 12, 2006

Has Bush crossed the Rubicon?

Is it too late to impeach him?

The issue is pressing. If Bush is not successfully challenged, the consquences are unthinkable. Consider the following remark by Senator Russ Feingold:
If that's the law, then "...the President could even order the assassination of American citizens."
In 49 B.C. Rome found itself at war with itself. Though it was prohibited by the Roman constitution, Caesar crossed the Rubicon and defied the civil authorities. The law was on the side of the Senate and the citizens of Rome but Caesar had the force of arms. Who could oppose him? Though he had violated the constitution, he marched his legions into Rome where he was elected consul and dictator for life. Cicero lamented, “Our beloved republic is gone forever.” He was right.

Over the last two days, it's become apparent that Bush lied to the nation about the extent of his widespread program of domestic surveillance. The revelations have renewed the debate: should Bush be impeached? I wonder if it is too late to impeach Bush. Has he already consolidated dictatorial powers? Has he crossed the Rubicon? Is it possible to know until he is impeached, convicted and refuses to leave the White House?

When Democratic Senator Russ Feingold introduced a resolution to censure Bush, the GOP outcry was hollow and disingenuous. Feingold, however, made a succinct case for impeachment on ABC This Week:
FEINGOLD: Not at all. You know, we’ve had a chance here for three months to look at whether there’s any legal basis for this, and they’re using shifting legal justifications. First they try to argue that somehow, under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, they can do this. It’s pretty clear that they can’t. Then there’s the argument that somehow the military authorization for Afghanistan allowed this. This has basically been laughed out of the room in the Congress. So the last resort is to somehow say that the President has inherent authority to ignore the law of the United States of America, and that has the consequence that the President could even order the assassination of American citizens if that’s the law. So there is no sort of independent inherent authority that allows the president to override the laws passed by the Congress of the United States.
Let's assume the Senate found Bush guilty following an impeachment and trial. What would the Senate do if Bush simply refused to leave? The Congress cannot send in the troops; Rumsfeld takes his orders from Bush. When it comes to the military, the Congress has only budgetary control.

President Abraham Lincoln issued a warrant for the arrest of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney but I know of no incident in which the Senate has issued a warrant for the arrest of the President of the United States. Lincoln's biographer's have notoriously omitted the incident involving Taney but you can find an authoritative account at: Lincoln Crossing the Rubicon.

If the Senate sent Federal Marshalls to the White House, would Bush's secret service officers bar them from entering? Dick Cheney, as I recall, has already turned away process servers and threatened them with arrest if they persisted.

We are rapidly running out of options short of revolution or armed insurrection. Some may have seen my article on OpEd News in which I advocated Ted Rall's idea of a "national recall". But that requires a Constitutional amendment. We don't have that kind of time.

I wrote another article supporting the invocation of Article 5 of the Constitution which provides for the creation of a new National Convention upon a petition by a specified number of state houses. As the late Sen. Sam Irvin said, a new national convention could literally rewrite the constitution, and, in this case, undo the harm done to it by Bush. But again —should such a convention literally write Bush and his cabal out of a job, who would enforce it? Rumsfeld will simply ring the White House with tanks. Washington will look like Tiananmen Square.

A new "government" citing such a new charter would be rounded up —possibly shot even though their every action would be in accordance with the provisions of Article 5 of the current Constitution.

We are approaching a dramatic showdown not unlike the Supreme Court order that Nixon release the tapes of his White House conversations. The nation held its breath. Would Nixon refuse? Who would enforce an order of the Supreme Court?

It is my belief that we might yet save the republic. But, if Bush has already crossed the Rubicon, we might not know it until he refuses to leave the White House. If that is the case, it will already be too late to impeach —and sadly, we won't know that until the impeachment resolution is passed. The alternative to success, however, is too terrible to contemplate. As Billie Holiday said "God bless the Child that's got his own".

As Ed Murrow would say: "Good night —and good luck"! We're gonna need all we can get.

Hayden CIA bid hinges on spying role: senators

By Peter Szekely

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden's chances of winning Senate confirmation to head the CIA depend on how he explains his involvement in eavesdropping and data collection programs, two key senators said on Sunday.

President George W. Bush's nominee for CIA director can expect tough questions this week about his role in the administration's controversial domestic spying program while he was head of the National Security Agency.

"There's no question that his confirmation is going to depend upon the answers he gives regarding activities of NSA," said Sen. Chuck Hagel, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee whom Hayden will face on Thursday. ...
Here's a breaking update:

NSA Whistleblower To Expose More Unlawful Activity: 'People Are Going To Be Shocked'

CongressDaily reports that former NSA staffer Russell Tice will testify to the Senate Armed Services Committee next week that not only do employees at the agency believe the activities they are being asked to perform are unlawful, but that what has been disclosed so far is only the tip of the iceberg. Tice will tell Congress that former NSA head Gen. Michael Hayden, Bush's nominee to be the next CIA director, oversaw more illegal activity that has yet to be disclosed:

A former intelligence officer for the National Security Agency said Thursday he plans to tell Senate staffers next week that unlawful activity occurred at the agency under the supervision of Gen. Michael Hayden beyond what has been publicly reported, while hinting that it might have involved the illegal use of space-based satellites and systems to spy on U.S. citizens.

[Tice] said he plans to tell the committee staffers the NSA conducted illegal and unconstitutional surveillance of U.S. citizens while he was there with the knowledge of Hayden. "I think the people I talk to next week are going to be shocked when I tell them what I have to tell them. It's pretty hard to believe," Tice said. "I hope that they'll clean up the abuses and have some oversight into these programs, which doesn't exist right now."

Tice said his information is different from the Terrorist Surveillance Program that Bush acknowledged in December and from news accounts this week that the NSA has been secretly collecting phone call records of millions of Americans. "It's an angle that you haven't heard about yet," he said. He would not discuss with a reporter the details of his allegations, saying doing so would compromise classified information and put him at risk of going to jail. He said he "will not confirm or deny" if his allegations involve the illegal use of space systems and satellites.

Tice has a history for blowing the whistle on serious misconduct. He was one of the sources that revealed the administration's warrantless domestic spying program to the New York Times.

'Toons by Dante Lee; use only with permission

HOME

14 comments:

Unknown said...

fuzzflash, I don't remember who said it but someone, somewhere said that if nothing is worth dying for then nothing is worth living for.

Unfortunately, American society is living off the sacrifices of previous generations but with no appreciation of them, no sense of obligation or duty.

You would think that an asshole like Michael Hayden would — AT THE VERY LEAST —read that "....goddamned piece of paper" before shooting off his stupid mouth!

With his ignorant comments, I lost all respect for the American military. What the hell do they teach at West Point?

daveawayfromhome said...

While Rumsfeld can certainly ring the White House with tanks, then what. After a few more years of lowered admission standards (and driving out of principled officers) we might have a Mexican-style military to go with the Mexican-style social system that BushCo would apparently love to see instituted here, but for now I dont see the majority of the Military going along with any coup that Lord Bush might attempt to pull.
And if he wants to barricade himself in the White House? Let him. Neither the building nor the people in it are absolutely necessary to run the country, and maybe if we cut off (or imply ignore) the head, the rest of the body will discover that they know what to do anyway.
Use 9/11 and the responses of ordinary Americans as a guide to know that Dubya going over the edge might be the best (and possibly only) way to wake up the American People. After all, the failure at NOLA during Katrina was not that of ordinary citizens or volunteers, it was a failure (or deliberate sabotage) of administration at the highest levels.

One thing for sure, Dubya wont go quietly. His crimes are greater than Nixon's, and he's got the recent example of Silvio Berlusconi to guide him.
Plus, he's an arrogant, self-satisfied prick, surrounded by more of the same.
At the very least, those stories BushCo staffers told of the departing Clintonites trashing the White House really will be true this time.

Two things that do nag at me a bit. 1) What is the percentage of blue state Nat'l Guard units overseas vs. red state? and 2) How much military equipment do the various Nat'l Guard units in the states have left here vs. how much equipment the Regulars have left?
Or are those questions a little too tin-hat?

daveawayfromhome said...

"simply ignore"

daveawayfromhome said...

Or maybe California or Illinois will succeed where the K-street tools in Washington "fail".

Will Divide said...

The military has a lot more friends in congress - where the money comes from - than it does in Rumsfeld's office. Generals are, for the most part, very smart and decent individuals who took a pledge when they enlisted to uphold the constitution.

If Murtha is right, and I think he is, then most of Army command wants those clowns in the Executive branch to stand down. Any tanks around the White House will be pointed in, not out.

Shimmy said...

I asked Rumsfeld to figure out a problem for me: who kills more life on earth, the Bush Administration or avian flu?

His conclusion: "I believe what I said yesterday. I don't know what I said. But I know what I think. And, well, I assume it's what I said."

Anonymous said...

I wonder how the NSA would handle it if Americans started making frivolous phone calls as a protest of their illegal spying efforts? Let's see, if just half of the country's 295 million people made 5 extra phone calls a day, that would be an extra 487 million entries in their database everyday. A small effort for quite a bold statement, perhaps.

Stephen Neitzke said...

Len --

The problem you pose, Bush-Cheney refusing to vacate after impeachment and removal, seems to me to be a "political realm" problem. The short answer is, yes, he could get away with it. Maybe even just declare his absolute despotism.

Point is, we've collectively treated his unconstitutionalities, felonies, and treasons as politics-as-usual for so long, that we've utterly lost track of how things will change when we toss his fascist self into the legal realm.

Impeach and removal are political realm things. Felony conviction is a legal realm thing.

There is no politics-as-usual for a convicted felon sentenced to prison time or the death penalty. Can't happen, you say? Of course it can.

We need an impeachment and removal Congress out of Election 2006, with enough Independents and Democrats to quickly overturn vetoes. Horrendous hurdles, but it's logically possible.

We make clear during the campaign that one of the first jobs of that Congress is to give us a Special Prosecutor who can cut through the DOJ's obstruction of justice like a great big razor. Bush will veto the legislation. No problem, if we've done our jobs.

We turn the Special Prosecutor loose on a number of Bush-Cheney, 18 USC 241 felony conspiracies against rights.

Bush v. Gore led to a wide conspiracy to deny the American people the right to a president elected in accord with the Constitution. It lead, not to a lawful presidency, but to an unconstitutional anti-law regime that is still with us today. Everything done by Bush-Cheney under color of law has been unconstitutional, felonious, and treasonous (per the findings for treason in the case of the 1860s seccessionist state legislators). Convicted co-conspirators in this 18 USC 241 felony conspiracy against rights can be sentenced to fines and up to 10 years in federal prison.

Congress' October 2002 votes to give Bush the war powers to invade Iraq were unconstitutional, felonious, and treasonous. Only Congress has war powers in the Constitution. Nothing in the Constitution says that any branch can give away any specifically assigned power.

Congress' votes led to the very wide felony conspiracy to violate our soldiers' rights to be sent to war only on the expressed order of Congress. Convicted co-conspirators here face stiffer penalties under 18 USC 241, because the rights violation resulted in deaths and maiming. Convicted co-conspirators can get fines, life imprisonment, or the death penalty. Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld are my candidates for the death penalty.

Let's see him refuse that sentence. The full force of the national machinery would turn on him and crush him.

Needless to say, Bush-Cheney and minions are up to their eyeballs in many other 18 USC 241 felony conspiracies. Torture-murder of POWs. Sitting on the Enron tapes for a couple years while the Republican party arranged for the California governor to be recalled and replaced with a Ken Lay, Republifascist buddy. Invasion of personal privacy with warrantless wiretaps and the massive NSA snoopers database. Just to name a few.

We need impeachment and removal actions. But we also need felony prosecutions and convictions.

If nothing works, if Bush-Cheney pull power-plays despite politica and law -- we'll fight.

Not too complicated.

Unknown said...

Re: Stephen: The short answer is, yes, he could get away with it. Maybe even just declare his absolute despotism.

And that's scares me. Nixon might have tried it but was restrained by his own party. I suspect that young Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al remember the fateful evening that the GOP told Nixon it was time for him to go. But those then young GOPPERS learned all the wrong lessons from Watergate.

[Bush v Gore]It lead, not to a lawful presidency, but to an unconstitutional anti-law regime that is still with us today.

An untenable situation.

Felony conviction is a legal realm thing. We turn the Special Prosecutor loose on a number of Bush-Cheney, 18 USC 241 felony conspiracies against rights. ...Congress' votes led to the very wide felony conspiracy to violate our soldiers' rights to be sent to war only on the expressed order of Congress. Convicted co-conspirators here face stiffer penalties under 18 USC 241

That's why impeachment alone is not enough. When this gang is removed, prosecutions on a variety of charges should proceed. I am not in a forgiving mood. Ford let Nixon off.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Stephen and Len. I'd very much like to see more analysis from both of you as events proceed on the aspect of criminal sanctions. I am particularly concerned about Bush Presidential pardons for Libby, Rove, Cunningham, Abrahamoff (and the rest). Any ideas on how to legally defeat a presidential pardon?

I am also a bit uncertain about the popular response to attempts by Bush (eg pardons) to brazen things out. The concern here is that the nation as a whole may wish to register their displeasure at the Bush admin by removing them - or at least putting in Dems in 2006 - but may lack the will or the outrage for multiple impeachments and more serious criminal sanctions.

Much as I applaud and support your efforts in this regard Len, I am also concerned about the US public mindset against charges in relation to war crimes or crimes against humanity. As you know, the GOP base has never been a big fan of international criticism and certainly not the international courts.

Cheers.

Stephen Neitzke said...

damien --

I've done quite a lot of thinking about a renewal of our Constitution. I think Len might be working up one of my pieces on renewal objectives and how we might get there, so I'll beg off the details for now. However, my basic plan is to get into the 2nd NCC (nat'l constitutional convention) with tools for interaction between delegates and their statwide constituencies, committees and their regional or national constituencies, and the convention-as-a-whole and the national constituency.

Out of this interaction, it is reasonable to expect that our many citizen experts groups will have positive effects in the re-writing of the 1780s super-vague provisions and the writing of new specifics that will handle a number of problem areas.

Problem areas of particular concern to me are Executive Orders and Presidential PArdons. These are both 18th Century devices to elevate the class-race elites above the law piecemeal and to protect them from the wrath of the contemptible rabble. We need to eliminate or severely restrict both of those devices. Nothing short of a Constitutional renewal will do the job.

Nixon's pardon by quarter-brained Ford left a large, livid scar -- on me and on most other Americans alive and politically aware at the time.

For now, there is no way to defeat a presidential pardon. If we get whipped, we get whipped. Doesn't mean that we have to give up looking for ways to punish the criminal (unfortunately, we gave up looking for ways to punish Nixon). It just means that we got whipped in that particular case.
We're much less likely now, I think, to give the benefit of the doubt to constitutional criminals and those who commit felony and treason against the nation. The Bush-Cheney Illegitimacy's moral, financial, and legal bankrupting of our nation has hardened the hearts of those of us who are outside their servile base.

Many of us here are deeply concerned about international community thinking. I don't know that any personal sense of guilt is attached to Bush's war of aggression in Iraq. Perhaps there is among some of our combat veterans. But there is definitely a wide sense of national guilt. Speaking for those of us who are boomers and beyond, the national guilt is very difficult to live with. Personally, I am ashamed of my nation. We've had a hundred years of warnings that the Constitution's political dynamic of pure rep govt maximizes corruption and unconstitutionalities. Collectively, we've known for at least a hundred years that co-equal branches of rep govt cannot check and balance themselves against predator elitism's collusions.

With even a cursory look into political philosophy, we would have noticed that Aristotle warned us over 2300 years ago that the people must not be overreached, that only the people can check elitist govt, that the encroachments of the rich are more destructive to the constitution than the encroachments of the people.

I'm trying to sell the notion that citizen action groups should be organizing nationwide to handle the dual-party, three branch, Bush-Cheney proto-despotism. If I have my druthers, there will be no displeasure in little bitty baby half-steps -- as concerns you and your associates.

If I have my druthers, there will be mass impeachments, and mass criminal prosecutions, both arguing for the strongest possible conclusions. Leaders and powerful individuals in all three branches of national government, ditto in many state governments, are plainly guilty of felony and treason.

I argue that the rule of law and our Constitutional law and statutes are all we need for the legal handling of felons and traitors. I also argue that the punishment should fit the crime as is the American jurisprudence tradition.

My sentiments do not have much traction right now. But as the Bush-Cheney crimes worsen, and they will, voices like mine and Len's might easily be taken up by many more American patriots.

Good luck to us all.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Stephen for your helpful views. Anything less than full criminal sanctions for the Bush cabal will be a tragedy for your nation.

We have a parliamentary democracy here in Australia and it is not well understood that in our own system parliament's legislative powers are so supreme that they can even function as a court overturning judicial decisions or making new ones. It's all a bit of a hangover from Cromwell, Charles 2 etc. But at least those rarely used powers are vested in an elected parliament not a presidency which in the US looks more and more like an elected royalty. You've got a bad deal happening there and I wish you well.

On the matter of crime and shame I have my own outrage where my country has produced modern day sepoys for Bush to use in Afghanistan and Iraq. Our PM John Howard is right now receiving fulsome welcome in the US by Bush and Cheney for his unflinching support. To this day he sees himself as an honourable man, but he is an uncritical and supine fool. He ate the falsehood of Iraq WMDs completely even though our own weapons inspectors were telling him otherwise. And don't get me started on his support for the murderous Iraq economic sanctions. (What is it with these tin pot, parochial leaders? They win a few votes and go on to prance like Napoleon, invest themselves with a wisdom they never possessed and find comfortable reasons for the murder of innocents. Too stupid and vicious for words.)

Keep up your good work, and my best wishes for your struggle. Readers may enjoy some more of your good ideas here

Anonymous said...

Russell Tice had this to say about the current NSA intelligence scandal:

“What [the American people] know about is Hiroshima,” he says. “What I’m going to tell you about is Nagasaki. I’m going to tell you about three Nagasakis.” He is gagged, however, by the non-disclosure agreement he signed before becoming privy to top-secret government activities.

Let's hope he gets the Congressional Committee hearing that he is pressing for.

hardiansyah said...

yeaa... Wonderful comments. I wait to see what evolves. Let the impeachment proceeding begin. Go, Feingold! Maybe the Dems will actuallt support him this time....