Self-Impeachment by Signing Statement

Self-Impeachment By Signing Statement

By David Swanson

Created Apr 5 2007 - 9:48am

Imagine a president who violates numerous laws that predate his presidency.

Imagine that Congress redundantly and repeatedly re-bans that criminal

behavior. Imagine a president who repeatedly throws out the new bans with

signing statements and continues to violate the same laws. This is the heart

of the matter of the Bush "signing statements." It is an unprecedented use

of signing statements. And it is something that too many of us are unaware

of and too many others aware of but apparently unwilling to face.

Borrowing heavily from various authors and lawyers, I've drafted the nine

articles of impeachment of George W. Bush and the six articles of

impeachment of Richard B. Cheney that are found at the bottom of this

article. I am not a lawyer or a politician, but merely an offended American.

My intent here is to select the offenses that most threaten our democratic

system of government. I am offended most of all by one of the offenses

mentioned below in Article V for the impeachment of Bush and in Article IV

for the impeachment of Cheney. This offense is, if anything ever can be, a

public declaration of impeachability. And it is by its very nature public,

which puts the lie to the idea that further investigation is needed prior to

impeachment hearings.

The U.S. Constitution requires that the president "take care that the laws

be faithfully executed." And, as we all learned in elementary school, the

Constitution also sets forth the manner in which a bill can become a law. In

fact, elementary schools continue to teach this today, as if it were still

accurate. Article I, Section 7, of the Constitution says that "every bill

which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall,

before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States;

if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his

objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter

the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If

after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the

bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by

which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of

that House, it shall become a law."

The reality has now become this: Every bill which shall have passed the

House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be

presented to the President of the United States; he shall sign the bill in

the presence of select members of the House of Representatives, Senate, and

the media; during the next convenient holiday weekend he shall quietly

rewrite the law with a signing statement. Congress can neither override a

signing statement nor challenge it in court; but courts can cite signing

statements in their opinions as though they have the force of law, which

they do.

Signing statements are not new. James Monroe wrote the first one. But they

were rare until Ronald Reagan's presidency. The 322 pre-George W. Bush

signing statements challenged, by one count, some 600 provisions of law. In

most cases these challenges were not declarations of the right to violate

the law. When President Clinton used a signing statement to announce his

belief that it was unconstitutional to discharge members of the military for

testing positive for HIV, he instructed his Attorney General not to defend

the law if it were challenged, but also made clear that he would enforce the

law as long as it remained on the books. Clinton's lawyers expressed the

view that a President could not refuse to enforce a law until the Supreme

Court had ruled against it.

In striking contrast, Bush's lawyers have maintained that the President can

refuse to enforce a law until the Supreme Court rules in favor of it. Deputy

Assistant Attorney General John Elwood made this claim under oath before the

House Judiciary Committee this past February.

By the count of a lawyer who has studied the matter in detail, Bush has used

147 signing statements to challenge over 1,140 provisions in about 150

federal bills. But where Bush has truly broken new ground is in the types of

provisions he has challenged and the way in which he has challenged them.

First, Bush has violated numerous laws that predate his presidency. To take

just two examples of many, he has spied in violation of the Fourth Amendment

and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and tortured in violation of

the Eighth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, federal statutory law, the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention Against Torture, the

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Inter-American

Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man, and the Third and Fourth Geneva

Conventions. In the case of the spying, Bush lied about it for years, got

caught, confessed, and continued spying. In the case of torture, the White

House has developed papers claiming the right to do so, and continues to do

so in the face of global outrage.

Second, Congress has passed bills redundantly criminalizing Bush and

Cheney's criminal activities. In several cases it has done so more than once

in an apparent effort to make the law stick through repetition. Congress has

banned torture twice during the Bush presidency. And Congress has banned the

use of funds for illegal spying programs twice during the Bush presidency.

Third, Bush has thrown out the new bans on his criminal behavior through the

use of signing statements. In the case of the funds for illegal spying, see

the signing statements Bush wrote after signing the Defense Appropriations

Bills for 2005 and 2006.

Congress said: "None of the funds provided in this Act shall be available

for integration of foreign intelligence information unless the information

has been lawfully collected and processed during the conduct of authorized

foreign intelligence activities: Provided, That information pertaining to

United States persons shall only be handled in accordance with protections

provided in the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution as

implemented through Executive Order No. 12333."

Bush said: "Also, the executive branch shall construe section 8124, relating

to integration of foreign intelligence information, in a manner consistent

with the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief,

including for the conduct of intelligence operations, and to supervise the

unitary executive branch."

That may sound like gibberish, but at least 143 times in 147 signing

statements, Bush claims the power of a fictional being he and Cheney's

lawyers invented, the "unitary executive." This creature does not exist in

the Constitution, but is worthy of notice because he claims absolute power,

a substance well known to corrupt absolutely.

In the case of torture, the first Detainee Treatment Act was contained in

H.R. 2863, the "Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations

to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act,

2006." That bill was signed on December 5, 2005, and is now Public Law

109-148. The second Detainee Treatment Act was part of H.R. 1815, the

"National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006." That bill was

signed on January 6, 2006, and is now Public Law 109-163. The second of

these is better known and included the McCain Amendment banning all torture.

Bush (and more so Cheney) had been lobbying against the torture ban, but

publicly admitted defeat and signed the bill. Over New Year's weekend, the

White House quietly posted a signing statement on its website, and the

Boston Globe reported on it. Senator John McCain, having won a very public

contest to ban torture, said little about Bush's quiet reversal of the

outcome. McCain limited himself to issuing a joint statement with Senator

John Warner which read in its entirety:

"We believe the President understands Congress's intent in passing by very

large majorities legislation governing the treatment of detainees included

in the 2006 Department of Defense Appropriations and Authorization bills.

The Congress declined when asked by administration officials to include a

presidential waiver of the restrictions included in our legislation. Our

Committee intends through strict oversight to monitor the Administration's

implementation of the new law."

Fourth, Bush has continued to engage in the same criminal behavior. Bush

continued the illegal spying following his signing statements, and has

continued to torture. The evidence of torture, including torture to the

point of murder, is extensive and is added to on almost a daily basis.

The four steps above present a pattern unknown in previous presidencies. Had

it been known in previous presidencies, we would refer to them as previous

dictatorships.

And this pattern is by no means limited to the two prominent examples I've

mentioned. Bush has both announced his right to disobey laws and actually

disobeyed those laws on many occasions that we know about. In many cases we

have no way of knowing whether he is acting on his announced intention to

disobey laws. In other cases we know that he has obeyed laws despite

announcing his right to disobey them. In these cases we have no way of

knowing why Bush is obeying the laws, and the reason may have more to do

with bureaucratic inertia than respect for the rule of law.

Without attempting a comprehensive overview, let's just briefly list some of

the other signing statements that should offend every American who imagines

this to be a nation of laws.

Four times Bush has used signing statements to overturn a ban on using U.S.

troops to combat rebels in Colombia. Twice Bush has thrown out a ban on

using in military intelligence materials gathered in violation of the Fourth

Amendment. Twice Bush has brushed aside the creation of an Inspector General

in Iraq to report directly to Congress, requiring instead that he or she

report to the executive branch. At least nine times, Bush has rejected

affirmative action requirements (despite the Supreme Court having already

ruled on the issue). Several times Bush has signed into law and then tossed

out requirements that information be provided to Congress, including

information on spying programs.

Now, Congress often repeats itself, especially in funding bills that it

passes on an annual basis. But, one has to wonder: why this amount of

repetition? Is Congress hoping that Bush will allow it to create a law if it

does so a second time or a third time? It took Bush five and a half years

before he issued his first veto. And Congress Members for much of that time

may have imagined that they were creating laws. But it's been a year now

since the scope of Bush's signing statements became a news story. Congress

has held hearings and introduced at least one bill to address the matter.

Every Congress Member knows what's going on. So, why the repetition? Once

you've passed a bill and Bush has thrown it out, if you aren't going to

impeach him, why not spend less time passing that provision again and more

time golfing or reading?

One reason may be theater and a presumption of public ignorance. The

Democratic leadership in the House sought public credit and support for

including yet another ban on torture in its recent Supplemental spending

bill, a bill that primarily provides Bush and Cheney with money for war,

some of which will no doubt be used for torture. In November of 2003, Bush

threw out with a signing statement limitations on the use of troops in Iraq

who were not rested and ready, limitations passed by Congress in the

National Defense Authorization Act that year. Yet the Democrats made similar

limitations a central focus of their new Supplemental. But, in a move that

seemed to advertise their awareness of Bush's disregard for the law, they

stipulated that Bush can waive those limitations by publicly signing a

waiver. This, they presumably thought, would make a better spectacle - and

perhaps more than one spectacle - than a single vague legalistic signing

statement posted on a website on a Friday night.

What else has Bush undone unconstitutionally? Well, he's thrown out a

requirement to report to Congress when money from regular appropriations is

diverted to secret operations - such as black sites. So, now he can torture

and pay for it. He's eliminated a requirement to make background checks of

civilian contractors (including mercenaries)in Iraq. He's also erased a ban

on using said contractors to perform security, law enforcement,

intelligence, and criminal justice functions. And, in a somewhat well-known

case, Bush has signing-statemented away a requirement to report back to

Congress on the use of PATRIOT Act authority to secretly search and seize.

Richard Nixon's lawyer John Dean had this to say:

"As readers will recall, in early 2006, Congress reauthorized the

controversial USA Patriot Act. Previously, [Republican Senator Arlen

Specter], as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, had negotiated with

[Attorney General Alberto] Gonzales in good faith over reauthorization. They

agreed that Specter would approve reauthorization - but only on condition

that there would be more stringent oversight of the law's application by

Congress. Yet on March 6, 2006, after Congress reauthorized the Act, Bush

issued a signing statement that boldly betrayed that agreement.

"So at the January 18th hearing, Senator Specter asked the Attorney General

to explain the betrayal of their agreement. He pointed out that the

agreement was that Congress would have 'additional safeguards on oversight.'

And he noted that, nevertheless, the President's signing statement 'reserved

what he calls his right to disregard those oversight provisions.' He then

asked Gonzales, 'In a context where the chairman of the committee and the

attorney general negotiate an arrangement, is it appropriate for the

president to put a signing statement which negates the oversight which had

been bargained for, which has been bargained for?'

"Gonzales simply cited the legal proposition that 'a signing statement

cannot give to the president any authority that he doesn't already have

under the Constitution.' But Specter responded adeptly that 'if [the

President] thinks those provisions inappropriately take away his

constitutional authority and the Act's unconstitutional, then he ought to

veto it. Or at least not to bargain it away.' Gonzales had little to say in

response, except to reiterate that the President wanted the Act

reauthorized, and had the power not to honor the deal Gonzales had made.

"This kind of practice might be common on used car lots, but should not be

common in our government."

Well, at least that's the worst of it, right? Bush hasn't used signing

statements to pull any other fast ones, has he? Well, only if we overlook

his eliminating a requirement that government scientists transmit findings

to Congress uncensored. Only if we pay no attention to his blocking the

creation of an educational research institute to report directly to Congress

on the state of our schools (Bush chose to have it report to his Department

of Education).

Numerous times, Bush has tossed out requirements not to punish

whistleblowers. Who knows what crimes we've not yet heard about? But we've

heard about the signing statements. They're posted on the White House

website.

To some extent, over the past year, the media have caught on. When, for

Christmas 2006, Bush bestowed upon himself the right to read anyone's

private mail, the story was widely reported. Senator Russ Feingold [D.,

Wisc.] wrote Bush a letter asking: "[H]as your administration authorized any

government agency to read Americans' first-class mail without obtaining a

search warrant, complying with the applicable court order requirements of

the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or satisfying Postal Service

regulations?" As far as I know, Bush has never replied. The right to read

anyone's mail was one of the rights claimed early on by Adolph Hitler.

Also in December of 2006, Bush signed an agreement on nuclear weapons

approved by Congress following long negotiations with the White House and

with India. Then Bush issued a signing statement announcing his lack of

commitment to nine major sections of the agreement including those aimed at

countering nuclear proliferation. Congress may not have noticed, but India

seems to have. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh issued a similar

statement explaining which parts of the agreement he would feel free to

ignore.

Is this starting to look troubling?

The Congressional Research Service calls Bush's use of signing statements

"an integral part" of his "comprehensive strategy to strengthen and expand

executive power," adding that the "broad and persistent nature of the claims

of executive authority forwarded by President Bush appear designed to inure

Congress, as well as others, to the belief that the president in fact

possesses expansive and exclusive powers upon which the other branches may

not intrude."

The American Bar Association "opposes, as contrary to the rule of law and

our constitutional system of separation of powers, the misuse of

presidential signing statements."

The bipartisan Constitution Project's Coalition to Defend Checks and

Balances has stated: "We are former government officials and judges,

scholars, and other Americans who are deeply concerned about the risk of

permanent and unchecked presidential power, and the accompanying failure of

Congress to exercise its responsibility as a separate and independent branch

of government." Associated attorneys released a report called "Presidential

Signing Statements - Will Congress Pick Up the Gauntlet?"

Republican Senator Arlen Specter calls Bush's signing statements "a very

blatant encroachment" on Congress' power to legislate.

Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy calls them "a grave threat to our

Constitutional system of checks and balances."

And yet, what is being done about it?

Blogger Glenn Greenwald comments: "The signing statement has always been

controversial, but the way that it began was simply as a tool for the

Executive branch to go on record saying this is how we understand this law.

Then, if there was a dispute about what a law meant, and it went to the

Supreme Court, the Executive branch had a way, like Congress does, of saying

this is what we understand the law to mean. It has been completely distorted

by this Administration. It isn't used to say, this is what we understand the

law to mean. It's used to say, we do not have to abide by these parts of the

law because we have the power to break these parts of the law.

"Why hasn't the press informed American citizens of the fact that the

government is doing that? I actually believe the real reason is that what

the Bush Administration is doing is so extreme, so radical, that people in

the media don't really believe they're seriously claiming the right to break

the law. That's the only thing I can think of as to why this story isn't

getting more attention.

"They've made the same argument in Supreme Court cases and other court

cases, claiming the right of the President to act in violation of the law.

This ought to be the first and most significant controversy discussed by the

media, and yet it's barely discussed at all. I think the reporters simply

don't realize how serious of a crisis it is. They just don't believe that

it's really happening."

And yet it penetrates every issue that the press does cover. Senator Jim

Webb said he was introducing his bill to require that Bush get Congressional

approval before attacking Iran because of the beliefs expressed in his

signing statement following Congress' authorization to use force in Iraq:

"I believe," Webb said, "the American people will welcome this legislation.

This Administration has used force recklessly, choosing the military option

again and again while never matching the quality of our military's

performance with robust, creative diplomacy. Furthermore, the President's

'signing statement' accompanying the 2002 congressional resolution

authorizing the use of force in Iraq indicates that this Administration

believes it possesses the broadest imaginable authority to commence military

action without the consent of the Congress.

"In signing the 2002 Iraq resolution, the President denied that the Congress

has the power to affect his decisions when it comes to the use of our

military. He shrugged off this resolution, stating that on the question of

the threat posed by Iraq, his views and those of the Congress merely

happened to be the same. He characterized the resolution as simply a gesture

of additional support, rather than as having any legitimate authority. He

stated, "my signing this resolution does not constitute any change in ...

the President's constitutional authority to use force to deter, prevent, or

respond to aggression or other threats to U.S. interests..."

"This is a sweeping assertion of powers that leaves out virtually nothing.

It is a far different matter than repelling an immediate attack, or

conducting a war that has been authorized by the Congress. Let's just match

up a couple of these words. The President is saying, for instance, that he

possesses the authority to use force to "deter ... threats to U.S.

interests." How do you use force to "deter" a threat, rather than preventing

or responding to it? And what kind of "U.S. interest" is worthy of the use

of force? And, most importantly, how do these vague terms fit into the

historically accepted notions of a Commander in Chief's power to repel

attacks, or to conduct military operations once they have been approved by

the Congress?

"Mr. President, during our recent hearings on the Senate Foreign Relations

Committee, I asked both the Secretary of State and the Deputy Secretary of

State for clarification of this paragraph in the President's signing

statement. My question was whether this Administration believes it has the

authority to conduct unilateral military operations against Iran in the

absence of a direct attack or a compelling, immediate threat without the

consent of the Congress. Both wrote me lengthy letters in reply, but neither

could give me a clear responses. The situation that we now face is that the

Administration repeatedly states that it seeks no war with Iran, at the same

time it claims the authority to begin one, and at the same time it continues

a military buildup in the region."

Isn't that news?

But it's only news if we step away from the pretense that nothing is out of

the ordinary, the pretense that fascism cannot happen here. Yet, we are

slipping through this pretense into a gradual normalizing and acceptance of

the doctrine of the unitary executive. And justices appointed by that

unitary executive are beginning to mention signing statements in their

decisions and dissents.

The only way we will stop this is through education, activism, and

impeachment. Bush's signing statements are here:

http://www.coherentbabble.com/signingstatements/TOCindex.htm [1]

The impeachment movement is here: http://www.impeach07.org [2]

Join us in Crawford, Texas, this Friday night for a people's impeachment

hearing. Take part in impeachment events everywhere on April 28th.

It's time to get tough on crime!

___________

Articles of Impeachment for President George W. Bush and Vice President

Richard B. Cheney for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Resolved, that President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard B. Cheney

be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following

articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:

Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the

United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the

United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment

against President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard B. Cheney for

high crimes and misdemeanors.

GEORGE W. BUSH:

Article I

In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in

violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of

President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve,

protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation

of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully

executed, has conspired to exceed his constitutional authority to wage war,

in that:

George W. Bush has violated the U.N. Charter, Article 2, paragraph 4, by

threatening the use of force against the territorial integrity and political

independence of Iran. Bush's threat of force against Iran has included the

possibility of nuclear force. Bush has secretly supported preliminary acts

of war within Iran with neither approval from nor funding by Congress.

Bush has initiated the development of new nuclear weapons, in violation of

the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Article VI of the United States

Constitution makes the U.N. Charter and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

the law of the land.

These violations of the law pose a grave threat to the national security of

the United States. Wherefore George W. Bush, by such conduct, warrants

impeachment and trial.

Article II

In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in

violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of

President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve,

protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation

of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully

executed, has conspired to exceed his constitutional authority to wage war,

in that:

George W. Bush has subverted the Constitution, its guarantee of a republican

form of government, and the constitutional separation of powers by

undermining the rightful authority of Congress to declare war, oversee

foreign affairs, and make appropriations. He did so by justifying a war with

false and misleading statements and deceived the people of the United States

as well as Congress. He denied the electorate the right to make an informed

choice and thereby undermined democracy.

George W. Bush also committed fraud against the United States by lying to

and intentionally misleading Congress about the reasons for the Iraq war.

George W. Bush also misappropriated funds with which to conduct the

preliminary stages of this war, prior to receiving any funding or any form

of authorization from Congress.

George W. Bush, in violation of the United Nations Charter, which is the law

of the land under the U.S. Constitution, Article VI, launched an aggressive

war neither in self-defense nor under authorization of the UN Security

Council.

George W. Bush acted contrary to his trust as president, and subverted the

constitutional government to the prejudice of law and justice and the

manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore George W.

Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial.

Article III

In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in

violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of

President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve,

protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation

of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully

executed, has allowed the U.S. military to violate treaties to which the

United States is party and has failed to investigate and prosecute

high-level officials responsible for these abuse.

These violations include the targeting of civilians, journalists, and

medical personnel, and the illegal use of a variety of weapons, including:

-Land mines, used in Afghanistan and Iraq in violation of Geneva Conventions

Protocol I, Article 85, and Protocol II of the Convention on Certain

Conventional Weapons;

-Cluster bombs, used in Afghanistan and Iraq in violation of Geneva

Conventions Protocol I, Article 85, and Protocol I of the Convention on

Certain Conventional Weapons;

-Depleted uranium munitions, used in Afghanistan and Iraq in violation of

Geneva Conventions Protocol 1, Articles 35.2, 35.3, 48 and 55.1;

-Napalm or Mark 77 Firebomb, used in Iraq in violation of the Chemical

Weapons Convention, Article II.1.b;

-White phosphorous, which Defense Department spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel

Barry Venable confirmed on November 15, 2005 was deployed "as an incendiary

weapon'' in urban areas of Fallujah, Iraq, where there were high

concentrations of civilians, during Operation Phantom Fury (November

2004-January 2005), making the said deployment of white phosphorous a

violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, Article II.1.b;

-BLU-82B/C-130 "daisy cutter'' bombs, used in Afghanistan in violation of

Geneva Conventions Protocol I, Articles 35, 48, 51 and 55.

Wherefore George W. Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial.

Article IV

In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in

violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of

President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve,

protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation

of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully

executed, has directed or authorized the National Security Agency and

various other agencies within the intelligence community to conduct

electronic surveillance outside of the statutes Congress has prescribed as

the exclusive means for such surveillance, and to use such information for

purposes unknown but unrelated to any lawful function of his office; he has

also concealed the existence of this unlawful program of electronic

surveillance from Congress, the press, and the public. Wherefore George W.

Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial.

Article V

In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in

violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of

President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve,

protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation

of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully

executed, has arrogated excessive power to the executive branch in violation

of basic constitutional principles of the separation of powers.

George W. Bush has formally declared his intent to violate the laws enacted

by Congress by appending a "signing statement" to legislation, asserting his

right to carve out exceptions to legislation as he sees fit, thereby

arrogating to himself powers reserved solely to Congress. George W. Bush

has, in several instances, gone on to act on his self-declared right to

violate these laws. Wherefore George W. Bush, by such conduct, warrants

impeachment and trial.

Article VI

In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in

violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of

President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve,

protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation

of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully

executed, has violated the rights of citizens and non-citizens by

arbitrarily detaining them indefinitely inside and outside of the United

States, without due process, without charges, and with limited, if any,

access to counsel or courts.

George W. Bush has abused his power and failed to faithfully execute the

laws of the United States by allowing his administration to condone torture,

failing to investigate and prosecute high-level officials responsible for

torture, and officially refusing to accept the binding nature of a statutory

ban on cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

George W. Bush has offended our system of government by attempting to expand

his power at the expense of the other two branches of government. Wherefore

George W. Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial.

Article VII

In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in

violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of

President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve,

protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation

of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully

executed, has allowed his administration to fire United States Attorneys in

retaliation for the proper performance of their jobs when that performance

conflicted with the partisan interests of the President, and has failed to

investigate and prosecute high-level officials responsible for this abuse.

Wherefore George W. Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial.

Article VIII

In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in

violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of

President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve,

protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation

of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully

executed, has sought to mislead the people of the United States and the

Congress by hiding information without justification, selectively releasing

misleading pieces of information, funding misleading journalism, producing

misleading video reports falsely presented as independent journalism, using

the U.S. military to target journalists in Iraq, threatening officials with

retribution should they reveal information, and exacting retribution against

whistle blowers.

George W. Bush has abused his power and failed to faithfully execute the

laws of the United States by allowing his administration to reveal the

identity of a covert agent of the Central Intelligence Agency and the

front-group she worked for, and by failing to investigate and prosecute

high-level officials responsible for this security breach. Wherefore George

W. Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial.

Article IX

In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in

violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of

President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve,

protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation

of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully

executed, has failed to take reasonable steps to protect the City of New

Orleans from Hurricane Katrina, and intentionally misled the American people

regarding this failure. Wherefore George W. Bush, by such conduct, warrants

impeachment and trial.

__________

RICHARD B. CHENEY:

Article I

In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney,

in violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the

United States against all enemies foreign and domestic, has conspired to

exceed his constitutional authority to wage war, in that:

Richard B. Cheney has violated the U.N. Charter, Article 2, paragraph 4, by

threatening the use of force against the territorial integrity and political

independence of Iran. Richard B. Cheney's threat of force against Iran has

included the possibility of nuclear force. Article VI of the United States

Constitution makes the U.N. Charter the law of the land.

These violations of the law pose a grave threat to the national security of

the United States. Wherefore Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrants

impeachment and trial.

Article II

In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney,

in violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the

United States against all enemies foreign and domestic, has conspired to

exceed his constitutional authority to wage war, in that:

Richard B. Cheney has subverted the Constitution, its guarantee of a

republican form of government, and the constitutional separation of powers

by undermining the rightful authority of Congress to declare war, oversee

foreign affairs, and make appropriations. He did so by justifying a war with

false and misleading statements and deceived the people of the United States

as well as Congress. He denied the electorate the right to make an informed

choice and thereby undermined democracy.

Richard B. Cheney also committed fraud against the United States by lying to

and intentionally misleading Congress about the reasons for the Iraq war.

Cheney pressured intelligence services to produce false and misleading

reports, and Cheney used those reports to mislead the Congress and the

people of the United States.

Richard B. Cheney acted contrary to his trust as Vice President, and

subverted the constitutional government to the prejudice of law and justice

and the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore

Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial.

Article III

In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney,

in violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the

United States against all enemies foreign and domestic, has arrogated

excessive power to the executive branch in violation of basic constitutional

principles of the separation of powers.

Richard B. Cheney and his subordinates have advocated for a legal theory of

the "unitary executive" aimed at placing the President above the rule of

law. Wherefore Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and

trial.

Article IV

In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney,

in violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the

United States against all enemies foreign and domestic, has violated the

rights of citizens and non-citizens by arbitrarily detaining them

indefinitely inside and outside of the United States, without due process,

without charges, and with limited, if any, access to counsel or courts.

Richard B. Cheney has condoned torture, failed to investigate and prosecute

high-level officials responsible for torture, and officially refused to

accept the binding nature of a statutory ban on cruel, inhuman, or degrading

treatment or punishment.

Richard B. Cheney has offended our system of government by attempting to

expand executive power at the expense of the other two branches of

government. Wherefore Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrants

impeachment and trial.

Article V

In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney,

in violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the

United States against all enemies foreign and domestic, has sought to

mislead the people of the United States and the Congress by hiding

information without justification, selectively releasing misleading pieces

of information, threatening officials with retribution should they reveal

information, and exacting retribution against whistle blowers.

Richard B. Cheney has abused his power by conspiring to reveal the identity

of a covert agent of the Central Intelligence Agency and the front-group she

worked for. Wherefore Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrants

impeachment and trial.

Article VI

In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney,

in violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the

United States against all enemies foreign and domestic, has maintained an

improper and unethical relationship with his former employers at Halliburton

and has promoted its agenda and interests over those of the American people.

Richard B. Cheney has allowed a small group of corporate executives to plan

national policies in secret, and enacted policies that benefited a

corporation from which the Vice President financially profited.

(1) In January 2001, the vice president did oversee a secret task force

composed of corporate lobbyists and executives from the oil, gas, coal, and

nuclear-energy sector, known collectively as the National Energy Policy

Development Group, instructing them to meet regularly and develop the

nation's

energy policy.

(2) By conducting these meetings in secret, the vice president did endeavor

to impart influence to corporate interests without public knowledge,

eclipsing not only the oversight function of Congress generally but the

specific role of the energy committees in both the House of Representatives

and the Senate.

(3) During the course of these secret meetings, the vice president allowed

lobbyists representing the oil, coal, gas, and nuclear-energy industries to

compose, word-for-word, the national energy policy adopted by the Department

of Energy, in gross violation of the public trust and all ethical norms.

On March 25, 2002, and thereafter, the Vice President did willfully disobey

court orders to identify the members of the National Energy Policy

Development Group. In September 2002, and prior thereto, the Vice President

did also refuse requests by Representatives Henry Waxman and John Dingell,

as well as the Government Accountability Office, to release transcripts and

papers produced by the aforementioned group. Wherefore Richard B. Cheney, by

such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial.

_______

http://www.davidswanson.org [3]

--

NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not

always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material

available to advance understanding of

political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I

believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as

provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright

Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107

"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their

spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their

government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are

suffering deeply in spirit,

and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public

debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have

patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning

back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at

stake."

-Thomas Jefferson

On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 07:12:30 -0700, "Gandalf Grey"

<gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote:

>Self-Impeachment By Signing Statement

>

>By David Swanson

>Created Apr 5 2007 - 9:48am

>

>Imagine a president who violates numerous laws that predate his presidency.

Don't have to; he's in office right now.

>Imagine that Congress redundantly and repeatedly re-bans that criminal

>behavior.

Congress isn't opposing Bush in any serious way. Nancy Pelosi

and the Dems won congress mostly on the promise to end the war, and

then refused to unfund it, which was within their power to do so.

She's also recently taken language OUT of a bill that would have

prevented Bush from ordering any kind of strike against Iran without

the approval of congress. That's not opposition.

>Imagine a president who repeatedly throws out the new bans with

>signing statements and continues to violate the same laws.

An imaginary president imagining he has the authority to do

things he doesn't have the authority to do. There's a remarkably

consistent theme with everything about the Bush "presidency", and it's

fakery.

>This is the heart

>of the matter of the Bush "signing statements." It is an unprecedented use

>of signing statements. And it is something that too many of us are unaware

>of and too many others aware of but apparently unwilling to face.

>

>Borrowing heavily from various authors and lawyers, I've drafted the nine

>articles of impeachment of George W. Bush and the six articles of

>impeachment of Richard B. Cheney that are found at the bottom of this

>article. I am not a lawyer or a politician, but merely an offended American.

>My intent here is to select the offenses that most threaten our democratic

>system of government. I am offended most of all by one of the offenses

>mentioned below in Article V for the impeachment of Bush and in Article IV

>for the impeachment of Cheney. This offense is, if anything ever can be, a

>public declaration of impeachability. And it is by its very nature public,

>which puts the lie to the idea that further investigation is needed prior to

>impeachment hearings.

>

>The U.S. Constitution requires that the president "take care that the laws

>be faithfully executed." And, as we all learned in elementary school, the

>Constitution also sets forth the manner in which a bill can become a law. In

>fact, elementary schools continue to teach this today, as if it were still

>accurate. Article I, Section 7, of the Constitution says that "every bill

>which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall,

>before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States;

>if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his

>objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter

>the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If

>after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the

>bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by

>which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of

>that House, it shall become a law."

>

>The reality has now become this: Every bill which shall have passed the

>House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be

>presented to the President of the United States; he shall sign the bill in

>the presence of select members of the House of Representatives, Senate, and

>the media; during the next convenient holiday weekend he shall quietly

>rewrite the law with a signing statement. Congress can neither override a

>signing statement nor challenge it in court; but courts can cite signing

>statements in their opinions as though they have the force of law, which

>they do.

>

>Signing statements are not new. James Monroe wrote the first one. But they

>were rare until Ronald Reagan's presidency. The 322 pre-George W. Bush

>signing statements challenged, by one count, some 600 provisions of law. In

>most cases these challenges were not declarations of the right to violate

>the law. When President Clinton used a signing statement to announce his

>belief that it was unconstitutional to discharge members of the military for

>testing positive for HIV, he instructed his Attorney General not to defend

>the law if it were challenged, but also made clear that he would enforce the

>law as long as it remained on the books. Clinton's lawyers expressed the

>view that a President could not refuse to enforce a law until the Supreme

>Court had ruled against it.

>

>In striking contrast, Bush's lawyers have maintained that the President can

>refuse to enforce a law until the Supreme Court rules in favor of it. Deputy

>Assistant Attorney General John Elwood made this claim under oath before the

>House Judiciary Committee this past February.

>

>By the count of a lawyer who has studied the matter in detail, Bush has used

>147 signing statements to challenge over 1,140 provisions in about 150

>federal bills. But where Bush has truly broken new ground is in the types of

>provisions he has challenged and the way in which he has challenged them.

>

>First, Bush has violated numerous laws that predate his presidency. To take

>just two examples of many, he has spied in violation of the Fourth Amendment

>and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and tortured in violation of

>the Eighth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, federal statutory law, the

>Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention Against Torture, the

>International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Inter-American

>Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man, and the Third and Fourth Geneva

>Conventions. In the case of the spying, Bush lied about it for years, got

>caught, confessed, and continued spying. In the case of torture, the White

>House has developed papers claiming the right to do so, and continues to do

>so in the face of global outrage.

>

>Second, Congress has passed bills redundantly criminalizing Bush and

>Cheney's criminal activities. In several cases it has done so more than once

>in an apparent effort to make the law stick through repetition. Congress has

>banned torture twice during the Bush presidency. And Congress has banned the

>use of funds for illegal spying programs twice during the Bush presidency.

>

>Third, Bush has thrown out the new bans on his criminal behavior through the

>use of signing statements. In the case of the funds for illegal spying, see

>the signing statements Bush wrote after signing the Defense Appropriations

>Bills for 2005 and 2006.

>

>Congress said: "None of the funds provided in this Act shall be available

>for integration of foreign intelligence information unless the information

>has been lawfully collected and processed during the conduct of authorized

>foreign intelligence activities: Provided, That information pertaining to

>United States persons shall only be handled in accordance with protections

>provided in the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution as

>implemented through Executive Order No. 12333."

>

>Bush said: "Also, the executive branch shall construe section 8124, relating

>to integration of foreign intelligence information, in a manner consistent

>with the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief,

>including for the conduct of intelligence operations, and to supervise the

>unitary executive branch."

>

>That may sound like gibberish, but at least 143 times in 147 signing

>statements, Bush claims the power of a fictional being he and Cheney's

>lawyers invented, the "unitary executive." This creature does not exist in

>the Constitution, but is worthy of notice because he claims absolute power,

>a substance well known to corrupt absolutely.

>

>In the case of torture, the first Detainee Treatment Act was contained in

>H.R. 2863, the "Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations

>to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act,

>2006." That bill was signed on December 5, 2005, and is now Public Law

>109-148. The second Detainee Treatment Act was part of H.R. 1815, the

>"National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006." That bill was

>signed on January 6, 2006, and is now Public Law 109-163. The second of

>these is better known and included the McCain Amendment banning all torture.

>

>Bush (and more so Cheney) had been lobbying against the torture ban, but

>publicly admitted defeat and signed the bill. Over New Year's weekend, the

>White House quietly posted a signing statement on its website, and the

>Boston Globe reported on it. Senator John McCain, having won a very public

>contest to ban torture, said little about Bush's quiet reversal of the

>outcome. McCain limited himself to issuing a joint statement with Senator

>John Warner which read in its entirety:

>

>"We believe the President understands Congress's intent in passing by very

>large majorities legislation governing the treatment of detainees included

>in the 2006 Department of Defense Appropriations and Authorization bills.

>The Congress declined when asked by administration officials to include a

>presidential waiver of the restrictions included in our legislation. Our

>Committee intends through strict oversight to monitor the Administration's

>implementation of the new law."

>

>Fourth, Bush has continued to engage in the same criminal behavior. Bush

>continued the illegal spying following his signing statements, and has

>continued to torture. The evidence of torture, including torture to the

>point of murder, is extensive and is added to on almost a daily basis.

>

>The four steps above present a pattern unknown in previous presidencies. Had

>it been known in previous presidencies, we would refer to them as previous

>dictatorships.

>

>And this pattern is by no means limited to the two prominent examples I've

>mentioned. Bush has both announced his right to disobey laws and actually

>disobeyed those laws on many occasions that we know about. In many cases we

>have no way of knowing whether he is acting on his announced intention to

>disobey laws. In other cases we know that he has obeyed laws despite

>announcing his right to disobey them. In these cases we have no way of

>knowing why Bush is obeying the laws, and the reason may have more to do

>with bureaucratic inertia than respect for the rule of law.

>

>Without attempting a comprehensive overview, let's just briefly list some of

>the other signing statements that should offend every American who imagines

>this to be a nation of laws.

>

>Four times Bush has used signing statements to overturn a ban on using U.S.

>troops to combat rebels in Colombia. Twice Bush has thrown out a ban on

>using in military intelligence materials gathered in violation of the Fourth

>Amendment. Twice Bush has brushed aside the creation of an Inspector General

>in Iraq to report directly to Congress, requiring instead that he or she

>report to the executive branch. At least nine times, Bush has rejected

>affirmative action requirements (despite the Supreme Court having already

>ruled on the issue). Several times Bush has signed into law and then tossed

>out requirements that information be provided to Congress, including

>information on spying programs.

>

>Now, Congress often repeats itself, especially in funding bills that it

>passes on an annual basis. But, one has to wonder: why this amount of

>repetition? Is Congress hoping that Bush will allow it to create a law if it

>does so a second time or a third time? It took Bush five and a half years

>before he issued his first veto. And Congress Members for much of that time

>may have imagined that they were creating laws. But it's been a year now

>since the scope of Bush's signing statements became a news story. Congress

>has held hearings and introduced at least one bill to address the matter.

>Every Congress Member knows what's going on. So, why the repetition? Once

>you've passed a bill and Bush has thrown it out, if you aren't going to

>impeach him, why not spend less time passing that provision again and more

>time golfing or reading?

>

>One reason may be theater and a presumption of public ignorance. The

>Democratic leadership in the House sought public credit and support for

>including yet another ban on torture in its recent Supplemental spending

>bill, a bill that primarily provides Bush and Cheney with money for war,

>some of which will no doubt be used for torture. In November of 2003, Bush

>threw out with a signing statement limitations on the use of troops in Iraq

>who were not rested and ready, limitations passed by Congress in the

>National Defense Authorization Act that year. Yet the Democrats made similar

>limitations a central focus of their new Supplemental. But, in a move that

>seemed to advertise their awareness of Bush's disregard for the law, they

>stipulated that Bush can waive those limitations by publicly signing a

>waiver. This, they presumably thought, would make a better spectacle - and

>perhaps more than one spectacle - than a single vague legalistic signing

>statement posted on a website on a Friday night.

>

>What else has Bush undone unconstitutionally? Well, he's thrown out a

>requirement to report to Congress when money from regular appropriations is

>diverted to secret operations - such as black sites. So, now he can torture

>and pay for it. He's eliminated a requirement to make background checks of

>civilian contractors (including mercenaries)in Iraq. He's also erased a ban

>on using said contractors to perform security, law enforcement,

>intelligence, and criminal justice functions. And, in a somewhat well-known

>case, Bush has signing-statemented away a requirement to report back to

>Congress on the use of PATRIOT Act authority to secretly search and seize.

>

>Richard Nixon's lawyer John Dean had this to say:

>

>"As readers will recall, in early 2006, Congress reauthorized the

>controversial USA Patriot Act. Previously, [Republican Senator Arlen

>Specter], as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, had negotiated with

>[Attorney General Alberto] Gonzales in good faith over reauthorization. They

>agreed that Specter would approve reauthorization - but only on condition

>that there would be more stringent oversight of the law's application by

>Congress. Yet on March 6, 2006, after Congress reauthorized the Act, Bush

>issued a signing statement that boldly betrayed that agreement.

>

>"So at the January 18th hearing, Senator Specter asked the Attorney General

>to explain the betrayal of their agreement. He pointed out that the

>agreement was that Congress would have 'additional safeguards on oversight.'

>And he noted that, nevertheless, the President's signing statement 'reserved

>what he calls his right to disregard those oversight provisions.' He then

>asked Gonzales, 'In a context where the chairman of the committee and the

>attorney general negotiate an arrangement, is it appropriate for the

>president to put a signing statement which negates the oversight which had

>been bargained for, which has been bargained for?'

>

>"Gonzales simply cited the legal proposition that 'a signing statement

>cannot give to the president any authority that he doesn't already have

>under the Constitution.' But Specter responded adeptly that 'if [the

>President] thinks those provisions inappropriately take away his

>constitutional authority and the Act's unconstitutional, then he ought to

>veto it. Or at least not to bargain it away.' Gonzales had little to say in

>response, except to reiterate that the President wanted the Act

>reauthorized, and had the power not to honor the deal Gonzales had made.

>

>"This kind of practice might be common on used car lots, but should not be

>common in our government."

>

>Well, at least that's the worst of it, right? Bush hasn't used signing

>statements to pull any other fast ones, has he? Well, only if we overlook

>his eliminating a requirement that government scientists transmit findings

>to Congress uncensored. Only if we pay no attention to his blocking the

>creation of an educational research institute to report directly to Congress

>on the state of our schools (Bush chose to have it report to his Department

>of Education).

>

>Numerous times, Bush has tossed out requirements not to punish

>whistleblowers. Who knows what crimes we've not yet heard about? But we've

>heard about the signing statements. They're posted on the White House

>website.

>

>To some extent, over the past year, the media have caught on. When, for

>Christmas 2006, Bush bestowed upon himself the right to read anyone's

>private mail, the story was widely reported. Senator Russ Feingold [D.,

>Wisc.] wrote Bush a letter asking: "[H]as your administration authorized any

>government agency to read Americans' first-class mail without obtaining a

>search warrant, complying with the applicable court order requirements of

>the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or satisfying Postal Service

>regulations?" As far as I know, Bush has never replied. The right to read

>anyone's mail was one of the rights claimed early on by Adolph Hitler.

>

>Also in December of 2006, Bush signed an agreement on nuclear weapons

>approved by Congress following long negotiations with the White House and

>with India. Then Bush issued a signing statement announcing his lack of

>commitment to nine major sections of the agreement including those aimed at

>countering nuclear proliferation. Congress may not have noticed, but India

>seems to have. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh issued a similar

>statement explaining which parts of the agreement he would feel free to

>ignore.

>

>Is this starting to look troubling?

>

>The Congressional Research Service calls Bush's use of signing statements

>"an integral part" of his "comprehensive strategy to strengthen and expand

>executive power," adding that the "broad and persistent nature of the claims

>of executive authority forwarded by President Bush appear designed to inure

>Congress, as well as others, to the belief that the president in fact

>possesses expansive and exclusive powers upon which the other branches may

>not intrude."

>

>The American Bar Association "opposes, as contrary to the rule of law and

>our constitutional system of separation of powers, the misuse of

>presidential signing statements."

>

>The bipartisan Constitution Project's Coalition to Defend Checks and

>Balances has stated: "We are former government officials and judges,

>scholars, and other Americans who are deeply concerned about the risk of

>permanent and unchecked presidential power, and the accompanying failure of

>Congress to exercise its responsibility as a separate and independent branch

>of government." Associated attorneys released a report called "Presidential

>Signing Statements - Will Congress Pick Up the Gauntlet?"

>

>Republican Senator Arlen Specter calls Bush's signing statements "a very

>blatant encroachment" on Congress' power to legislate.

>

>Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy calls them "a grave threat to our

>Constitutional system of checks and balances."

>

>And yet, what is being done about it?

>

>Blogger Glenn Greenwald comments: "The signing statement has always been

>controversial, but the way that it began was simply as a tool for the

>Executive branch to go on record saying this is how we understand this law.

>Then, if there was a dispute about what a law meant, and it went to the

>Supreme Court, the Executive branch had a way, like Congress does, of saying

>this is what we understand the law to mean. It has been completely distorted

>by this Administration. It isn't used to say, this is what we understand the

>law to mean. It's used to say, we do not have to abide by these parts of the

>law because we have the power to break these parts of the law.

>

>"Why hasn't the press informed American citizens of the fact that the

>government is doing that? I actually believe the real reason is that what

>the Bush Administration is doing is so extreme, so radical, that people in

>the media don't really believe they're seriously claiming the right to break

>the law. That's the only thing I can think of as to why this story isn't

>getting more attention.

>

>"They've made the same argument in Supreme Court cases and other court

>cases, claiming the right of the President to act in violation of the law.

>This ought to be the first and most significant controversy discussed by the

>media, and yet it's barely discussed at all. I think the reporters simply

>don't realize how serious of a crisis it is. They just don't believe that

>it's really happening."

>

>And yet it penetrates every issue that the press does cover. Senator Jim

>Webb said he was introducing his bill to require that Bush get Congressional

>approval before attacking Iran because of the beliefs expressed in his

>signing statement following Congress' authorization to use force in Iraq:

>

>"I believe," Webb said, "the American people will welcome this legislation.

>This Administration has used force recklessly, choosing the military option

>again and again while never matching the quality of our military's

>performance with robust, creative diplomacy. Furthermore, the President's

>'signing statement' accompanying the 2002 congressional resolution

>authorizing the use of force in Iraq indicates that this Administration

>believes it possesses the broadest imaginable authority to commence military

>action without the consent of the Congress.

>

>"In signing the 2002 Iraq resolution, the President denied that the Congress

>has the power to affect his decisions when it comes to the use of our

>military. He shrugged off this resolution, stating that on the question of

>the threat posed by Iraq, his views and those of the Congress merely

>happened to be the same. He characterized the resolution as simply a gesture

>of additional support, rather than as having any legitimate authority. He

>stated, "my signing this resolution does not constitute any change in ...

>the President's constitutional authority to use force to deter, prevent, or

>respond to aggression or other threats to U.S. interests..."

>

>"This is a sweeping assertion of powers that leaves out virtually nothing.

>It is a far different matter than repelling an immediate attack, or

>conducting a war that has been authorized by the Congress. Let's just match

>up a couple of these words. The President is saying, for instance, that he

>possesses the authority to use force to "deter ... threats to U.S.

>interests." How do you use force to "deter" a threat, rather than preventing

>or responding to it? And what kind of "U.S. interest" is worthy of the use

>of force? And, most importantly, how do these vague terms fit into the

>historically accepted notions of a Commander in Chief's power to repel

>attacks, or to conduct military operations once they have been approved by

>the Congress?

>

>"Mr. President, during our recent hearings on the Senate Foreign Relations

>Committee, I asked both the Secretary of State and the Deputy Secretary of

>State for clarification of this paragraph in the President's signing

>statement. My question was whether this Administration believes it has the

>authority to conduct unilateral military operations against Iran in the

>absence of a direct attack or a compelling, immediate threat without the

>consent of the Congress. Both wrote me lengthy letters in reply, but neither

>could give me a clear responses. The situation that we now face is that the

>Administration repeatedly states that it seeks no war with Iran, at the same

>time it claims the authority to begin one, and at the same time it continues

>a military buildup in the region."

>

>Isn't that news?

>

>But it's only news if we step away from the pretense that nothing is out of

>the ordinary, the pretense that fascism cannot happen here. Yet, we are

>slipping through this pretense into a gradual normalizing and acceptance of

>the doctrine of the unitary executive. And justices appointed by that

>unitary executive are beginning to mention signing statements in their

>decisions and dissents.

>

>The only way we will stop this is through education, activism, and

>impeachment. Bush's signing statements are here:

>http://www.coherentbabble.com/signingstatements/TOCindex.htm [1]

>

>The impeachment movement is here: http://www.impeach07.org [2]

>

>Join us in Crawford, Texas, this Friday night for a people's impeachment

>hearing. Take part in impeachment events everywhere on April 28th.

>

>It's time to get tough on crime!

>

>___________

>

>Articles of Impeachment for President George W. Bush and Vice President

>Richard B. Cheney for high crimes and misdemeanors.

>

>Resolved, that President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard B. Cheney

>be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following

>articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:

>

>Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the

>United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the

>United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment

>against President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard B. Cheney for

>high crimes and misdemeanors.

>

>GEORGE W. BUSH:

>

>Article I

>

>In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in

>violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of

>President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve,

>protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation

>of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully

>executed, has conspired to exceed his constitutional authority to wage war,

>in that:

>

>George W. Bush has violated the U.N. Charter, Article 2, paragraph 4, by

>threatening the use of force against the territorial integrity and political

>independence of Iran. Bush's threat of force against Iran has included the

>possibility of nuclear force. Bush has secretly supported preliminary acts

>of war within Iran with neither approval from nor funding by Congress.

>

>Bush has initiated the development of new nuclear weapons, in violation of

>the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Article VI of the United States

>Constitution makes the U.N. Charter and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

>the law of the land.

>

>These violations of the law pose a grave threat to the national security of

>the United States. Wherefore George W. Bush, by such conduct, warrants

>impeachment and trial.

>

>Article II

>

>In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in

>violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of

>President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve,

>protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation

>of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully

>executed, has conspired to exceed his constitutional authority to wage war,

>in that:

>

>George W. Bush has subverted the Constitution, its guarantee of a republican

>form of government, and the constitutional separation of powers by

>undermining the rightful authority of Congress to declare war, oversee

>foreign affairs, and make appropriations. He did so by justifying a war with

>false and misleading statements and deceived the people of the United States

>as well as Congress. He denied the electorate the right to make an informed

>choice and thereby undermined democracy.

>

>George W. Bush also committed fraud against the United States by lying to

>and intentionally misleading Congress about the reasons for the Iraq war.

>

>George W. Bush also misappropriated funds with which to conduct the

>preliminary stages of this war, prior to receiving any funding or any form

>of authorization from Congress.

>

>George W. Bush, in violation of the United Nations Charter, which is the law

>of the land under the U.S. Constitution, Article VI, launched an aggressive

>war neither in self-defense nor under authorization of the UN Security

>Council.

>

>George W. Bush acted contrary to his trust as president, and subverted the

>constitutional government to the prejudice of law and justice and the

>manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore George W.

>Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial.

>

>Article III

>

>In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in

>violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of

>President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve,

>protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation

>of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully

>executed, has allowed the U.S. military to violate treaties to which the

>United States is party and has failed to investigate and prosecute

>high-level officials responsible for these abuse.

>

>These violations include the targeting of civilians, journalists, and

>medical personnel, and the illegal use of a variety of weapons, including:

>-Land mines, used in Afghanistan and Iraq in violation of Geneva Conventions

>Protocol I, Article 85, and Protocol II of the Convention on Certain

>Conventional Weapons;

>-Cluster bombs, used in Afghanistan and Iraq in violation of Geneva

>Conventions Protocol I, Article 85, and Protocol I of the Convention on

>Certain Conventional Weapons;

>-Depleted uranium munitions, used in Afghanistan and Iraq in violation of

>Geneva Conventions Protocol 1, Articles 35.2, 35.3, 48 and 55.1;

>-Napalm or Mark 77 Firebomb, used in Iraq in violation of the Chemical

>Weapons Convention, Article II.1.b;

>-White phosphorous, which Defense Department spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel

>Barry Venable confirmed on November 15, 2005 was deployed "as an incendiary

>weapon'' in urban areas of Fallujah, Iraq, where there were high

>concentrations of civilians, during Operation Phantom Fury (November

>2004-January 2005), making the said deployment of white phosphorous a

>violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, Article II.1.b;

>-BLU-82B/C-130 "daisy cutter'' bombs, used in Afghanistan in violation of

>Geneva Conventions Protocol I, Articles 35, 48, 51 and 55.

>

>Wherefore George W. Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial.

>

>Article IV

>

>In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in

>violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of

>President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve,

>protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation

>of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully

>executed, has directed or authorized the National Security Agency and

>various other agencies within the intelligence community to conduct

>electronic surveillance outside of the statutes Congress has prescribed as

>the exclusive means for such surveillance, and to use such information for

>purposes unknown but unrelated to any lawful function of his office; he has

>also concealed the existence of this unlawful program of electronic

>surveillance from Congress, the press, and the public. Wherefore George W.

>Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial.

>

>Article V

>

>In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in

>violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of

>President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve,

>protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation

>of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully

>executed, has arrogated excessive power to the executive branch in violation

>of basic constitutional principles of the separation of powers.

>

>George W. Bush has formally declared his intent to violate the laws enacted

>by Congress by appending a "signing statement" to legislation, asserting his

>right to carve out exceptions to legislation as he sees fit, thereby

>arrogating to himself powers reserved solely to Congress. George W. Bush

>has, in several instances, gone on to act on his self-declared right to

>violate these laws. Wherefore George W. Bush, by such conduct, warrants

>impeachment and trial.

>

>Article VI

>

>In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in

>violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of

>President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve,

>protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation

>of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully

>executed, has violated the rights of citizens and non-citizens by

>arbitrarily detaining them indefinitely inside and outside of the United

>States, without due process, without charges, and with limited, if any,

>access to counsel or courts.

>

>George W. Bush has abused his power and failed to faithfully execute the

>laws of the United States by allowing his administration to condone torture,

>failing to investigate and prosecute high-level officials responsible for

>torture, and officially refusing to accept the binding nature of a statutory

>ban on cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

>

>George W. Bush has offended our system of government by attempting to expand

>his power at the expense of the other two branches of government. Wherefore

>George W. Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial.

>

>Article VII

>

>In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in

>violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of

>President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve,

>protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation

>of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully

>executed, has allowed his administration to fire United States Attorneys in

>retaliation for the proper performance of their jobs when that performance

>conflicted with the partisan interests of the President, and has failed to

>investigate and prosecute high-level officials responsible for this abuse.

>Wherefore George W. Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial.

>

>Article VIII

>

>In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in

>violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of

>President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve,

>protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation

>of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully

>executed, has sought to mislead the people of the United States and the

>Congress by hiding information without justification, selectively releasing

>misleading pieces of information, funding misleading journalism, producing

>misleading video reports falsely presented as independent journalism, using

>the U.S. military to target journalists in Iraq, threatening officials with

>retribution should they reveal information, and exacting retribution against

>whistle blowers.

>

>George W. Bush has abused his power and failed to faithfully execute the

>laws of the United States by allowing his administration to reveal the

>identity of a covert agent of the Central Intelligence Agency and the

>front-group she worked for, and by failing to investigate and prosecute

>high-level officials responsible for this security breach. Wherefore George

>W. Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial.

>

>Article IX

>

>In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in

>violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of

>President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve,

>protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation

>of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully

>executed, has failed to take reasonable steps to protect the City of New

>Orleans from Hurricane Katrina, and intentionally misled the American people

>regarding this failure. Wherefore George W. Bush, by such conduct, warrants

>impeachment and trial.

>

>__________

>

>RICHARD B. CHENEY:

>

>Article I

>

>In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney,

>in violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the

>United States against all enemies foreign and domestic, has conspired to

>exceed his constitutional authority to wage war, in that:

>

>Richard B. Cheney has violated the U.N. Charter, Article 2, paragraph 4, by

>threatening the use of force against the territorial integrity and political

>independence of Iran. Richard B. Cheney's threat of force against Iran has

>included the possibility of nuclear force. Article VI of the United States

>Constitution makes the U.N. Charter the law of the land.

>

>These violations of the law pose a grave threat to the national security of

>the United States. Wherefore Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrants

>impeachment and trial.

>

>Article II

>

>In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney,

>in violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the

>United States against all enemies foreign and domestic, has conspired to

>exceed his constitutional authority to wage war, in that:

>

>Richard B. Cheney has subverted the Constitution, its guarantee of a

>republican form of government, and the constitutional separation of powers

>by undermining the rightful authority of Congress to declare war, oversee

>foreign affairs, and make appropriations. He did so by justifying a war with

>false and misleading statements and deceived the people of the United States

>as well as Congress. He denied the electorate the right to make an informed

>choice and thereby undermined democracy.

>

>Richard B. Cheney also committed fraud against the United States by lying to

>and intentionally misleading Congress about the reasons for the Iraq war.

>Cheney pressured intelligence services to produce false and misleading

>reports, and Cheney used those reports to mislead the Congress and the

>people of the United States.

>

>Richard B. Cheney acted contrary to his trust as Vice President, and

>subverted the constitutional government to the prejudice of law and justice

>and the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore

>Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial.

>

>Article III

>

>In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney,

>in violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the

>United States against all enemies foreign and domestic, has arrogated

>excessive power to the executive branch in violation of basic constitutional

>principles of the separation of powers.

>

>Richard B. Cheney and his subordinates have advocated for a legal theory of

>the "unitary executive" aimed at placing the President above the rule of

>law. Wherefore Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and

>trial.

>

>Article IV

>

>In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney,

>in violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the

>United States against all enemies foreign and domestic, has violated the

>rights of citizens and non-citizens by arbitrarily detaining them

>indefinitely inside and outside of the United States, without due process,

>without charges, and with limited, if any, access to counsel or courts.

>

>Richard B. Cheney has condoned torture, failed to investigate and prosecute

>high-level officials responsible for torture, and officially refused to

>accept the binding nature of a statutory ban on cruel, inhuman, or degrading

>treatment or punishment.

>

>Richard B. Cheney has offended our system of government by attempting to

>expand executive power at the expense of the other two branches of

>government. Wherefore Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrants

>impeachment and trial.

>

>Article V

>

>In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney,

>in violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the

>United States against all enemies foreign and domestic, has sought to

>mislead the people of the United States and the Congress by hiding

>information without justification, selectively releasing misleading pieces

>of information, threatening officials with retribution should they reveal

>information, and exacting retribution against whistle blowers.

>

>Richard B. Cheney has abused his power by conspiring to reveal the identity

>of a covert agent of the Central Intelligence Agency and the front-group she

>worked for. Wherefore Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrants

>impeachment and trial.

>

>Article VI

>

>In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney,

>in violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the

>United States against all enemies foreign and domestic, has maintained an

>improper and unethical relationship with his former employers at Halliburton

>and has promoted its agenda and interests over those of the American people.

>

>Richard B. Cheney has allowed a small group of corporate executives to plan

>national policies in secret, and enacted policies that benefited a

>corporation from which the Vice President financially profited.

>

>(1) In January 2001, the vice president did oversee a secret task force

>composed of corporate lobbyists and executives from the oil, gas, coal, and

>nuclear-energy sector, known collectively as the National Energy Policy

>Development Group, instructing them to meet regularly and develop the

>nation's

>energy policy.

>

>(2) By conducting these meetings in secret, the vice president did endeavor

>to impart influence to corporate interests without public knowledge,

>eclipsing not only the oversight function of Congress generally but the

>specific role of the energy committees in both the House of Representatives

>and the Senate.

>

>(3) During the course of these secret meetings, the vice president allowed

>lobbyists representing the oil, coal, gas, and nuclear-energy industries to

>compose, word-for-word, the national energy policy adopted by the Department

>of Energy, in gross violation of the public trust and all ethical norms.

>

>On March 25, 2002, and thereafter, the Vice President did willfully disobey

>court orders to identify the members of the National Energy Policy

>Development Group. In September 2002, and prior thereto, the Vice President

>did also refuse requests by Representatives Henry Waxman and John Dingell,

>as well as the Government Accountability Office, to release transcripts and

>papers produced by the aforementioned group. Wherefore Richard B. Cheney, by

>such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial.

>_______

>http://www.davidswanson.org [3]