Impeachment: Why Stop At Bush?
Robert Jensen
April 10, 2007
Robert Jensen is a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin, an author and a board member of the Third Coast Activist Resource Center. His latest book is Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity . He delivered the following remarks at the “Impeachment: Our Right, Our Duty” rally in Houston, Texas on Monday.Whether one believes the impeachment of George W. Bush is a realistic possibility or is simply a vehicle for expressing outrage and educating the public about the crimes of the powerful, any such talk starts with the U.S. Constitution and Article II, Section 4, which speaks of “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Few suggest that Bush is guilty of treason, nor is there evidence of bribery—unless we’re speaking of the routine way in which campaign contributions are a kind of bribery, but that’s hardly unique to Bush. That leaves us to ponder the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors,” which somehow seems inadequate to describe this administration. “High crimes,” yes, but these are not “misdemeanors.” We’re talking about repeat felony offenders.
Scholars debate what the category of “high crimes” might include, but it certainly must include the violation of one of the central tenets of international law—that no nation-state can attack another unless in self-defense or with authorization from the U.N. Security Council. Bush is guilty of this—a “crime against peace” in the language of the Nuremberg Principles—not once but twice, first in Afghanistan and next in Iraq.
That seems simple enough, but it also seems a bit unfair to pick on Bush alone. After all, no single person—not even the president of the United States—can undertake such massive crimes alone. Remember that the constitution also includes in the category of impeachable persons the “Vice President and all civil officers of the United States.” How deep into the bench of the Bush administration might we go? Cheney and Rice seem like obvious choices; Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Powell and Armitage would have been on the list before they left their posts. You all may have specific favorites you would want to add.
But I suggest we not stop with Bush and his cronies. If we want to truly change the direction of this country, we should widen the discussion. Who else might deserve to be impeached? .....(more)
The complete piece is at:
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/04/10/impeachment_why_stop_at_bush.php