What would you charge Mr. Bush with if you had to draft a document of impeachment?

I am always curious to see what others would say in drafting a formal document of impeachment for Mr. Bush. Not all of us are for this, but for those of you who are:

1)On what grounds would you charge him with?

2)How would you equate the charges proposed with "High Crimes and Misdemeanors?

3)Why do you think your charges against him are valid?

[edit on 9-7-2006 by ceci2006]

I'm not sure I would do this yet, but there are several possible grounds for impeaching President Bush.

1. Vote fraud in Florida in the 2000 and 2004 elections, and in Ohio in the 2004 election. The actions authorized by Governor Bush of Florida denying the vote to large numbers of African-American voters, are well documented. These are grounds for impeaching Governor Bush. There is some question of whether the Bush brothers conspired together to do this, although logically they must have. Without those actions on the part of Governor Bush, the Florida vote would have been clearly for Gore, and not close enough to require a recount and ultimately the intervention of the Supreme Court. In 2004, the same sort of thing was done again in Florida, and also there are allegations of electronic voting-machine fraud in Ohio. Again, it is not entirely clear what part President Bush played in these actions, but the question of what he knew and when is what would determine his guilt, because it is his responsibility as president not only not to tamper with an election, but also to make sure that tampering does not occur. Failure to act would be grounds for impeachment every bit as much as acting in the wrong way.

Tampering with a national election is, along with treason and bribery, the classic grounds for impeachment. This is what Nixon would have been impeached for, had he not resigned.

2. Imprisonment of accused terrorists and accomplices without trial or charges. The relevant clauses of the Constitution are as follows:

No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . .

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendments V and VI.

The presidential oath of office requires the president to uphold and defend the Constitution. Yet it seems that President Bush has deprived accused terrorists of liberty without due process of law, and deprived these accused persons of their right to a speedy and public trial by impartial jury, etc. This, too, is clearly an impeachable offense.

I'm sure many people would like to see Bush impeached over the war in Iraq, too. However, that would be as much a misapplication of the impeachment clause as Clinton's impeachment was. Boneheaded, corrupt, asinine, self-defeating, and damaging to our nation the war in Iraq certainly is, but Bush did not exceed his authority in getting us into it. He talked about doing so, thinking that he has the authority to do it without Congressional approval (which he did not), but since he got Congressional approval anyway, the point is moot.

Tampering with elections and depriving people under U.S. authority their rights under the Constitution are what he can be impeached for, not the war.

The unlawful, if indeed it is, imprisonment of foriegn nationals would be the only thing I can think of right off.

In a time of war, and this is such a time, a sitting President wields such enourmous power, the areas of legality versus illegality become much more hazy and vague. All American Presidents in a time of war have done things that they would never dreamed of getting away with during peacetime. This would seem to me to make an impeachment all but impossible.

Originally posted by seagull
In a time of war, and this is such a time

Is it? What war are you referring to?

There's the war in Iraq, of course. That's a real war.

But the "war on terror" is a metaphor, not a war. And as far as I'm aware, the people imprisoned at Guantanamo aren't accused of being agents for Saddam Hussein or for the insurgent movements currently raising hell in Iraq. They are accused of being "terrorists."

A war is fought between specific groups that can be identified. In World War II, for example, we fought against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. When both those countries had surrendered, the war was over.

The enemy doesn't necessarily have to be a nation-state. It can be a military organization. So I could see a "war on al-Qaeda" as a real war, too. If Bush had worded his call for vengeance that way after 9/11, that would have been a call for a real war, not a metaphor. But by calling it a "war on terror," he crafted a convenient tool of oppression that would never end.

You are right that presidential authority is greater during wartime than peacetime. In fact, you can say without much exaggeration that during wartime the U.S. has the equivalent of a dictatorship. We tolerate that because it is a national emergency, and because we know that sooner or later the war will end and we will regain the freedoms we compromised for a while.

The problem with this metaphorical "war on terror" is that, since the enemy is so nebulous and poorly-defined, it can be extended indefinitely, going on forever. We can never win it, and we can never lose it, either. And so, if we buy into this bit of propaganda, we will be living under a dictatorship forever.

For that reason, I reject the idea of a "war on terror." We may be at war with al-Qaeda, but we are not at war with "terror." That is unacceptable.

Thank you Two Step Forward and seagull for contributing to this question. Your answers touched upon things that I didn't think about when dealing with this question. However, I've decided to take a stab with a few more that might come across when dealing with articles of impeachment.
This is based upon the www.washingtonpost.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> Resolution to Impeach William Jefferson Clinton:



Resolution Impeaching George Walker Bush, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Resolved, That George Walker Bush, President of the United States, is 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, against George Walker Bush, President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.


Article I.

Unlawfully neglecting his duties as Commander-in-Chief, he has violated the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Fourth Geneva Convention, in which the United States has signed in agreement, allows special protections to civilians in an occupied terrory. Iraq had also signed this same convention.

[1]On his watch, members of his military committed heinous acts against the civilians of Iraq during the second Iraqi War. In so doing, soldiers have been prosecuted for the rape and murder of an Iraqi woman and the killing of three members of her family. This violates the section in which allows special protection of women during wartime.

[2] Soldiers have been found derelict in their duty of protecting cultural artifacts of the Iraqi National museum, allowing them to be stolen and sold on the Black market. During the occupation of another sovereign territory, the U.S. military has taken over important landmarks (such as presidential palaces) and remade them into embassies and prisons. This violates the section which allows the preservation of national treasures and cultural artifacts in a national territory.

[3]Soldiers in the U.S. army have been prosecuted for killing male Iraqi civilians and arranging the murders to look as if the victims in question were insurgents. This violates the section which allows civilians special protections from harm, bodily injury and death.



Article II.


Unlawfully neglecting his duties as Commander-in-Chief, he has violated the Third Geneva Convention. The Third Geneva Convention, in which the United States has signed in agreement, allows special protections to prisoners of war in an occupied terrory. Iraq had also signed this same convention.

[1]On his watch, as Commander-in-Chief, he has allowed abuse, neglect, death and abject refusal of legal counsel to the incarcerated at the detainee prison of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Prisoners were subjected to forced feedings, wearing a straight-jacket while being allowed to go outside among other heinous acts of torture. Of which, three of the prisoners committed suicide. The Supreme Court ruled on two key cases regarding this area: Rasul v. Bush(2004) and Hamdan v. Bush(2006). In Rasul, six Justices ruled that the incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba were illegally imprisoned on the writ of habeas corpus. This means that the U.S. has jurisdiction over their cases. In Hamdan, five Justices ruled that George Walker Bush's use of military tribunals to try the incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba is illegal.

[2]On his watch, as Commander-in-Chief, he has allowed abuse, neglect and death of the incarcerated at Abu Ghraib prison. Pictures display proof of these abuses which regarded in acts of humilation, sexual degredation and attacks with canines. Prisoners were beaten and taunted by soldiers in the U.S. military.

[3]Due to the fact that the United States gave up their ability to push for immunity for their military from being prosecuted in the International Criminal Courts, these procedures must be prosecuted for war crimes.


Article III.

As President of the United States, George Walker Bush has violated the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution. Therefore, he has not done his duty of "faithfully executing and upholding the laws of the Constitution.

[1]George Walker Bush has circumvented the First Amendment Rights of American citizens through passage of Patriot Acts I and II. He suppressed the freedom of speech, the petition to redress the government and the right to peaceably assemble by segregating protesters at his public speaking events, arresting dissenters for voicing their opinions contrary to his beliefs and politics; by arresting protesters and incarcerating them in specialized detention centers; by separating dissenters from audiences during his speeches; by allowing authorities to escort American citizens out of Congress during the State of the Union Address by virtue of attire displaying messages contrary to his opinions and political views.

[2]In violation of the First Amendment, George Walker Bush, has suppressed the freedom of the press by charging a specific newspaper, the New York Times, with sedition and treason. He did not act on suppressing the Congress from passing a resolution condemning the media for publishing "classified documents". In speeches and public appearances, he has willfully encouraged the subjugation of the free press by denouncing their efforts.


[3]In violation of the Fourth Amendment, he has through Patriot Acts I and II unwittingly violated the "search and seizure" of American citizens by allowing authorities to seize private property (i.e., records). He has circumvented the FISA court and willfully allowed a governmental surveillance program to datamine and wiretap electronic media. He also willfully allowed a governmental surveillence program to search through financial records of American citizens. These acts were executed on United States soil. He executed these actions without a ruling from a court of law.


Article IV

As President of the United States, George Walker Bush has willfully violated the Second Amendment of the Constitution. He demonstrated an overreaching of the Executive Powers by circumventing the FISA court. He also violated his Executive powers by willfully executing the indefinite imprisonment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He also took charge of setting up a court system (i.e. military tribunals) in order to try these individuals. He has violated over 750 rules through signing statements. With these actions, George Walker Bush is dangerously dismantling the system of checks and balances as outlined in the Constitution and is forging a path towards imperialism, not to mention dictatorship.


What do you guys think? Are these charges valid? And if you can add more, feel free to do so.




[edit on 10-7-2006 by ceci2006]

(Mod edit: Minor correction at member request. --Majic)

[edit on 7/10/2006 by Majic]

I think that those are valid reasons for impeachment. I can't think of anything I would add to it.

On a side note, Constitution Summer is trying to get the impeachment of Bush and Cheney onto the ballots for everyone to vote on. Their list of crimes is similar to yours, just not as well-worded.

Constitution Summer
Constitution Summer represents an emerging coalition of students and young people dedicated to defending the ideals of the Constitution and its Bill of Rights and to checking arbitrary abuses of power and authority, starting with a moderated, legitimate, mainstream, nonpartisan campaign to impeach President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, and their administration.

Constitution Summer is basing its call for the impeachment of the President and Vice President on four key crimes:

1) illegal domestic spying in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the 4th Amendment;
2) misleading the country into a war of aggression in Iraq based on fraudulent claims;
3) indefinite detention, extraordinary rendition, and torture;
4) abuse of executive authority and subversion of the Constitution.

[edit on 10-7-2006 by Jenna]

[edit on 10-7-2006 by Jenna]

Jenna, thank you for your comments and the link. When I was thinking about this last night, I thought that the proper way to address issues of impeachment is to take it from past "resolutions" made by the House against certain POTUS's.

I will be thinking about what else to add to the resolution soon. But I have to think a little more on what other issues to add to the list. As for anyone else, please feel free to add their own articles of impeachment to mine. After all, this is a group effort. And I would be quite curious to see other people's opinions about this.

And I think that TSF's argument about "real" war compared to a fabricated one is quite accurate. The "War on Terror" to me is pretty much doublespeak.