8pov

The world can certainly do better than this. Here's why.

Monday, June 23

Impeach

Once, the notion of an impeachment of President George W. Bush was coupled to the assertion, “we just don’t like you very much.” It was like a schoolyard popularity contest or, in a more contemporary context, a reality-TV show, “voted-off-the island” exercise. Mistakes, missteps, or misspoken moments clustered like clouds, dogging a young Administration. Even in the wake of national tragedy and national emergencies, forever tied to two elections of questionable veracity, the leadership of the chief executive of the United States and his enclave of advisers clung to, and was shored up by, unrepentant nationalism for strength. Impeachment, regardless of the transgression or crime, was not to be considered. It would, in fact, be treasonous and Anti-American to consider it at “such a time” and it is not to be considered. Now, seven years later, impeachment isn’t about popularity any longer.

In the light of the awesome power wielded by the executive branch of government at present, impeachment could be seen as a vestige of a by-gone form of democracy. The legal team that has produced such hits as circumvention of the Geneva conventions and the co-option of the justice department, certainly they could find some means to have the President veto his own impeachment – should it come to pass. Perhaps, with some sub-Herculean effort and using the precedent of emergency established by Franklin Roosevelt during World War II, the Bush Administration could force a third term.

Impeachment, this late into his second term would also be deemed useless or token in application. As unpopular as the notion was from 2001 to 2004, when his approval ratings were much higher than they are in 2008, the inertia and punditry of the last four years have kept the notion of impeachment unpopular. A great deal of damage has been done to the prestige of the office under the watch of this Administration and, damage having been done, the removal of Bush from office by impeachment could be called many things; spiteful, desperate, vindictive, or a simple exercise in futility. Bi-partisan support will be difficult to achieve as so many politicians rely one on the other for their political careers. Taking a shot at the chief could be political suicide. Fortunately, America -- unlike Zimbabwe -- is a place where political life and life itself are not inextricably linked. Or is it?

The unpopularity of impeachment proceedings in the Congress and the Senate, regardless of the fact that they are elected representatives of the people’s will, is partially because it is they who must undertake this particularly arduous task. All politicians, all of their connections and interconnections in a particularly dark chapter of American history, could be laid bare in this search for “truth.” Every decision and vote subjected to scrutiny, every statement and communication to be filtered. The first six years of the Administration, under examination, would belie the sickness in modern American government. It would relate the degree of control asserted by the White House and over autonomous entities such as the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, and – before November 2006 – Congress. How deep did the hooks sink? How tight were the screws? Since all politics is a continuum, selfish interests could pollute the impeachment process. Thus, the exercise would be long, drawn-out and, in the end, would signify nothing without zealous pursuit of the elusive “truth.” In this light, an impeachment will achieve nothing that “running out the clock” will not achieve on its own.

***

Things, for some, have changed. The passage of time under the Administration has uncovered more of the ills done to, and in the name of, America. With this knowledge, and in the light that there are a great many things the Administration sought to keep secret, a call – courageously – has been raised for the decision-makers to account and take responsibility for their actions.

An age of twenty-four hour news stations and reality TV shows makes public awareness susceptible to only the punchiest of events. Nuanced discussion, complete information, and rational discussion were once the domain of politics and journalism. Now, screaming fanatics of all stripes dominate the discussion. Sound bites guide the opinions of the body politic. It is now, with change clearly at the forefront of all discussions, that the flow of information must become clearer, more nuanced, and, above all, complete. With the fate of the longest democratic experiment in history in the balance, the fate of “a government by the people, of the people, and for the people,” an informed people must be at its core; not the current nation of children, overworked and underpaid and scared to death, protected by Big Brother. Calling Big Brother to account, to hold him responsible for what he does in the name of the country, runs counter to the zeitgeist.

What is to be achieved in proceeding with impeachment?

The thirty-five articles of impeachment sent to committee by Dennis Kucinich outline the most grievous errors and miscarriages of executive power, arguably, in American history. Calling the President to account for the actions of he and his advisors for these actions is the first key achievement of the impeachment proceeding.

To date, the Bush Administration and President George W. Bush, himself, have avoided or deflected all accountability in any of the questionable goings-on of the present government. Most notably, faulty intelligence on weapons-of-mass-destruction, particularly nuclear weapons, led the propaganda campaign against, criminal invasion of, war of aggression against, and occupation of Iraq. Linked, the identity leak of Valerie Plame and perjury indictment, conviction, and Presidential grant of clemency for I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby. Also linked are exercises of extraordinary rendition, illegal detention, and torture at prisons – both public and secret – under the auspice of a permanent emergency. Further are charges of surveillance on American citizens, suspension of constitutional freedoms, enactment of secret laws, and reckless endangerment of human lives in New York, New Orleans, and all civilians Afghanistan and Iraq. For all of this, the leaders of America must account.

Secondly, the response to these charges must be open to the public. A government of the people, by the people, and for the people cannot continue to operate in hall of mirrors in a shroud of secrecy. The cries of “national security” and “executive privilege” do not trump the call to account of the people who installed these people in power. Arguably, men and women the likes of George W. Bush, Richard B. Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice are not elected to power. They are powerful and, as a result, are candidates for higher offices. The assumption of public office carries a heavy responsibility, accountability to the public. It is this central tenet of representative democracy that is most clearly forgotten by the Bush Administration. An impeachment proceeding can reassert, definitively, that it is the people form the government and not the government that shapes the people.

Thirdly, the actions of the Bush Administration as captured in the lens of history cannot go uncontested by an American notion of justice. It is of great disservice to American history and American identity to have these actions pass unexamined through the corridors of history and the halls of justice. Investigations into the Valerie Plame affair have been stunted for four years. An investigation into the firing of nine U.S. Attorneys has been blocked for two years. Investigations into the interference with the duties of Environmental Protection Agency are presently being blocked. Investigations of torture practices have been underway since Alberto Gonzales’s January 2002 memo suggested America “opt-out” of the Geneva Conventions.

Repeatedly, President Bush and his lieutenants have related, “history will judge” the actions of this Administration “favorably.” This sentiment, recorded for all history, is held within the enclave of power. Others rarely have an historic say. Ask the mothers, fathers, and families of all the dead, wounded, or suicidal Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. Ask the populations of Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon about the destabilizing force that the occupations have caused. While the actions of “insurgents” or “extremists” dominate the discourse, the voiceless hold no sway. The bigger the lie, the more it must be repeated to be believed and to hold amid the tide history.

People the world over question the foreign policies of the American government as, one way or the other; America addresses the world by this foreign policy. In the eyes of the global community, and in the light the invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, what won’t America do to secure “national security” interests? All of the decisions stem from guidance of the people at the top of the chain of command. As a result, to examine the decisions made, closely and publicly, can only serve to reassure the world that there is an internal check on a virtually limitless power.

All too often, this shock and awe of limitless power applied reaches past its targets and into the lives of those it purports to protect and serve. Collateral damage and friendly fire are the common terms applied. In the contemporary frame, particularly in Iraq, a third term is becoming commonplace, contract collateral damage or contract friendly fire. Fortunately for the contractors in Iraq, they are granted immunity from prosecution under Iraqi law and are not subject to oversight by American law. It is left to the contract company to sort out the details and, if need be, punish an offender. The havoc inflicted by security contractors – properly, merchants of death – affects the relations between occupiers and subjects of occupation. Subcontracting “security,” a blurry line between a private business enterprise and a military enterprise in Iraq, is wholly endorsed by the Administration and is given tacit approval in the application American foreign policy. In the eyes of those subject to this “thug life” approach to foreign relations, private business interests have supplanted America’s armed forces and America’s armed forces have supplanted diplomacy. It is for the sake of these many eyes, the subjects at the point of a mighty sword, that America must reassert control. This, now, can be achieved only in impeachment. Calling to account, under the law, the actions of those most responsible is the only recourse of a desperate time.

In other nations, at other desperate times, when powerful people have been called to account for their actions, the cases have been remanded to the responsibility of special tribunals such as the International Criminal Court or the International Court of Justice. Those thinking themselves above the law, those who engaged in heinous actions – war crimes, crimes against humanity, the crime of aggression or genocide – can be so remanded. What, then, of Iraq? A war, arguably a war of aggression, was manufactured under false pretense. Tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of Iraqi civilians have died violently as a direct result of the invasion and occupation. Torture, secret prisons, and war crimes have all resulted as a direct result of decisions made at the top. The application of impeachment proceedings against those responsible for these decisions and their consequences is a viable means of addressing these offenses. Certainly, the International Criminal Court will never assume jurisdiction, as the United States one of only seven nations that declined to be signatory to the Rome Statute.

Even amid the nationalistic fervor of the early years of his Presidency, questions about Bush’s ability to lead the nation within the bounds of his office surfaced. The power of the Republican party and its friends in corporate and finance circles quelled the dissent and, instead, focused on the march to war in Iraq. Impeachment, Cassandrically advocated by Ramsay Clark in January 2003 invoking the shades of things to come, can examine the workings of the dark corners of the Administration. Now, as the scale of the “high crimes and misdemeanors” of this Administration are being brought to light, some measure of justice must be applied.

Even now as a war on Terror appears to be less and less in the interest of “national security” and more in the interest of profit security, decisions made in the Oval Office and in the tight circle about it march the nation toward its fourth armed conflict in seven years. Following Afghanistan, Iraq, and material support for the 2006 violence in Lebanon, Iran appears to fertile ground for military diplomacy. At any time the bi-directional sabre-rattling could prove a powder keg.

For all of this, even if President George W. Bush, Vice-President Richard B. Cheney, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice were to be impeached in the period between today and the 2008 general election on November 6, or in the period between the election and inauguration day 20 January 2009, it will reaffirm that the function of Congress as a check and balance of the American government is firmly in place. Even if none of these people are found guilty for their actions, the democratic action will, at the very least, have been undertaken and the light of truth shone in the darkest of corners. This, at the very least, for the sake of a honest history.

The exercise of impeachment is far from futile. It is an exercise of a democracy. It is a search for truth. For all the mentions of “blowback,” a disconnection of cause and effect, it is certainly time that an exercise of justice be blown back to the secret keepers and the untouchables.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home