A
Republic, If We Can Keep It.
By Ernest Partridge
07/25/07 "The
Crisis Papers"
- -- -- Why not impeach?
The Congressional Democrats
offered several excuses for keeping impeachment “off the
table.”
One familiar response (even
by such estimable Senators as Russ Feingold and Bernie
Sanders), is that following a successful impeachment in
the House, the Senate would surely not convict.
Two replies come to mind:
(1) Don’t be so sure of that. When the impeachment
proceedings against Richard Nixon began in the House
Judiciary Committee, the Republican Senators were
solidly against conviction and removal. All that changed
when the evidence was brought forth and the public
responded. (2) So what if the Senate fails to convict?
When the Republican Congress filed impeachment charges
against Clinton, they knew full well that it would never
get the necessary 67 votes for conviction in the Senate.
It would suffice, they assumed, to drag Clinton’s name
and behavior through the mud. Of course, they failed to
correctly anticipate the public response. In the case of
Bush and Cheney, it will be quite enough to expose their
treason and their numerous “high crimes and
misdemeanors.” The Senators who vote against conviction
will then have to justify those votes in the next
election.
Another dodge is that
impeachment would distract the House and the Senate and,
as Russ Feingold argues, “put important issues facing
our country on the back burner.”
But what “issues” are more
important than restoring the Constitution and the rule
of law, and saving our republic from dictatorship?
Moreover, as Feingold fails to tell us, in any case the
Senate Republicans are succeeding in keeping these
“important issues ... on the back burner.” The devious
GOP strategy is to see to it that, by means of
filibuster and cloture, Congress “does nothing,” so that
the GOP can run in 2008 on the charge that this was a
“do nothing Democratic Congress.” If the Senate
Republican continue at their current rate, by the end of
this Congress they will have forced 153 cloture votes –
almost three times the previous record.
The final excuse for
keeping impeachment “off the table,” is “just be
patient, the term of Bush/Cheney, Inc. will end in
January, 2009. And there are strong indications that the
GOP will be crushed in the 2008 election, and that a
Democratic will occupy the White House. Then, our long
national nightmare will be over.”
The almost universal and
unexamined assumption that an “ordinary” Presidential
election will take place in November, 2008, is extremely
dangerous. We have always had our quadrennial
Presidential elections, so why not assume that the next
will take place in 2008? We must assume that it might
not, because the consequences of a Democratic victory in
2008 would exact an extraordinary cost to the losers,
and because they have put in place the means to cancel
that election.
What “cost”? Put simply,
the loss of ill-gained fortunes, and still worse the
likely conviction and imprisonment of numerous neo-cons,
Busheviks and corporate fellow-travelers. To prevent
which, either the Busheviks must remain in power after
2009 (presumably by canceling the election), or the
Bush/Cheney regime must be succeeded by a GOP
Administration and Congress that can reliably shut down
investigations and prosecutions. And to accomplish that,
a mainstream media blitz and widespread election fraud
will be necessary.
What fortunes and what
crimes? The wealthiest one percent of the population has
been given huge tax cuts, while the tax burden of the
rest of the population has held steady. As a result,
from 2001 to 2006, that fortunate one percent enjoyed,
on average, a net gain of $30,352, while the remaining
99% suffered net losses. (“Net gain/losses” combines tax
breaks with share of federal deficit acquired
2001-2006). With the Democrats in control, the era of
“tax-cut and borrow” will end, and the wealthiest will
once again be required to pay their fair share of
federal tax revenue. The flow of cash from the poor and
middle class to the hugely wealthy will be reversed.
Billions of dollars of “Iraq reconstruction” funds have
simply been “lost,” with no accounting of where they
have gone. But surely, these have gone into the pockets
of corrupt politicians, Iraqi and American, and to
numerous “no bid” contractors. A Democratic Congress and
Justice Department could be expected to relentlessly
investigate these losses, resulting, no doubt, in
numerous indictments and convictions. At last, we
would know the identities of the individuals who
disclosed the identity of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame
Wilson. In fact, we are quite obvious now that the
culprits included: Karl Rove, “Scooter” Libby, and Dick
Cheney. That disclosure was a federal crime, which
stipulates prison time on conviction. A Democratic
Congress and Justice Department would be able to track
down, indict and convict many individuals who conspired
to steal the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections, and
in addition numerous Congressional elections in 2002 and
2006. More convictions would follow, not only of corrupt
politicians, but also their collaborators in the
electronic voting industry. The American public,
fed-up with one-party propaganda masquerading as
“journalism,” spewed out by five mega-corporations,
would at last demand the break-up of these
conglomerates, and a return to local and diverse media.
The public, which in fact owns the airwaves, would
demand that the broadcast media obey the FCC requirement
that they “serve the public interest and necessity.”
With the abolition of the right-wing "Ministry of
Truth," informed public debate would return. Lying to
Congress and to federal officials is a crime that Bush,
Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove and many other Bushistas have
clearly committed on numerous occasions, and for which
they would be vulnerable to indictment. Aggressive war
and torture are not only federal crimes, they are also
international crimes. An interesting feature of these
crimes, is that they may be beyond the reach of
Presidential pardons. The International Criminal Court
in the Hague does not recognize Presidential pardons.
There is much more, but
this list suffices to make the point: The Presidential
election of 2008 portends a disaster for the GOP, the
Bush Administration, and their corporate sponsors – a
disaster of unprecedented proportions. The losers will
not, as in previous elections, simply find opulent
sinecures in “the private sector,” and comfortable
retirement and status as “elder statesmen.” Instead they
will be facing the loss of their ill-gained fortunes and
even of their freedom, as they are brought before the
bar of justice.
And well they know this.
Worse still, they may be in a position to prevent it.
And here is how they might:
Bush’s “National Continuity
Policy, issued May 9, states, in effect, that in the
event of a “catastrophic emergency,” which might mean a
terrorist attack or natural disaster, within "the
homeland” or abroad, the President could, as a “unitary
executive,” seize near dictatorial powers. This means
that another hurricane of Katrina size, or a Richter-7
earthquake, or even a massive civil disobedient protest,
could trigger the onset of a Bush dictatorship.
Still worse, in the
recently issued executive order, Bush has decreed that
due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the
national security and foreign policy of the United
States posed by acts of violence threatening the peace
and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote
economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and
to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people,
it is in the interests of the United States to take
additional steps with respect to the national
emergency... Accordingly, the federal government may
seize All property and interests in property of any
person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in
consultation with the Secretary of State and the
Secretary of Defense, to have committed, or to pose a
significant risk of committing, an act or acts of
violence... Is the organization of a mass demonstration
an “act of violence”? And what is to be done with
individuals who give “aid and comfort to the enemy.”
Last week, Defense Under-Secretary of Defense Eric
Edelman sent a letter to Hillary Clinton, warning that
Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of
U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that
the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much
as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and
Somalia. Is Senator Clinton in danger of losing all her
property, and perchance her freedom? “Of course not,
they wouldn’t dare.” Quite so. But “they wouldn’t
dare” is not a sound guarantee against arbitrary abuse
of power by the government. Once upon a time, we had a
Constitution to protect our freedoms. But Bush has told
us that it is "just a piece of paper." And, in his
administration, it appears that it is merely that.
And note too that phrase,
“or to pose a significant risk.” Here we have nothing
less than an excuse to prosecute “pre-crime” – the mere
possibility of criminal conduct. This nightmare option,
vividly portrayed in the 2002 movie “Minority Report,”
is a fundamental feature of totalitarian regimes.
Add to this, the “Military
Commissions Act” which effectively abolished habeas
corpus for suspected terrorists and “terrorist
sympathizers.” Protest the Iraq occupation, and you
might be labeled a “terrorist sympathizer” and thus
subject to arbitrary arrest and indefinite incarceration
without access to counsel.
Bush’s “decrees”
(“executive orders”) are noteworthy for their vagueness,
and Bush is notorious for reaching far beyond the letter
of the law and of treaties. He claimed that he had
United Nations permission to attack Iraq. He did not.
The infamous Congressional authorization for the Iraq
war was contingent upon a written “determination” from
the White House. As John Dean clearly points out, Bush’s
“determination” was a pack of lies, and failed to meet
the conditions of the authorization. It was, says Dean,
an impeachable offence. (Worse than Watergate, 140-156).
Can Bush seize totalitarian
power, triggered, perhaps, by another terrorist attack,
real or connived, or by a natural disaster, or by an
attack on Iran?
Who is to stop him? The
federal judiciary? Bush owns it, as we have seen with
the recent Supreme Court decisions, and the dismissal of
the Plame/Wilson civil action against the Busheviks. The
Congress? Bush has said, straight out, that he will
ignore any and all Congressional subpoenas for documents
or testimony. And acts of Congress, as we well know, are
(as Bush said of the Constitution) mere “scraps of
paper.” For with his “signing statements,” he has said,
in effect, “I will obey or not obey this law as I see
fit.” Thus, unless it forcefully reclaims its
Constitutional powers and independence, the Congress
will be reduced to the status of the Supreme Soviet
under Josef Stalin.
Paul Craig Roberts, former
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Ronald Reagan,
has noted with alarm that Bush and Cheney, fully aware
that electoral catastrophe faces the Republicans in
2008, seem utterly unconcerned with this prospect, or
with the likelihood that, under ordinary (i.e. honest)
electoral conditions, a Democratic President in 2009 is
a near-certainty.
Do they know something that
we don’t know? Roberts thinks they might. He strongly
suspects that the Busheviks are expecting, counting on,
and perhaps even preparing some interim catastrophe that
will once again unite the country behind “the Commander
in Chief,” and provide an excuse to cancel the 2008
election. In short, he suggests that the near-universal
belief that in 2008 there will be another election just
has there have been for the past 220 years, may lead us
all to “the end of Constitutional Democracy.”
Perhaps not. Perhaps this
will be an ordinary election, resulting in large
Democratic majorities in Congress, and a Democratic
Administration. Following that, a roundup, prosecution
and imprisonment of numerous scoundrels who have defiled
our government throughout the two full terms of Bush’s
presidency. But do we dare believe this?
Don’t bet your freedom and
our republic on this comfortable assumption. Be prepared
for a desperate grab for permanent, dictatorial power
aimed, among other things, at protecting the
corporatocracy, the acquired wealth, and the freedom
from prosecution of those now in power, and who have
acquired the means to seize total power.
What, then, is to be done?
First of all, keep the
pressure on Congress to begin impeachment proceedings
against Bush and Cheney. John Conyers says that with
three more Congressional sponsors, he will initiate
impeachment proceedings. But yesterday, when confronted
in his office by Cindy Sheehan, David Swanson, Ray
McGovern among hundreds of protesters, Conyers
apparently reneged on that promise. Contact Conyers at
202-225-5126, or your member of Congress at
202-224-3121.
Spread the word, far and
wide, that we must expect another “Pearl Harbor” event,
followed by a call for “unity behind the President” and
the seizure of dictatorial powers. The more the public
anticipates this beforehand, the more likely that the
public will be able to resist it.
And let us all fervently
hope that if a fake “remember the Maine!,” or “Gulf of
Tonkin attack” is in preparation, that someone in the
know will have the courage and patriotic motivation to
expose it in time.
Surely there is much more
that we the people can do to inoculate ourselves against
the demise of our freedom and the onset of tyranny.
Ben Franklin was right: we
have a Republic if we can keep it. And we may be on the
verge of losing it. Copyright 2007 by Ernest Partridge
