I like and respect Bob Fertik and support his efforts to get some accountability for the crimes of the Bush administration. However, his critique of my position on impeachment is a little off the mark. Here’s what I said that Bob is taking issue with:
Any talk of impeachment must account for the seriously depressing prospect that the Republican Party will act collectively as official apologists for torture and thereby, by failing to convict, establish the unhealthy precedent that the most serious violations of human rights are not worthy of removal from office. Compounding the problem is that a failure to attempt to impeach will establish the same precedent.
Notice that I said ‘failing to convict’. That’s a reference to the Senate, not the House, which merely indicts. My concern is that an impeachment effort will end in acquittal, and I don’t like the precedent that sets when the charges involve issues of executive power and human rights abuses.
Bob argues rather unconvincingly that a Senate conviction is possible. That is the heart of our disagreement. To make his case, Bob makes an argument I have made in the past but which I no longer subscribe to. At this late point in the game, I think Bob is engaging in some magical thinking.
Impeachment starts in the House, where it takes only a simple majority to adopt Articles of Impeachment. All of the 234 Democrats except one (Jim Marshall) oppose torture, as do 5 Republicans (Paul, Bartlett, Gilchrest, Smith, and Johnson).
So if outraged citizens like us could persuade Democratic leaders to impeach Bush for authorizing torture, they could get as many as 239 votes, 21 more than the 218 needed for a majority.
Moreover, if House Democrats were united in support of impeachment for torture, the other 193 House Republicans would be in a terrible bind. Going into an already dismal election season, would they really want to defend torture – and Mr. 28%?
There is a significant difference between ‘opposing torture’ and supporting the impeachment of the president and vice-president for ordering what they insist are only ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’. And that’s the rub. The administration’s case is weak, but the remedy of impeachment is very strong. And whatever the merits of impeachment, we would have a devil of a time convincing the leadership to take up this semantic fight, let alone convincing even the most ardent Republican opponents of torture to provide a sheen of bipartisan support. Even if we did convince the leadership to open an impeachment inquiry, it’s hard to see how it would lead to even a unified Democratic caucus in support. And I think it takes a near suspension of belief to think that the Senate would ever provide a unified Democratic caucus and another eighteen Republicans and Independents willing to convict.
Bob lays out the case for how this could happen, but I do not find it plausible. Yet, we must find some way to make it plain to the world that we will not let this pass unpunished. Here’s a few ideas. An inquiry can be opened, perhaps by a special bicameral committee, to investigate how torture was authorized, who was tortured as a result, and how torture spread from a few tightly reviewed cases into tragedies like the Abu Ghraib scandal. The committee could make criminal referrals where appropriate, and it could officially censure responsible officials. If they uncover something truly explosive they could refer it to the House Judiciary Committee for an impeachment inquiry.
If Senate Republicans block a special bicameral committee, one can be set up in just the House. Prior to setting up such a committee, the administration should be offered every chance to assign a special prosecutor. Public pressure can be brought to bear.
If none of this can be accomplished, a special prosecutor should be assigned next year, provided the Democrats take over the White House. If the president pardons all the responsible parties, the Congress should pass resolutions expressing the sentiment that all of the pardoned are no longer fit to hold any federal office in the future.
It’s a very unpleasant situation we find ourselves in. As much as we might want to hold people fully responsible for their actions, we already know that the responsible parties involve the highest officers of the U.S. Government. We need to be realistic and not let the perfect become the enemy of the good. It’s essential that the government censure and repudiate the actions that were taken. This may seem like an extreme view to some, but it is a view that is being expressed from Kansas City to Seattle and from Brattleboro, Vermont to Tuscaloosa, Alabama. What I definitely agree with Bob about is the absolute necessity of doing something official to remove this stain on our national honor. And you can do your part by signing the ACLU petition demanding a special prosecutor.
The root of the problem is that a majority of American are complicit in Bush’s crimes. While some complained loudly, most Americans (initially anyway) knowingly supported Bush’s tactics on everything from wiretapping to torture. Most felt if it could save one life, use whatever means were necessary to extract information.
Many still feel that way, even if many have also come to see the cascading unintended consequences which, just like planning for post war Iraq weren’t very well thought through and indeed were illegal.
Anyway, good, bad, right or wrong I doubt the political will is there for Americans to call for impeachment when so many Americans had W’s back even up to a few years ago.
Politically, people want to just move on and hope that W fades away more quietly and gracefully than Bill Clinton has.
Consider this. What will W do for the rest of his life? He is going to live with the private torture of seeing the situation in the Middle East get worse because of his actions and/or better once new strategies and tactics prove him completely wrong.
The rest of legacy will certainly be dismantled be the next administration, no matter who wins. Events will make it necessary.
He’s not exactly the motivational speaker who will earn millions on the speaking circuit.
I imagine he will retire to a small circle of friends who will cling to the belief that long after they are dead history will prove they did the right thing. Either that or it won’t matter because Jihadists will have brought on Armageddon.
where we have complicity, we should seek redemption and forgiveness.
What do you think of my alternative ideas?
I don’t see energy for a special prosecutor or going after people the public voted out of office. Its too much looking back and not enough looking forward.
I do see the need/benefit of a congressional declaration declaring regret and remorse for the nation’s actions and even legislation that better defines what limits we put on torture. I’d like to see most of the Patriot Act repealed while were at it.
I think the real question is what will create the energy for this? A good possibility is once the General candidates are set they could make this a major point of differentiation. The good news in both likely candidates are likely to come down on the right side of torture. McCain not so much on the rest.
I tend to agree with you, except that I think it’s vital that the government define what was done as illegal.
How do we square that with the fact that the people that committed the crimes are getting a mulligan?
That’s a fine balancing act, and I think censure is a reasonable compromise that is at least somewhat realistic. It’s better than doing nothing and it is avoids turning the next administration into a open-ended witchhunt to track down and imprison people.
One reason I think a special prosecutor is vastly preferable is that:
If we had done something about Iran-Contra, we never would have had Iraq.
But the country didn’t have the stomach for it. Sad to say, I don’t believe the country has the stomach for it today, either. And what new president wants to start out with an incredibly ugly enterprise like holding the administration fully responsible?
See CondiMustGo.com.
(Can’t make a link.)
I think this is the video you wanted to link to:
How about public garrotting just to make sure Cheney doesn’t return from the dead? Maybe we can get the Pope to exorcise the entire doing, since he’s now willing to come here?
I’m not blood-thristy, not like Cheney is.
c’mon. use some self-restraint please?
I don’t think any of this is likely to happen Booman, until the current democratic leadership is removed from power. This is true in the Senate AND in the House.
The reason is that the Democrats are complicit in the torture as well.
Via me, linking to atrios, corrente, and the Washington Post “Nancy Pelosi knew about the torture all along and chose to do nothing.”
If you think Nancy Pelosi’s going to sign off on something that says those involved with torture “are no longer fit to hold any federal office in the future”, when she’s implicated as well, then I have a bridge to sell you.
Spencer Ackerman was talking about this a few months ago at TPM:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/004862.php
An important data point, but I don’t think a 1-hr briefing is as damning as some of the other readers do. Think how straightforward and forthcoming the administration has been, cough cough cough…
Didn’t we even have Roberts (?) (R-KS?) from the intel cttee in the then-R-controlled Senate admitting that they’d fed him briefings but kept out any contradicting intel? And that was their pal!
read the whole article.
it’s damning.
She’s just as implicated as the rest of them because she clearly did not object or do anything to stop this. Maybe she’s not as evil as the Principals who choreographed the whole thing, but she’s not going to sign off on anything saying those involved are unfit for government service. She’d have to resign herself.
ouch
Sorry to read in haste, earlier… Do check out the HRF site (downthread) if you aren’t already familiar…
To think that we even have to ask whether a candidate or official condones torture…
I was looking for that quote when I wrote my own piece about this. Thanks!
Let me ask you all a question. Do you feel that the world, as a whole, will bring charges upon this administration for the havoc they have caused both with the war and economically? Would someone in the broad sense of the word do something that could have this group of thugs end up at the Hague?
There is a real possibility that some members of the Bush administration will have difficulty traveling freely. Kissinger and Rumsfeld already have this problem.
I have advocated in the past for a “Truth Commission” to explore our current administration, with a mandate to put their findings in the context of actual American history: the good and the bad.
Of course this would require new levels of awareness and education.
The reality, of course, is that the new digital television mandate, along with evolving cell phone targeted individual advertising, will at best distract us from the necessary, and most likely erase the memories.
Most folks would prefer a painless lobotomy to a difficult soul-searching.
But don’t listen to me, listen to a retired Army general:
..from this Human Rights First press release. They also have a current campaign to stop torture and to keep candidates from running from the issue, might be worth a visit.
The APA’s statement against torture is not nearly strong enough, in my opinion, bc it doesn’t highlight the years of research (Google “Saul Kassin” for one starting point) showing that intimidation (even w/o banned techniques) leads to FALSE information, even false memories! So some addled prisoner now remembers, yes, I planted the [imaginary[ bomb here, in this fasion… and the cost of obtaining this fake intel is the loss of respect world wide and the endangerment of our own troops.
My dream is that we use “Extraordinary Rendition”, fly them to France, and let the French arrest them for war crimes. They would’ve gotten Rummy if he hadn’t nipped out of the country right quick.
You can impeach him after he leaves office. That should make everyone happy.
I am one who never believed impeachment was realisticc, or a good idea.
Not that he doesn’t deserve it. But you are talking about a trial. And if you remember the Iran/Contra. Any juicy stuff was done in secret for national security.
They will do the same now. There are too many serious problems we have to deal with. And if you believe that, then we need more votes in the House and Senater.
Sadly, in all likelihood nothing will happen. A Congressionaa declaration regarding the illegality of past actions (as above) would be welcome, but I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for it.
But the first clause of any condemnation Democrats bring will of course include a condemnation of the ACLU, MoveOn, and the NYTimes.
The question of how practicable impeachment proceedings or a trial would be misses the point. The law should be blind. If there is compelling evidence that a crime has occurred, a serious crime, it should be prosecuted no matter how popular or powerful the defendant is and no matter how unpleasant it is for us to hold the guilty accountable. So what if Bush openly convinces the “jury” to ignore the law and give him a free pass. At least we would have tried to uphold basic, yet very important, rules of law.
It doesn’t surprise me that a bunch of Democrats don’t have the courage to defend the rule of law and stand up against torture, war crimes, and massive illegal spying on the American people. Democrats have become the eunuch party. Their lack of courage is sickening. I feel like pucnhing the Democrats in the gut because I know they are so spineless they wouldn’t do a darn thing about it. I don’t know how I got suckered back into the party this last year with the promise of change and an Obama nomination. I now remember why I left–Democratic complicity in war crimes, torture, and illegal spying. I am far more angry at the Democrats than the Republicans. Democrats claim to be against crimes against humanity yet protect the wrongdoers from any repercussions and actively try to change the laws to help the lawbreakers. The Democrats are scared of their own shadow and are somehow worried that accusing and bringing a guilty war criminal to justice would make them look bad. Boo fucking hoo. I’m so sorry you Democrats were elected to uphold the constitution yet you can’t even wipe your ass without Bush’s approval. You wimps.
I guess Democrats only have the balls to fight over verbal gaffes on the campaign trail–you know, the meaningless identity politics that currently passes for politics–but when it comes to our fundamental rule of law and preventing torture, war crimes, and an assault on American civil liberties the Democrats could care less. Screw them. I’m done trying to convince a spineless, feckless, piece of scum Democrats to actually stand up for themselves and the rule of law. Does anyone have political courage anymore? At least the Republicans stick to their priniciples. Democrats don’t really have anything they believe in.
I completely agree that securing a Senate conviction would be impossible.
But might there not be some value to forcing the issue? Granted, the precedent set by an acquittal would be at least a little awkward (although I hear few people now arguing that public officials are free to lie under oath about extramarital fellatio with the unpaid help on account of Clinton’s non-conviction). However, I should think that forcing “the Republican Party [to] act collectively as official apologists for torture [i.e, to a greater extent than it already has]” might be a reasonably decent outcome, allowing us to flog them remorselelessly for years to come. Keep in mind that although we don’t stand much of a chance of seeing any of the malefactors behind bars, it is reasonable to predict that there will be further revelations of exactly went on and who knew what when (as in the case of the recently disclosed “principals’ meetings”). Jack Bauer’s star, I think, is fading, and these clowns are not only swimming against the tide of morality, they’re swimming against the tide of popular opinion as well.
One final, depressing note. The “unhealthy precedent” — viz., “that the most serious violations … are not worthy of removal from office” — is already established. Johnson’s Gulf of Tonkin fraud (not to mention its farcical reprise by Bush, Rice & Co. w/r/t Iraqi WMD), Truman’s seizure of the steel mills (to keep the mine workers from striking), Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus were all massive violations of the Constitution, arguably some of the most massive ever perpetrated. But as to impeachment, they are all dogs that didn’t bark. And if this Congress fails even to issue Articles of Impeachment against Bush and Cheney, this will merely reinforce the trend.
But then again, I think it nearly impossible to conceive of a simple majority in the House voting for impeachment, so this is all a bit moot.
One thing that we should do as a nation, through our elected representatives, is to find out the innocent people that we accidentally tortured and pay them a certain compensation. They did no harm to us whatsoever but still suffered. We owe them plenty.
If we do not redeem our lost honor by making these payments – whatever an impartial court decides – then we will reap the whirlwind and our civilization no doubt will be savaged. Wake up America, it’s becoming very late in the day of infamy.
If your heart is pure and your intention sincere, God will listen to you.
That is a brilliant suggestion. Like many brilliant thoughts, it seems so obvious once someone points it out, but I’ve yet to see this seemingly bovious gesture suggested thus far.
It would be a powerful thing for an incoming president to express profound apaologies for the misconduct that many innocent people, known and unknown, have thus far suffered. Hell, i would also apologize to those who were guilty of something as well, since no-one deserves to be the victim of state-sanctioned torture.
Recently, the incoming Prime Minister of Australia, Kevin rudd, issued a rather stirring apology to the indigenous populations of Australia — and in particular the “Stolen Generations,” aborignal children who were forcibly removed from their families and raised by white Autralians as part of the effort to eraadicate indigenous culture. It was a powerful, powerful speech. And judging from the interviews that the BBC did with a number of Stolen Generation survivors, it had a profound impact, even on those who said that it would never be enough.
Thank-you for mentioning Kevin Rudd’s apology to the aboriginals of Australia for the “Stolen Generations.” I had forgotten about it.
OT but another apology should by made by the Canadian government and the United, Anglican, and Roman Catholic churches to the aboriginals of Canada for the cultural genocide they perpetrated upon these poor souls. Kevin Annett is doing heroic work in bringing these abuses to light and has been instrumental in the launching of thousands of lawsuits by these natives to regain their rights and discover the burial sites of their children who perished in the so called residential schools. It is a colossal problem quietly cooking north of the border.
It should be much better known.
Thank God for the internet and bloggers like Boo Man et al. They truly are the salt of the earth.
Have crystal, will travel.