To Defeat Terrorism, Put Democracy On A Shelf?

One of the top objections to impeaching the President I have heard is that impeaching the president in a time of conflict would undermine the war and be a sign of weakness to our enemies. It's a fair point; I certainly prefer it to the "Bush didn't do anything wrong! Libs wanna help terrorists!~ OMG Clinton did it too!!11!" talking points. Still, I strongly disagree.

Certainly impeaching our Commander-In-Chief during wartime seems unusual, but it is not without precedent. The U.S. Congress was planning the impeachment of Richard Nixon (he opted, of course, to resign and save what little dignity he could) in 1974, when there were still U.S. troops in Vietnam (though the war was winding down at that point). The U.S. was also still engaged in the continuing Cold War, similar to today's 'War on Terror', with a lingering fear of nuclear conflict. The state of war was not something that made Congress reconsider impeachment. To the contrary, Congress at one point considered adding to the articles of impeachment charges relating to President Nixon's illegal attacks on Cambodia. So Nixon's status as Commander-in-Chief offered no saving grace for him as his impeachment was prepared; in fact, it actually added to his troubles. Nor did Nixon use his title as a defense, choosing rather the "executive privilege" defense our current Vice President is so fond of. The Supreme Court didn't buy it and the rest is history.

Impeaching President Bush would do no greater damage to the United States or our security than the impeachments of Andrew Johnson or Bill Clinton did or the resignation of Nixon did. Rather, it would be a sign that our democratic process is alive and well and that it holds precedent above fears of terror. It would show the world that we value democracy above all, and that we place no one ruler above the law.

The President denies that he sees himself as an imperial leader who is above the law. He states that he always acts in accordance with the law and the Consitution. But we know that is not true. The President states that he only needs this extra legal leeway because we are at war with terror. He implies these illegal actions are temporary and not aspects of a permanently imperial presidency. One problem with that temporary claim is that these actions have been going on for four years, way too long a time to be bypassing easily persuadable FISA courts. Secondly, how can it be temporary in a war that had no official beginning (an official declaration was never made) and no forseeable end?

To put it simply- you cannot defeat terror. In a rare moment of nuance and honesty, the President declared last year on TV that you can't. He stated "I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the — those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world". He was 100% correct. You can't defeat it, you can of course work to curb it and stop certain actions. Therefore a war on terror is, by definition, a war without end. And these legal accomodations we are asked to make for the President are therefore not temporary- they become permanent powers of an Executive branch without limits, exactly what Vice President Cheney wanted when he took office pledging to restore the branch to its Nixonian monarchy.

Four years ago, the President and others (correctly) stated that to interrupt our way of life would be to give victory to the terrorists. After all, the goal of terrorism (besides the destruction) is to create, well, terror and to disrupt economies and governments. Therefore, the President told us that it was imperative that we help defeat them... by continuing to be lazy and shop with money we don't have and not think too much about things. It's a strategy that no doubt has Osama shaking in his boots, wherever he is. Right idea, wrong execution.

Now here, in 2005, the President and his supporters are saying just the opposite. They state that because of the continuing terrorist threat, we must interrupt our normal way of doing things, our democratic processes, as the war itself is more important. Our laws, the Constitution, and Congressional and judicial oversight should put on hold (or at least looked at as less important) while the President works to unroot terrorist plots, hopefully harder than he did in August of 2001.

The president was absolutely right in the Fall of 2001 to tell us we must not alter our way of life because of terrorism fears (though perhaps asking for a greater domestic sacrifice than shopping would be good too). The President failed to note this refusal to give in also includes not altering our democracy, the checks and balances, and procedures that are in place to keep the government from becoming the enemy.

If we put democracy on the shelf and ignore clear and unquestionable crimes committed by our President (even if in the name of 'protecting us')... then (to use the old 2001 phrase) the terrorists have already won.

It is absolutely clear that President Bush has committed numerous crimes, the biggest of which is his secret refusal to get the required warrants for wiretapping for no legitimate reason (he had all the legals tool needed already to do wiretapping quickly and quietly). This is a very serious offense and just the tip of the iceberg.

For the sake of our democracy, and because the law requires it, Congress must bring articles of impeachment against President Bush in 2006. Let no partisan squabbling get in the way of this. There's so much at stake.