[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1258 Introduced in House (IH)]
2d Session
H. RES. 1258
Impeaching George W. Bush, President of the United States, of high
crimes and misdemeanors.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
June 10, 2008
Mr. Kucinich submitted the following resolution
June 11, 2008
By motion of the House, referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
_______________________________________________________________________
RESOLUTION
Impeaching George W. Bush, President of the United States, of high
crimes and misdemeanors.
Resolved, That President George W. Bush be 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, in maintenance and support of its
impeachment against President George W. Bush for high crimes and
misdemeanors.
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W.
Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the
office of President of the United States and, to the best of his
ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that
the laws be faithfully executed, has committed the following abuses of
power.
Article I--Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign To Manufacture a False
Case for War Against Iraq
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W.
Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the
office of President of the United States and, to the best of his
ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under article II,
section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed'', has both personally and acting through his
agents and subordinates, together with the Vice President, illegally
spent public dollars on a secret propaganda program to manufacture a
false cause for war against Iraq.
The Department of Defense (DOD) has engaged in a years-long secret
domestic propaganda campaign to promote the invasion and occupation of
Iraq. This secret program was defended by the White House Press
Secretary following its exposure. This program follows the pattern of
crimes detailed in articles I, II, IV, and VIII. The mission of this
program placed it within the field controlled by the White House Iraq
Group (WHIG), a White House task-force formed in August 2002 to market
an invasion of Iraq to the American people. The group included Karl
Rove, I. Lewis Libby, Condoleezza Rice, Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin,
Stephen Hadley, Nicholas E. Calio, and James R. Wilkinson.
The WHIG produced white papers detailing so-called intelligence of
Iraq's nuclear threat that later proved to be false. This supposed
intelligence included the claim that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger
as well as the claim that the high strength aluminum tubes Iraq
purchased from China were to be used for the sole purpose of building
centrifuges to enrich uranium. Unlike the National Intelligence
Estimate of 2002, the WHIG's white papers provided ``gripping images
and stories'' and used ``literary license'' with intelligence. The
WHIG's white papers were written at the same time and by the same
people as speeches and talking points prepared for President Bush and
some of his top officials.
The WHIG also organized a media blitz in which, between September
7-8, 2002, President Bush and his top advisers appeared on numerous
interviews and all provided similarly gripping images about the
possibility of nuclear attack by Iraq. The timing was no coincidence,
as Andrew Card explained in an interview regarding waiting until after
Labor Day to try to sell the American people on military action against
Iraq, ``From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new
products in August.''.
September 7-8, 2002:
NBC's ``Meet the Press'': Vice President Cheney accused
Saddam of moving aggressively to develop nuclear weapons over
the past 14 months to add to his stockpile of chemical and
biological arms.
CNN: Then-National Security Adviser Rice said, regarding
the likelihood of Iraq obtaining a nuclear weapon, ``We don't
want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.''.
CBS: President Bush declared that Saddam was ``six months
away from developing a weapon'', and cited satellite photos of
construction in Iraq where weapons inspectors once visited as
evidence that Saddam was trying to develop nuclear arms.
The Pentagon military analyst propaganda program was revealed in an
April 20, 2002, New York Times article. The program illegally involved
``covert attempts to mold opinion through the undisclosed use of third
parties''. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld recruited 75 retired
military officers and gave them talking points to deliver on Fox, CNN,
ABC, NBC, CBS, and MSNBC, and according to the New York Times report,
which has not been disputed by the Pentagon or the White House,
``Participants were instructed not to quote their briefers directly or
otherwise describe their contacts with the Pentagon.''.
According to the Pentagon's own internal documents, the military
analysts were considered ``message force multipliers'' or
``surrogates'' who would deliver administration ``themes and messages''
to millions of Americans ``in the form of their own opinions''. In
fact, they did deliver the themes and the messages but did not reveal
that the Pentagon had provided them with their talking points. Robert
S. Bevelacqua, a retired Green Beret and Fox News military analyst
described this as follows: ``It was them saying, `We need to stick our
hands up your back and move your mouth for you.'.''.
Congress has restricted annual appropriations bills since 1951 with
this language: ``No part of any appropriation contained in this or any
other Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the
United States not heretofore authorized by the Congress.''.
A March 21, 2005, report by the Congressional Research Service
states that ``publicity or propaganda'' is defined by the U.S.
Government Accountability Office (GAO) to mean either (1) self-
aggrandizement by public officials, (2) purely partisan activity, or
(3) ``covert propaganda''.
These concerns about ``covert propaganda'' were also the basis for
the GAO's standard for determining when government-funded video news
releases are illegal:
``The failure of an agency to identify itself as the source of a
prepackaged news story misleads the viewing public by encouraging the
viewing audience to believe that the broadcasting news organization
developed the information. The prepackaged news stories are
purposefully designed to be indistinguishable from news segments
broadcast to the public. When the television viewing public does not
know that the stories they watched on television news programs about
the government were in fact prepared by the government, the stories
are, in this sense, no longer purely factual--the essential fact of
attribution is missing.''.
The White House's own Office of Legal Council stated in a
memorandum written in 2005 following the controversy over the Armstrong
Williams scandal:
``Over the years, GAO has interpreted `publicity or propaganda'
restrictions to preclude use of appropriated funds for, among other
things, so-called `covert propaganda'. . . . Consistent with that view,
the OLC determined in 1988 that a statutory prohibition on using
appropriated funds for `publicity or propaganda' precluded undisclosed
agency funding of advocacy by third-party groups. We stated that
`covert attempts to mold opinion through the undisclosed use of third
parties' would run afoul of restrictions on using appropriated funds
for `propaganda'.''.
Asked about the Pentagon's propaganda program at White House press
briefing in April 2008, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino
defended it, not by arguing that it was legal but by suggesting that it
``should'' be: ``Look, I didn't know look, I think that you guys should
take a step back and look at this look, DOD has made a decision,
they've decided to stop this program. But I would say that one of the
things that we try to do in the administration is get information out
to a variety of people so that everybody else can call them and ask
their opinion about something. And I don't think that that should be
against the law. And I think that it's absolutely appropriate to
provide information to people who are seeking it and are going to be
providing their opinions on it. It doesn't necessarily mean that all of
those military analysts ever agreed with the administration. I think
you can go back and look and think that a lot of their analysis was
pretty tough on the administration. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't
talk to people.''.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has
acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander in
Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of
the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people
of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such
conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from
office.
Article II--Falsely, Systematically, and With Criminal Intent
Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001 With Misrepresentation of
Iraq as an Imminent Security Threat as Part of a Fraudulent
Justification for a War of Aggression
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W.
Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the
office of President of the United States and, to the best of his
ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under article II,
section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed'', has both personally and acting through his
agents and subordinates, together with the Vice President, executed a
calculated and wide-ranging strategy to deceive the citizens and
Congress of the United States into believing that there was and is a
connection between Iraq and Saddam Hussein on the one hand, and the
attacks of September 11, 2001, and al Qaeda, on the other hand, so as
to falsely justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against
the nation of Iraq in a manner that is damaging to the national
security interests of the United States, as well as to fraudulently
obtain and maintain congressional authorization and funding for the use
of such military force against Iraq, thereby interfering with and
obstructing Congress's lawful functions of overseeing foreign affairs
and declaring war.
The means used to implement this deception were and continue to be,
first, allowing, authorizing and sanctioning the manipulation of
intelligence analysis by those under his direction and control,
including the Vice President and the Vice President's agents, and
second, personally making, or causing, authorizing and allowing to be
made through highly-placed subordinates, including the President's
Chief of Staff, the White House Press Secretary and other White House
spokespersons, the Secretaries of State and Defense, the National
Security Advisor, and their deputies and spokespersons, false and
fraudulent representations to the citizens of the United States and
Congress regarding an alleged connection between Saddam Hussein and
Iraq, on the one hand, and the September 11th attacks and al Qaeda, on
the other hand, that were half-true, literally true but misleading,
and/or made without a reasonable basis and with reckless indifference
to their truth, as well as omitting to state facts necessary to present
an accurate picture of the truth as follows:
(1) On or about September 12, 2001, former terrorism
advisor Richard Clarke personally informed the President that
neither Saddam Hussein nor Iraq was responsible for the
September 11th attacks. On September 18, Clarke submitted to
the President's National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice a
memo he had written in response to George W. Bush's specific
request that stated: (1) the case for linking Hussein to the
September 11th attacks was weak; (2) only anecdotal evidence
linked Hussein to al Qaeda; (3) Osama Bin Laden resented the
secularism of Saddam Hussein; and (4) there was no confirmed
reporting of Saddam Hussein cooperating with Bin Laden on
unconventional weapons.
(2) Ten days after the September 11th attacks the President
received a President's Daily Briefing which indicated that the
U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking Saddam
Hussein to the September 11th attacks and that there was
``scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant
collaborative ties with Al Qaeda''.
(3) In Defense Intelligence Terrorism Summary No. 044-02,
issued in February 2002, the United States Defense Intelligence
Agency cast significant doubt on the possibility of a Saddam
Hussein-al Qaeda conspiracy: ``Saddam's regime is intensely
secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements.
Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group
it cannot control.''.
(4) The October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate gave a
``Low Confidence'' rating to the notion of whether ``in
desperation Saddam would share chemical or biological weapons
with Al Qaeda''. The CIA never informed the President that
there was an operational relationship between al Qaeda and
Saddam Hussein; on the contrary, its most ``aggressive''
analysis contained in ``Iraq and al-Qa'ida: Interpreting a
Murky Relationship'' dated June 21, 2002, was that Iraq had had
``sporadic, wary contacts with al-Qa'ida since the mid-1990s
rather than a relationship with al-Qa'ida that has developed
over time''.
(5) Notwithstanding his knowledge that neither Saddam
Hussein nor Iraq was in any way connected to the September 11th
attacks, the President allowed and authorized those acting
under his direction and control, including Vice President
Richard B. Cheney and Lewis Libby, who reported directly to
both the President and the Vice President, and Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld, among others, to pressure intelligence
analysts to alter their assessments and to create special units
outside of, and unknown to, the intelligence community in order
to secretly obtain unreliable information, to manufacture
intelligence or reinterpret raw data in ways that would further
the Bush administration's goal of fraudulently establishing a
relationship not only between Iraq and al Qaeda, but between
Iraq and the attacks of September 11th.
(6) Further, despite his full awareness that Iraq and
Saddam Hussein had no relationship to the September 11th
attacks, the President, and those acting under his direction
and control have, since at least 2002 and continuing to the
present, repeatedly issued public statements deliberately
worded to mislead, words calculated in their implication to
bring unrelated actors and circumstances into an artificially
contrived reality thereby facilitating the systematic deception
of Congress and the American people. Thus the public and some
members of Congress, came to believe, falsely, that there was a
connection between Iraq and the attacks of 9/11. This was
accomplished through well-publicized statements by the Bush
Administration which contrived to continually tie Iraq and 9/11
in the same statements of grave concern without making an
explicit charge:
(A) ``[If] Iraq regimes [sic] continues to defy us,
and the world, we will move deliberately, yet
decisively, to hold Iraq to account. . . . It's a new
world we're in. We used to think two oceans could
separate us from an enemy. On that tragic day,
September the 11th, 2001, we found out that's not the
case. We found out this great land of liberty and of
freedom and of justice is vulnerable. And therefore we
must do everything we can--everything we can--to secure
the homeland, to make us safe.'' Speech of President
Bush in Iowa on September 16, 2002.
(B) ``With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward
gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our
own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if
an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to
terrorist allies, then the attacks of September 11th
would be a prelude to far greater horrors.'' March 6,
2003, Statement of President Bush in National Press
Conference.
(C) ``The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on
terror that began on September the 11, 2001--and still
goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men--the shock
troops of a hateful ideology--gave America and the
civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They
imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September
the 11th would be the `beginning of the end of
America'. By seeking to turn our cities into killing
fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they
could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our
retreat from the world. They have failed.'' May 1,
2003, Speech of President Bush on U.S.S. Abraham
Lincoln.
(D) ``Now we're in a new and unprecedented war
against violent Islamic extremists. This is an
ideological conflict we face against murderers and
killers who try to impose their will. These are the
people that attacked us on September the 11th and
killed nearly 3,000 people. The stakes are high, and
once again, we have had to change our strategic
thinking. The major battleground in this war is Iraq.''
June 28, 2007, Speech of President Bush at the Naval
War College in Newport, Rhode Island.
(7) Notwithstanding his knowledge that there was no
credible evidence of a working relationship between Saddam
Hussein and al Qaeda and that the intelligence community had
specifically assessed that there was no such operational
relationship, the President, both personally and through his
subordinates and agents, has repeatedly falsely represented,
both explicitly and implicitly, and through the misleading use
of selectively-chosen facts, to the citizens of the United
States and to the Congress that there was and is such an
ongoing operational relationship, to wit:
(A) ``We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-
level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda
leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These
include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received
medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has
been associated with planning for chemical and
biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained
al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly
gases.'' September 28, 2002, Weekly Radio Address of
President Bush to the Nation.
(B) ``[W]e we need to think about Saddam Hussein
using al Qaeda to do his dirty work, to not leave
fingerprints behind.'' October 14, 2002, Remarks by
President Bush in Michigan.
(C) ``We know he's got ties with al Qaeda.''
November 1, 2002, Speech of President Bush in New
Hampshire.
(D) ``Evidence from intelligence sources, secret
communications, and statements by people now in custody
reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects
terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly,
and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his
hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop
their own.'' January 28, 2003, President Bush's State
of the Union Address.
(E) ``[W]hat I want to bring to your attention
today is the potentially much more sinister nexus
between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network, a
nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and
modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly
terrorist network. . . .'' February 5, 2003, Speech of
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell to the United
Nations.
(F) ``The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on
terror that began on September the 11, 2001--and still
goes on. . . . [T]he liberation of Iraq . . . removed
an ally of al Qaeda.'' May 1, 2003, Speech of President
Bush on U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln.
(8) The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report on
Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq by U.S. Government
Officials Were Substantiated by Intelligence Information, which
was released on June 5, 2008, concluded that:
(A) ``Statements and implications by the President
and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-
Qa'ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-
Qa'ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by
the intelligence.''.
(B) ``The Intelligence Community did not confirm
that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in
Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly
claimed.''.
Through his participation and instance in the breathtaking scope of
this deception, the President has used the highest office of trust to
wage a campaign of deception of such sophistication as to deliberately
subvert the national security interests of the United States. His
dishonesty set the stage for the loss of more than 4,000 United States
servicemembers; injuries to tens of thousands of soldiers, the loss of
more than 1,000,000 innocent Iraqi citizens since the United States
invasion; the loss of approximately $527 billion in war costs which has
increased our Federal debt and the ultimate expenditure of three to
five trillion dollars for all costs covering the war; the loss of
military readiness within the United States Armed Services due to
overextension, the lack of training and lack of equipment; the loss of
United States credibility in world affairs; and the decades of likely
blowback created by the invasion of Iraq.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has
acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander in
Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of
the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people
of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such
conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from
office.
Article III--Misleading the American People and Members of Congress To
Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, so as To
Manufacture a False Case for War
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W.
Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the
office of President of the United States and, to the best of his
ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under article II,
section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed'', has both personally and acting through his
agents and subordinates, together with the Vice President, executed
instead a calculated and wide-ranging strategy to deceive the citizens
and Congress of the United States into believing that the nation of
Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction in order to justify the use
of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a
manner damaging to our national security interests, thereby interfering
with and obstructing Congress's lawful functions of overseeing foreign
affairs and declaring war.
The means used to implement this deception were and continue to be
personally making, or causing, authorizing and allowing to be made
through highly-placed subordinates, including the President's Chief of
Staff, the White House Press Secretary and other White House
spokespersons, the Secretaries of State and Defense, the National
Security Advisor, and their deputies and spokespersons, false and
fraudulent representations to the citizens of the United States and
Congress regarding Iraq's alleged possession of biological, chemical
and nuclear weapons that were half-true, literally true but misleading,
and/or made without a reasonable basis and with reckless indifference
to their truth, as well as omitting to state facts necessary to present
an accurate picture of the truth as follows:
(1) Long before the March 19, 2003, invasion of Iraq, a
wealth of intelligence informed the President and those under
his direction and control that Iraq's stockpiles of chemical
and biological weapons had been destroyed well before 1998 and
that there was little, if any, credible intelligence that
showed otherwise. As reported in the Washington Post in March
of 2003, in 1995, Saddam Hussein's son-in-law Hussein Kamel had
informed U.S. and British intelligence officers that ``all
weapons--biological, chemical, missile, nuclear were
destroyed.'' In September 2002, the Defense Intelligence Agency
issued a report that concluded: ``A substantial amount of
Iraq's chemical warfare agents, precursors, munitions and
production equipment were destroyed between 1991 and 1998 as a
result of Operation Desert Storm and UNSCOM actions . . .
[T]here is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing
and stockpiling chemical weapons or whether Iraq has--or will--
establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.''
Notwithstanding the absence of evidence proving that such
stockpiles existed and in direct contradiction to substantial
evidence that showed they did not exist, the President and his
subordinates and agents made numerous false representations
claiming with certainty that Iraq possessed chemical and
biological weapons that it was developing to use to attack the
United States, to wit:
(A) ``[T]he notion of a Saddam Hussein with his
great oil wealth, with his inventory that he already
has of biological and chemical weapons . . . is, I
think, a frightening proposition for anybody who thinks
about it.'' Statement of Vice President Cheney on CBS's
Face the Nation, March 24, 2002.
(B) ``In defiance of the United Nations, Iraq has
stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is
rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those
weapons.'' Speech of President Bush, October 5, 2002.
(C) ``All the world has now seen the footage of an
Iraqi Mirage aircraft with a fuel tank modified to
spray biological agents over wide areas. Iraq has
developed spray devices that could be used on unmanned
aerial vehicles with ranges far beyond what is
permitted by the Security Council. A UAV launched from
a vessel off the American coast could reach hundreds of
miles inland.'' Statement by President Bush from the
White House, February 6, 2003.
(2) Despite overwhelming intelligence in the form of
statements and reports filed by and on behalf of the CIA, the
State Department and the IAEA, among others, which indicated
that the claim was untrue, the President, and those under his
direction and control, made numerous representations claiming
and implying through misleading language that Iraq was
attempting to purchase uranium from Niger in order to falsely
buttress its argument that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear
weapons program, including:
(A) ``The regime has the scientists and facilities
to build nuclear weapons, and is seeking the materials
needed to do so.'' Statement of President Bush from
White House, October 2, 2002.
(B) ``The [Iraqi] report also failed to deal with
issues which have arisen since 1998, including: . . .
attempts to acquire uranium and the means to enrich
it.'' Letter from President Bush to Vice President
Cheney and the Senate, January 20, 2003.
(C) ``The British Government has learned that
Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities
of uranium from Africa.'' President Bush Delivers State
of the Union Address, January 28, 2003.
(3) Despite overwhelming evidence in the form of reports by
nuclear weapons experts from the Energy, the Defense and State
Departments, as well from outside and international agencies
which assessed that aluminum tubes the Iraqis were purchasing
were not suitable for nuclear centrifuge use and were, on the
contrary, identical to ones used in rockets already being
manufactured by the Iraqis, the President, and those under his
direction and control, persisted in making numerous false and
fraudulent representations implying and stating explicitly that
the Iraqis were purchasing the tubes for use in a nuclear
weapons program, to wit:
(A) ``We do know that there have been shipments
going . . . into Iraq . . . of aluminum tubes that
really are only suited to--high-quality aluminum tools
[sic] that are only really suited for nuclear weapons
programs, centrifuge programs.'' Statement of then
National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice on CNN's
Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, September 8, 2002.
(B) ``Our intelligence sources tell us that he has
attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes
suitable for nuclear weapons production.'' President
Bush's State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003.
(C) ``[H]e has made repeated covert attempts to
acquire high-specification aluminum tubes from 11
different countries, even after inspections resumed. .
. . By now, just about everyone has heard of these
tubes and we all know that there are differences of
opinion. There is controversy about what these tubes
are for. Most U.S. experts think they are intended to
serve as rotors in centrifuges used to enrich
uranium.'' Speech of Former Secretary of State Colin
Powell to the United Nations, February 5, 2003.
(4) The President, both personally and acting through those
under his direction and control, suppressed material
information, selectively declassified information for the
improper purposes of retaliating against a whistleblower and
presenting a misleading picture of the alleged threat from
Iraq, facilitated the exposure of the identity of a covert CIA
operative and thereafter not only failed to investigate the
improper leaks of classified information from within his
administration, but also failed to cooperate with an
investigation into possible federal violations resulting from
this activity and, finally, entirely undermined the prosecution
by commuting the sentence of Lewis Libby citing false and
insubstantial grounds, all in an effort to prevent Congress and
the citizens of the United States from discovering the
fraudulent nature of the President's claimed justifications for
the invasion of Iraq.
(5) The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report on
Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq by U.S. Government
Officials Were Substantiated by Intelligence Information, which
was released on June 5, 2008, concluded that:
(A) ``Statements by the President and Vice
President prior to the October 2002 National
Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq's chemical weapons
production capability and activities did not reflect
the intelligence community's uncertainties as to
whether such production was ongoing.''.
(B) ``The Secretary of Defense's statement that the
Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities
that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes
because they were underground and deeply buried was not
substantiated by available intelligence information.''.
(C) Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee
Jay Rockefeller concluded: ``In making the case for
war, the Administration repeatedly presented
intelligence as fact when in reality it was
unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As
a result, the American people were led to believe that
the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually
existed.''.
The President has subverted the national security interests of the
United States by setting the stage for the loss of more than 4,000
United States servicemembers and the injury to tens of thousands of
U.S. soldiers; the loss of more than 1,000,000 innocent Iraqi citizens
since the United States invasion; the loss of approximately $500
billion in war costs which has increased our Federal debt with a long
term financial cost of between three and five trillion dollars; the
loss of military readiness within the United States Armed Services due
to overextension, the lack of training and lack of equipment; the loss
of United States credibility in world affairs; and the decades of
likely blowback created by the invasion of Iraq.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has
acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander in
Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of
the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people
of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such
conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from
office.
Article IV--Misleading the American People and Members of Congress To
Believe Iraq Posed an Imminent Threat to the United States
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W.
Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the
office of President of the United States and, to the best of his
ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under article II,
section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed'', has both personally and acting through his
agents and subordinates, together with the Vice President, executed a
calculated and wide-ranging strategy to deceive the citizens and
Congress of the United States into believing that the nation of Iraq
posed an imminent threat to the United States in order to justify the
use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a
manner damaging to our national security interests, thereby interfering
with and obstructing Congress's lawful functions of overseeing foreign
affairs and declaring war.
The means used to implement this deception were and continue to be,
first, allowing, authorizing and sanctioning the manipulation of
intelligence analysis by those under his direction and control,
including the Vice President and the Vice President's agents, and
second, personally making, or causing, authorizing and allowing to be
made through highly-placed subordinates, including the President's
Chief of Staff, the White House Press Secretary and other White House
spokespersons, the Secretaries of State and Defense, the National
Security Advisor, and their deputies and spokespersons, false and
fraudulent representations to the citizens of the United States and
Congress regarding an alleged urgent threat posed by Iraq, statements
that were half-true, literally true but misleading, and/or made without
a reasonable basis and with reckless indifference to their truth, as
well as omitting to state facts necessary to present an accurate
picture of the truth as follows:
(1) Notwithstanding the complete absence of intelligence
analysis to support a claim that Iraq posed an imminent or
urgent threat to the United States and the intelligence
community's assessment that Iraq was in fact not likely to
attack the United States unless it was itself attacked,
President Bush, both personally and through his agents and
subordinates, made, allowed and caused to be made repeated
false representations to the citizens and Congress of the
United States implying and explicitly stating that such a dire
threat existed, including the following:
(A) ``States such as these [Iraq, Iran, and North
Korea] and their terrorist allies constitute an axis of
evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By
seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose
a grave and growing danger. They could provide these
arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match
their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt
to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases,
the price of indifference would be catastrophic.''
President Bush's State of the Union Address, January
29, 2002.
(B) ``Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam
Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. He is amassing
them to use against our friends, our enemies, and
against us.'' Speech of Vice President Cheney at VFW
103rd National Convention, August 26, 2002.
(C) ``The history, the logic, and the facts lead to
one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and
gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope
against the evidence. To assume this regime's good
faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of
the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we
must not take.'' Address of President Bush to the
United Nations General Assembly, September 12, 2002.
(D) ``[N]o terrorist state poses a greater or more
immediate threat to the security of our people than the
regime of Saddam Hussein and Iraq.'' Statement of
Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to Congress,
September 19, 2002.
(E) ``On its present course, the Iraqi regime is a
threat of unique urgency . . . it has developed weapons
of mass death.'' Statement of President Bush at White
House, October 2, 2002.
(F) ``But the President also believes that this
problem has to be dealt with, and if the United Nations
won't deal with it, then the United States, with other
likeminded nations, may have to deal with it. We would
prefer not to go that route, but the danger is so
great, with respect to Saddam Hussein having weapons of
mass destruction, and perhaps even terrorists getting
hold of such weapons, that it is time for the
international community to act, and if it doesn't act,
the President is prepared to act with likeminded
nations.'' Statement of Former Secretary of State Colin
Powell in interview with Ellen Ratner of Talk Radio
News, October 30, 2002.
(G) ``Today the world is also uniting to answer the
unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq. A dictator who
has used weapons of mass destruction on his own people
must not be allowed to produce or possess those
weapons. We will not permit Saddam Hussein to blackmail
and/or terrorize nations which love freedom.'' Speech
by President Bush to Prague Atlantic Student Summit,
November 20, 2002.
(H) ``But the risk of doing nothing, the risk of
the security of this country being jeopardized at the
hands of a madman with weapons of mass destruction far
exceeds the risk of any action we may be forced to
take.'' President Bush meets with National Economic
Council at White House, February 25, 2003.
(2) In furtherance of his fraudulent effort to deceive
Congress and the citizens of the United States into believing
that Iraq and Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to the
United States, the President allowed and authorized those
acting under his direction and control, including Vice
President Richard B. Cheney, former Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld, and Lewis Libby, who reported directly to both the
President and the Vice President, among others, to pressure
intelligence analysts to tailor their assessments and to create
special units outside of, and unknown to, the intelligence
community in order to secretly obtain unreliable information,
to manufacture intelligence, or to reinterpret raw data in ways
that would support the Bush administration's plan to invade
Iraq based on a false claim of urgency despite the lack of
justification for such a preemptive action.
(3) The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report on
Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq by U.S. Government
Officials Were Substantiated by Intelligence Information, which
was released on June 5, 2008, concluded that: ``Statements by
the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam
Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to
terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were
contradicted by available intelligence information.''.
Thus the President willfully and falsely misrepresented Iraq as an
urgent threat requiring immediate action thereby subverting the
national security interests of the United States by setting the stage
for the loss of more than 4,000 United States servicemembers; the
injuries to tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers; the deaths of more than
1,000,000 Iraqi citizens since the United States invasion; the loss of
approximately $527 billion in war costs which has increased our Federal
debt and the ultimate costs of the war between three trillion and five
trillion dollars; the loss of military readiness within the United
States Armed Services due to overextension, the lack of training and
lack of equipment; the loss of United States credibility in world
affairs; and the decades of likely blowback created by the invasion of
Iraq.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has
acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander in
Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of
the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people
of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such
conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from
office.
Article V--Illegally Misspending Funds to Secretly Begin a War of
Aggression
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W.
Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the
office of President of the United States and, to the best of his
ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under article II,
section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed'', has both personally and acting through his
agents and subordinates, together with the Vice President, illegally
misspent funds to begin a war in secret prior to any Congressional
authorization.
The President used over $2 billion in the summer of 2002 to prepare
for the invasion of Iraq. First reported in Bob Woodward's book, Plan
of Attack, and later confirmed by the Congressional Research Service,
Bush took money appropriated by Congress for Afghanistan and other
programs and--with no Congressional notification--used it to build
airfields in Qatar and to make other preparations for the invasion of
Iraq. This constituted a violation of article I, section 9 of the U.S.
Constitution, as well as a violation of the War Powers Act of 1973.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has
acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander in
Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of
the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people
of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such
conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from
office.
Article VI--Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of H.J. Res.
114
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W.
Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the
office of President of the United States and, to the best of his
ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under article II,
section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed'', exceeded his Constitutional authority to wage
war by invading Iraq in 2003 without meeting the requirements of H.J.
Res. 114, the ``Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Resolution of 2002'' to wit:
(1) H.J. Res. 114 contains several Whereas clauses
consistent with statements being made by the White House at the
time regarding the threat from Iraq as evidenced by the
following:
(A) H.J. Res. 114 states ``Whereas Iraq both poses
a continuing threat to the national security of the
United States and international peace and security in
the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and
unacceptable breach of its international obligations
by, among other things, continuing to possess and
develop a significant chemical and biological weapons
capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons
capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist
organizations;''; and
(B) H.J. Res. 114 states ``Whereas members of Al
Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for
attacks on the United States, its citizens, and
interests, including the attacks that occurred on
September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;''.
(2) H.J. Res. 114 states that the President must provide a
determination, the truthfulness of which is implied, that
military force is necessary in order to use the authorization,
as evidenced by the following:
(A) Section 3 of H.J. Res. 114 states:
``(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise
of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
``(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic
or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
``(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is
consistent with the United States and other countries
continuing to take the necessary actions against international
terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations,
organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed,
or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,
2001.''.
(3) On March 18, 2003, President George Bush sent a letter
to Congress stating that he had made that determination as
evidenced by the following:
(A) March 18th, 2003 Letter to Congress stating:
``Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for
Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
(Public Law 107-243), and based on information
available to me, including that in the enclosed
document, I determine that:
``(i) reliance by the United States on
further diplomatic and other peaceful means
alone will neither (A) adequately protect the
national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B)
likely lead to enforcement of all relevant
United Nations Security Council resolutions
regarding Iraq; and
``(ii) acting pursuant to the Constitution
and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the
United States and other countries continuing to
take the necessary actions against
international terrorists and terrorist
organizations, including those nations,
organizations, or persons who planned,
authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.''.
(4) President George Bush knew that these statements were
false as evidenced by:
(A) Information provided with articles I, II, III,
IV, and V.
(B) A statement by President George Bush in an
interview with Tony Blair on January 31st, 2003: [WH]
Reporter: ``One question for you both. Do you
believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a
direct link, and the men who attacked on September the
11th?''
President Bush: ``I can't make that claim''.
(C) An article on February 19th by Terrorism expert
Rohan Gunaratna states ``I could find no evidence of
links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The documentation and
interviews indicated that Al Qaeda regarded Saddam, a
secular leader, as an infidel.''. [International Herald
Tribune]
(D) According to a February 2nd, 2003 article in
the New York Times: [NYT]
At the Federal Bureau of Investigation, some
investigators said they were baffled by the Bush
administration's insistence on a solid link between
Iraq and Osama bin Laden's network. ``We've been
looking at this hard for more than a year and you know
what, we just don't think it's there'', a government
official said.
(5) Section 3C of H.J. Res 114 states that ``Nothing in
this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War
Powers Resolution.''.
(6) The War Powers Resolution Section 9(d)(1) states:
``(d) Nothing in this joint resolution--
``(1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of
the Congress or of the President, or the provision of existing
treaties; or''.
(7) The United Nations Charter was an existing treaty and,
as shown in article VIII, the invasion of Iraq violated that
treaty.
(8) President George Bush knowingly failed to meet the
requirements of H.J. Res. 114 and violated the requirement of
the War Powers Resolution and, thereby, invaded Iraq without
the authority of Congress.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has
acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander in
Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of
the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people
of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such
conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from
office.
Article VII--Invading Iraq Absent a Declaration of War
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W.
Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the
office of President of the United States and, to the best of his
ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under article II,
section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed'', has launched a war against Iraq absent any
congressional declaration of war or equivalent action.
Article I, section 8, clause 11 (the War Powers Clause) makes clear
that the United States Congress holds the exclusive power to decide
whether or not to send the nation into war. ``The Congress'', the War
Powers Clause states, ``shall have power . . . To declare war . . .''
The October 2002 congressional resolution on Iraq did not
constitute a declaration of war or equivalent action. The resolution
stated: ``The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the
United States as he deems necessary and appropriate in order to (1)
defend the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United
Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.'' The resolution
unlawfully sought to delegate to the President the decision of whether
or not to initiate a war against Iraq, based on whether he deemed it
``necessary and appropriate.'' The Constitution does not allow Congress
to delegate this exclusive power to the President, nor does it allow
the President to seize this power.
In March 2003, the President launched a war against Iraq without
any constitutional authority.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has
acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander in
Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of
the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people
of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such
conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from
office.
Article VIII--Invading Iraq, a Sovereign Nation, in Violation of the
U.N. Charter and International Criminal Law
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W.
Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the
office of President of the United States and, to the best of his
ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under article II,
section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed'', violated United States law by invading the
sovereign country of Iraq in violation of the United Nations Charter to
wit:
(1) International Laws ratified by Congress are part of
United States Law and must be followed as evidenced by the
following:
(A) Article VI of the United States Constitution,
which states ``This Constitution, and the Laws of the
United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;
and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under
the Authority of the United States, shall be the
supreme Law of the Land;''.
(2) The U.N. Charter, which entered into force following
ratification by the United States in 1945, requires Security
Council approval for the use of force except for self-defense
against an armed attack as evidenced by the following:
(A) Chapter 1, article 2 of the United Nations
Charter states:
``3. All Members shall settle their international disputes
by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and
security, and justice, are not endangered.
``4. All Members shall refrain in their international
relations from the threat or use of force against the
territorial integrity or political independence of any state,
or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the
United Nations.''.
(B) Chapter 7, article 51 of the United Nations
Charter states:
``51. Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the
inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an
armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations,
until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to
maintain international peace and security.''.
(3) There was no armed attack upon the United States by
Iraq.
(4) The Security Council did not vote to approve the use of
force against Iraq as evidenced by:
(A) A United Nation Press release which states that
the United States had failed to convince the Security
Council to approve the use of military force against
Iraq. [UN]
(5) President Bush directed the United States military to
invade Iraq on March 19th, 2003 in violation of the U.N.
Charter and, therefore, in violation of United States Law as
evidenced by the following:
(A) A letter from President Bush to Congress dated
March 21st, 2003 stating ``I directed U.S. Armed
Forces, operating with other coalition forces, to
commence combat operations on March 19, 2003, against
Iraq.''. [WH]
(B) On September 16, 2004, Kofi Annan, the
Secretary General of the United Nations, speaking on
the invasion, said, ``I have indicated it was not in
conformity with the U.N. charter. From our point of
view, from the charter point of view, it was
illegal.''. [BBC]
(C) The consequence of the instant and direction of
President George W. Bush, in ordering an attack upon
Iraq, a sovereign nation is in direct violation of
United States Code, title 18, part 1, chapter 118,
section 2441, governing the offense of war crimes.
(6) In the course of invading and occupying Iraq, the
President, as Commander in Chief, has taken responsibility for
the targeting of civilians, journalists, hospitals, and
ambulances, use of antipersonnel weapons including cluster
bombs in densely settled urban areas, the use of white
phosphorous as a weapon, depleted uranium weapons, and the use
of a new version of napalm found in Mark 77 firebombs. Under
the direction of President George Bush, the United States has
engaged in collective punishment of Iraqi civilian populations,
including but not limited to blocking roads, cutting
electricity and water, destroying fuel stations, planting bombs
in farm fields, demolishing houses, and plowing over orchards.
(A) Under the principle of ``command
responsibility'', i.e., that a de jure command can be
civilian as well as military, and can apply to the
policy command of heads of state, said command brings
President George Bush within the reach of international
criminal law under the Additional Protocol I of June 8,
1977, to the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949, and
Relating to the Protection of Victims of International
Armed Conflicts, article 86(2). The United States is a
state signatory to Additional Protocol I, on December
12, 1977.
(B) Furthermore, article 85(3) of said Protocol I
defines as a grave breach making a civilian population
or individual civilians the object of attacks. This
offense, together with the principle of command
responsibility, places President George Bush's conduct
under the reach of the same law and principles
described as the basis for war crimes prosecution at
Nuremburg, under article 6 of the Charter of the
Nuremberg Tribunals: including crimes against peace,
violations of the laws and customs of war and crimes
against humanity, similarly codified in the Rome
Statute of the International Criminal Court, articles 5
through 8.
(C) The Lancet Report has established massive
civilian casualties in Iraq as a result of the United
States invasion and occupation of that country.
(D) International laws governing wars of aggression
are completely prohibited under the legal principle of
jus cogens, whether or not a nation has signed or
ratified a particular international agreement.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has
acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander in
Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of
the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people
of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such
conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from
office.
Article IX--Failing To Provide Troops with Body Armor and Vehicle Armor
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W.
Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the
office of President of the United States and, to the best of his
ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under article II,
section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed'', has both personally and acting through his
agents and subordinates, together with the Vice President, has been
responsible for the deaths of members of the U.S. military and serious
injury and trauma to other soldiers, by failing to provide available
body armor and vehicle armor.
While engaging in an invasion and occupation of choice, not fought
in self-defense, and not launched in accordance with any timetable
other than the President's choosing, President Bush sent U.S. troops
into danger without providing them with armor. This shortcoming has
been known for years, during which time, the President has chosen to
allow soldiers and marines to continue to face unnecessary risk to life
and limb rather then providing them with armor.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has
acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander in
Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of
the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people
of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such
conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from
office.
Article X--Falsifying Accounts of U.S. Troop Deaths and Injuries for
Political Purposes
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W.
Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the
office of President of the United States and, to the best of his
ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under article II,
section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed'', has both personally and acting through his
agents and subordinates, together with the Vice President, promoted
false propaganda stories about members of the United States military,
including individuals both dead and injured.
The White House and the Department of Defense (DOD) in 2004
promoted a false account of the death of Specialist Pat Tillman,
reporting that he had died in a hostile exchange, delaying release of
the information that he had died from friendly fire, shot in the
forehead three times in a manner that led investigating doctors to
believe he had been shot at close range.
A 2005 report by Brig. Gen. Gary M. Jones reported that in the days
immediately following Specialist Tillman's death, U.S. Army
investigators were aware that Specialist Tillman was killed by friendly
fire, shot three times to the head, and that senior Army commanders,
including Gen. John Abizaid, knew of this fact within days of the
shooting but nevertheless approved the awarding of the Silver Star,
Purple Heart, and a posthumous promotion.
On April 24, 2007, Spc. Bryan O'Neal, the last soldier to see
Specialist Pat Tillman alive, testified before the House Oversight and
Government Reform Committee that he was warned by superiors not to
divulge information that a fellow soldier killed Specialist Tillman,
especially to the Tillman family. The White House refused to provide
requested documents to the committee, citing ``executive branch
confidentiality interests.''.
The White House and DOD in 2003 promoted a false account of the
injury of Jessica Dawn Lynch, reporting that she had been captured in a
hostile exchange and had been dramatically rescued. On April 2, 2003,
the DOD released a video of the rescue and claimed that Lynch had stab
and bullet wounds, and that she had been slapped about on her hospital
bed and interrogated. Iraqi doctors and nurses later interviewed,
including Dr. Harith Al-Houssona, a doctor in the Nasirya hospital,
described Lynch's injuries as ``a broken arm, a broken thigh, and a
dislocated ankle.'' According to Al-Houssona, there was no sign of
gunshot or stab wounds, and Lynch's injuries were consistent with those
that would be suffered in a car accident. Al-Houssona's claims were
later confirmed in a U.S. Army report leaked on July 10, 2003.
Lynch denied that she fought or was wounded fighting, telling Diane
Sawyer that the Pentagon ``used me to symbolize all this stuff. It's
wrong. I don't know why they filmed [my rescue] or why they say these
things. . . . I did not shoot, not a round, nothing. I went down
praying to my knees. And that's the last I remember.'' She reported
excellent treatment in Iraq, and that one person in the hospital even
sang to her to help her feel at home.
On April 24, 2007, Lynch testified before the House Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform:
``[Right after my capture], tales of great heroism were being told.
My parent's home in Wirt County was under siege of the media all
repeating the story of the little girl Rambo from the hills who went
down fighting. It was not true. . . . I am still confused as to why
they chose to lie.''.
The White House had heavily promoted the false story of Lynch's
rescue, including in a speech by President Bush on April 28, 2003.
After the fiction was exposed, the President awarded Lynch the Bronze
Star.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has
acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander in
Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of
the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people
of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such
conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from
office.
Article XI--Establishment of Permanent U.S. Military Bases in Iraq
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W.
Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the
office of President of the United States and, to the best of his
ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under article II,
section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed'', has violated an act of Congress that he himself
signed into law by using public funds to construct permanent U.S.
military bases in Iraq.
On January 28, 2008, President George W. Bush signed into law the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (H.R. 4986).
Noting that the Act ``authorizes funding for the defense of the United
States and its interests abroad, for military construction, and for
national security-related energy programs'', the president added the
following ``signing statement'':
``Provisions of the Act, including sections 841, 846, 1079, and
1222, purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the President's
ability to carry out his constitutional obligations to take care that
the laws be faithfully executed, to protect national security, to
supervise the executive branch, and to execute his authority as
Commander in Chief. The executive branch shall construe such provisions
in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the
President.''.
Section 1222 clearly prohibits the expenditure of money for the
purpose of establishing permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq. The
construction of over $1 billion in U.S. military bases in Iraq,
including runways for aircraft, continues despite congressional intent,
as the Administration intends to force upon the Iraqi Government such
terms which will assure the bases remain in Iraq.
Iraqi officials have informed Members of Congress in May 2008 of
the strong opposition within the Iraqi parliament and throughout Iraq
to the agreement that the administration is trying to negotiate with
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The agreement seeks to assure a
long-term U.S. presence in Iraq of which military bases are the most
obvious, sufficient and necessary construct, thus clearly defying
Congressional intent as to the matter and meaning of ``permanency''.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has
acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander in
Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of
the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people
of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such
conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from
office.
Article XII--Initiating a War Against Iraq for Control of That Nation's
Natural Resources
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W.
Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the
office of President of the United States and, to the best of his
ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under article II,
section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed'', has both personally and acting through his
agents and subordinates, together with the Vice President, invaded and
occupied a foreign nation for the purpose, among other purposes, of
seizing control of that nation's oil.
The White House and its representatives in Iraq have, since the
occupation of Baghdad began, attempted to gain control of Iraqi oil.
This effort has included pressuring the new Iraqi Government to pass a
hydrocarbon law. Within weeks of the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003,
the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAid) awarded a $240
million contract to Bearing Point, a private U.S. company. A Bearing
Point employee, based in the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, was hired to
advise the Iraqi Ministry of Oil on drawing up the new hydrocarbon law.
The draft law places executives of foreign oil companies on a council
with the task of approving their own contracts with Iraq; it denies the
Iraqi National Oil Company exclusive rights for the exploration,
development, production, transportation, and marketing of Iraqi oil,
and allows foreign companies to control Iraqi oil fields containing 80
percent of Iraqi oil for up to 35 years through contracts that can
remain secret for up to 2 months. The draft law itself contains secret
appendices.
President Bush provided unrelated reasons for the invasion of Iraq
to the public and Congress, but those reasons have been established to
have been categorically fraudulent, as evidenced by the herein
mentioned Articles of Impeachment I, II, III, IV, VI, and VII.
Parallel to the development of plans for war against Iraq, the U.S.
State Department's Future of Iraq project, begun as early as April
2002, involved meetings in Washington and London of 17 working groups,
each composed of 10 to 20 Iraqi exiles and international experts
selected by the State Department. The Oil and Energy working group met
four times between December 2002 and April 2003. Ibrahim Bahr al-Uloum,
later the Iraqi Oil Minister, was a member of the group, which
concluded that Iraq ``should be opened to international oil companies
as quickly as possible after the war,'' and that, ``the country should
establish a conducive business environment to attract investment of oil
and gas resources.'' The same group recommended production-sharing
agreements with foreign oil companies, the same approach found in the
draft hydrocarbon law, and control over Iraq's oil resources remains a
prime objective of the Bush Administration.
Prior to his election as Vice President, Dick Cheney, then-CEO of
Halliburton, in a speech at the Institute of Petroleum in 1999
demonstrated a keen awareness of the sensitive economic and
geopolitical role of Middle East oil resources saying: ``By 2010, we
will need on the order of an additional 50 million barrels a day. So
where is the oil going to come from? Governments and national oil
companies are obviously controlling about 90 percent of the assets. Oil
remains fundamentally a government business. While many regions of the
world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East, with two-thirds
of the world's oil and lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately
lies. Even though companies are anxious for greater access there,
progress continues to be slow.''.
The Vice President led the work of a secret energy task force, as
described in article XXXII below, a task force that focused on, among
other things, the acquisition of Iraqi oil through developing a
controlling private corporate interest in said oil.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has
acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander in
Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of
the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people
of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such
conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from
office.
Article XIII--Creating a Secret Task Force To Develop Energy and
Military Policies With Respect to Iraq and Other Countries
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W.
Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the
office of President of the United States and, to the best of his
ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that
the laws be faithfully executed, has both personally and acting through
his agents and subordinates, together with the Vice President, created
a secret task force to guide our nation's energy policy and military
policy, and undermined Congress's ability to legislate by thwarting
attempts to investigate the nature of that policy.
A Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report on the Cheney
Energy Task Force, in August 2003, described the creation of this task
force as follows:
``In a January 29, 2001, memorandum, the President established
NEPDG [the National Energy Policy Development Group]--comprised of the
Vice President, nine cabinet-level officials, and four other senior
administration officials--to gather information, deliberate, and make
recommendations to the President by the end of fiscal year 2001. The
President called on the Vice President to chair the group, direct its
work and, as necessary, establish subordinate working groups to assist
NEPDG.''.
The four ``other senior administration officials'' were the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Assistant to the
President and Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, the Assistant to the
President for Economic Policy, and the Deputy Assistant to the
President for Intergovernmental Affairs.
The GAO report found that:
``In developing the National Energy Policy report, the NEPDG
Principals, Support Group, and participating agency officials and staff
met with, solicited input from, or received information and advice from
nonfederal energy stakeholders, principally petroleum, coal, nuclear,
natural gas, and electricity industry representatives and lobbyists.
The extent to which submissions from any of these stakeholders were
solicited, influenced policy deliberations, or were incorporated into
the final report cannot be determined based on the limited information
made available to GAO. NEPDG met and conducted its work in two distinct
phases: the first phase culminated in a March 19, 2001, briefing to the
President on challenges relating to energy supply and the resulting
economic impact; the second phase ended with the May 16, 2001,
presentation of the final report to the President. The Office of the
Vice President's (OVP) unwillingness to provide the NEPDG records or
other related information precluded GAO from fully achieving its
objectives and substantially limited GAO's ability to comprehensively
analyze the NEPDG process associated with that process.
``None of the key federal entities involved in the NEPDG effort
provided GAO with a complete accounting of the costs that they incurred
during the development of the National Energy Policy report. The two
federal entities responsible for funding the NEPDG effort--OVP and the
Department of Energy (DOE)--did not provide the comprehensive cost
information that GAO requested. OVP provided GAO with 77 pages of
information, two-thirds of which contained no cost information while
the remaining one-third contained some miscellaneous information of
little to no usefulness. OVP stated that it would not provide any
additional information. DOE, the Department of the Interior, and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provided GAO with estimates of
certain costs and salaries associated with the NEPDG effort, but these
estimates, all calculated in different ways, were not comprehensive.''.
In 2003, the Commerce Department disclosed a partial collection of
materials from the NEPDG, including documents, maps, and charts, dated
March 2001, of Iraq's, Saudi Arabia's and the United Arab Emirates' oil
fields, pipelines, refineries, tanker terminals, and development
projects.
On November 16, 2005, the Washington Post reported on a White House
document showing that oil company executives had met with the NEPDG,
something that some of those same executives had just that week denied
in Congressional testimony. The Bush Administration had not corrected
the inaccurate testimony.
On July 18, 2007, the Washington Post reported the full list of
names of those who had met with the NEPDG.
In 1998, Kenneth Derr, then chief executive of Chevron, told a San
Francisco audience, ``Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas,
reserves I'd love Chevron to have access to.'' According to the GAO
report, Chevron provided detailed advice to the NEPDG.
In March, 2001, the NEPDG recommended that the United States
Government support initiatives by Middle Eastern countries ``to open up
areas of their energy sectors to foreign investment.'' Following the
invasion of Iraq, the United States has pressured the new Iraqi
parliament to pass a hydrocarbon law that would do exactly that. The
draft law, if passed, would take the majority of Iraq's oil out of the
exclusive hands of the Iraqi Government and open it to international
oil companies for a generation or more. The Bush administration hired
Bearing Point, a U.S. company, to help write the law in 2004. It was
submitted to the Iraqi Council of Representatives in May 2007.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has
acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander in
Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of
the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people
of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such
conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from
office.
Article XIV--Misprision of a Felony, Misuse and Exposure of Classified
Information and Obstruction of Justice in the Matter of Valerie Plame
Wilson, Clandestine Agent of the Central Intelligence Agency
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W.
Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the
office of President of the United States and, to the best of his
ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under article II,
section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed'', has both personally and acting through his
agents and subordinates, together with the Vice President,
(1) suppressed material information;
(2) selectively declassified information for the improper
purposes of retaliating against a whistleblower and presenting
a misleading picture of the alleged threat from Iraq;
(3) facilitated the exposure of the identity of Valerie
Plame Wilson who had theretofore been employed as a covert CIA
operative;
(4) failed to investigate the improper leaks of classified
information from within his administration;
(5) failed to cooperate with an investigation into possible
federal violations resulting from this activity; and
(6) finally, entirely undermined the prosecution by
commuting the sentence of Lewis Libby citing false and
insubstantial grounds, all in an effort to prevent Congress and
the citizens of the United States from discovering the
deceitful nature of the President's claimed justifications for
the invasion of Iraq.
In facilitating this exposure of classified information and the
subsequent cover-up, in all of these actions and decisions, President
George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as
President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the
prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of
the people of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush,
by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal
from office.
Article XV--Providing Immunity From Prosecution for Criminal
Contractors in Iraq
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W.
Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the
office of President of the United States and, to the best of his
ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under article II,
section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed'', has both personally and acting through his
agents and subordinates, together with the Vice President, established
policies granting United States Government contractors and their
employees in Iraq immunity from Iraqi law, U.S. law, and international
law.
Lewis Paul Bremer III, then-Director of Reconstruction and
Humanitarian Assistance for post-war Iraq, on June 27, 2004, issued
Coalition Provisional Authority Order Number 17, which granted members
of the U.S. military, U.S. mercenaries, and other U.S. contractor
employees immunity from Iraqi law.
The Bush Administration has chosen not to apply the Uniform Code of
Military Justice or United States law to mercenaries and other
contractors employed by the United States Government in Iraq.
Operating free of Iraqi or U.S. law, mercenaries have killed many
Iraqi civilians in a manner that observers have described as aggression
and not as self-defense. Many U.S. contractors have also alleged that
they have been the victims of aggression (in several cases of rape) by
their fellow contract employees in Iraq. These charges have not been
brought to trial, and in several cases the contracting companies and
the U.S. State Department have worked together in attempting to cover
them up.
Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, to which the United States is
party, and which under article VI of the U.S. Constitution is therefore
the supreme law of the United States, it is the responsibility of an
occupying force to ensure the protection and human rights of the
civilian population. The efforts of President Bush and his subordinates
to attempt to establish a lawless zone in Iraq are in violation of the
law.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has
acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of
constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and
justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an
impeachable offense warranting removal from office.
Article XVI--Reckless Misspending and Waste of U.S. Tax Dollars in
Connection With Iraq Contractors
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W.
Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the
office of President of the United States and, to the best of his
ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under article II,
section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed'', has both personally and acting through his
agents and subordinates, together with the Vice President, recklessly
wasted public funds on contracts awarded to close associates, including
companies guilty of defrauding the government in the past, contracts
awarded without competitive bidding, ``cost-plus'' contracts designed
to encourage cost overruns, and contracts not requiring satisfactory
completion of the work. These failures have been the rule, not the
exception, in the awarding of contracts for work in the United States
and abroad over the past seven years. Repeated exposure of fraud and
waste has not been met by the president with correction of systemic
problems, but rather with retribution against whistleblowers.
The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform reported on
Iraq reconstruction contracting:
``From the beginning, the Administration adopted a flawed
contracting approach in Iraq. Instead of maximizing competition, the
Administration opted to award no-bid, cost-plus contracts to
politically connected contractors. Halliburton's secret $7 billion
contract to restore Iraq's oil infrastructure is the prime example.
Under this no-bid, cost-plus contract, Halliburton was reimbursed for
its costs and then received an additional fee, which was a percentage
of its costs. This created an incentive for Halliburton to run up its
costs in order to increase its potential profit.
``Even after the Administration claimed it was awarding Iraq
contracts competitively in early 2004, real price competition was
missing. Iraq was divided geographically and by economic sector into a
handful of fiefdoms. Individual contractors were then awarded monopoly
contracts for all of the work within given fiefdoms. Because these
monopoly contracts were awarded before specific projects were
identified, there was no actual price competition for more than 2,000
projects.
``In the absence of price competition, rigorous government
oversight becomes essential for accountability. Yet the Administration
turned much of the contract oversight work over to private companies
with blatant conflicts of interest. Oversight contractors oversaw their
business partners and, in some cases, were placed in a position to
assist their own construction work under separate monopoly construction
contracts. . . .
``Under Halliburton's two largest Iraq contracts, Pentagon auditors
found $1 billion in `questioned' costs and over $400 million in
`unsupported' costs. Former Halliburton employees testified that the
company charged $45 for cases of soda, billed $100 to clean 15-pound
bags of laundry, and insisted on housing its staff at the five-star
Kempinski hotel in Kuwait. Halliburton truck drivers testified that the
company `torched' brand new $85,000 trucks rather than perform
relatively minor repairs and regular maintenance. Halliburton
procurement officials described the company's informal motto in Iraq as
`Don't worry about price. It's cost-plus.' A Halliburton manager was
indicted for `major fraud against the United States' for allegedly
billing more than $5.5 billion for work that should have cost only
$685,000 in exchange for a $1 million kickback from a Kuwaiti
subcontractor. . . .
``The Air Force found that another U.S. Government contractor,
Custer Battles, set up shell subcontractors to inflate prices. Those
overcharges were passed along to the U.S. Government under the
company's cost-plus contract to provide security for Baghdad
International Airport. In one case, the company allegedly took Iraqi-
owned forklifts, re-painted them, and leased them to the U.S.
Government.
``Despite the spending of billions of taxpayer dollars, U.S.
reconstruction efforts in keys sectors of the Iraqi economy are
failing. Over two years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, oil and
electricity production has fallen below pre-war levels. The
Administration has failed to even measure how many Iraqis lack access
to drinkable water.''.
``Constitution in Crisis'', a book by Congressman John Conyers,
details the Bush Administration's response when contract abuse is made
public:
``Bunnatine Greenhouse was the chief contracting officer at the
Army Corps of Engineers, the agency that has managed much of the
reconstruction work in Iraq. In October 2004, Ms. Greenhouse came
forward and revealed that top Pentagon officials showed improper
favoritism to Halliburton when awarding military contracts to
Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR). Greenhouse stated
that when the Pentagon awarded Halliburton a five-year $7 billion
contract, it pressured her to withdraw her objections, actions which
she claimed were unprecedented in her experience.
``On June 27, 2005, Ms. Greenhouse testified before Congress,
detailing that the contract award process was compromised by improper
influence by political appointees, participation by Halliburton
officials in meetings where bidding requirements were discussed, and a
lack of competition. She stated that the Halliburton contracts
represented `the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have
witnessed during the course of my professional career.' Days before the
hearing, the acting general counsel of the Army Corps of Engineers paid
Ms. Greenhouse a visit and reportedly let it be known that it would not
be in her best interest to appear voluntarily.
``On August 27, 2005, the Army demoted Ms. Greenhouse, removing her
from the elite Senior Executive Service and transferring her to a
lesser job in the corps' civil works division. As Frank Rich of The New
York Times described the situation, `[H]er crime was not obstructing
justice but pursuing it by vehemently questioning irregularities in the
awarding of some $7 billion worth of no-bid contracts in Iraq to the
Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown Root.' The demotion was in
apparent retaliation for her speaking out against the abuses, even
though she previously had stellar reviews and over 20 years of
experience in military procurement.''.
The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform reports on
domestic contracting:
``The Administration's domestic contracting record is no better
than its record on Iraq. Waste, fraud, and abuse appear to be the rule
rather than the exception. . . .
``A Transportation Security Administration (TSA) cost-plus contract
with NCS Pearson, Inc., to hire Federal airport screeners was plagued
by poor management and egregious waste. Pentagon auditors challenged
$303 million (over 40 percent) of the $741 million spent by Pearson
under the contract. The auditors detailed numerous concerns with the
charges of Pearson and its subcontractors, such as `$20-an-hour
temporary workers billed to the government at $48 per hour,
subcontractors who signed out $5,000 in cash at a time with no
supporting documents, $377,273.75 in unsubstantiated long distance
phone calls, $514,201 to rent tents that flooded in a rainstorm, [and]
$4.4 million in ``no show'' fees for job candidates who did not appear
for tests.' A Pearson employee who supervised Pearson's hiring efforts
at 43 sites in the U.S. described the contract as `a waste of
taxpayer's money.' The CEO of one Pearson subcontractor paid herself
$5.4 million for nine months work and provided herself with a $270,000
pension. . . .
``The Administration is spending $239 million on the Integrated
Surveillance and Intelligence System, a no-bid contract to provide
thousands of cameras and sensors to monitor activity on the Mexican and
Canadian borders. Auditors found that the contractor, International
Microwave Corp., billed for work it never did and charged for equipment
it never provided, `creat[ing] a potential for overpayments of almost
$13 million.' Moreover, the border monitoring system reportedly does
not work. . . .
``After spending more than $4.5 billion on screening equipment for
the Nation's entry points, the Department of Homeland Security is now
`moving to replace or alter much of' it because `it is ineffective,
unreliable or too expensive to operate.' For example, radiation
monitors at ports and borders reportedly could not `differentiate
between radiation emitted by a nuclear bomb and naturally occurring
radiation from everyday material like cat litter or ceramic tile'. . .
``The TSA awarded Boeing a cost-plus contract to install over 1,000
explosive detection systems for airline passenger luggage. After
installation, the machines `began to register false alarms' and
`[s]creeners were forced to open and hand-check bags.' To reduce the
number of false alarms, the sensitivity of the machines was lowered,
which reduced the effectiveness of the detectors. Despite these serious
problems, Boeing received an $82 million profit that the Inspector
General determined to be `excessive'. . . .
``The FBI spent $170 million on a `Virtual Case File' system that
does not operate as required. After three years of work under a cost-
plus contract failed to produce a functional system, the FBI scrapped
the program and began work on the new `Sentinel' Case File System. . .
``The Department of Homeland Security Inspector General found that
taxpayer dollars were being lavished on perks for agency officials. One
IG report found that TSA spent over $400,000 on its first leader's
executive office suite. Another found that TSA spent $350,000 on a
gold-plated gym. . . .
``According to news reports, Pentagon auditors . . . examined a
contract between the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and
Unisys, a technology and consulting company, for the upgrade of airport
computer networks. Among other irregularities, government auditors
found that Unisys may have overbilled for as much as 171,000 hours of
labor and overtime by charging for employees at up to twice their
actual rate of compensation. While the cost ceiling for the contract
was set at $1 billion, Unisys has reportedly billed the Government $940
million with more than half of the seven-year contract remaining and
more than half of the TSA-monitored airports still lacking upgraded
networks.''.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has
acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander in
Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of
the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people
of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such
conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from
office.
Article XVII--Illegal Detention: Detaining Indefinitely and Without
Charge Persons Both U.S. Citizens and Foreign Captives
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W.
Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the
office of President of the United States and, to the best of his
ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under article II,
section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed'', has both personally and acting through his
agents and subordinates, together with the Vice President, violated
United States and International Law and the U.S. Constitution by
illegally detaining indefinitely and without charge persons both U.S.
citizens and foreign captives.
In a statement on February 7, 2002, President Bush declared that in
the U.S. fight against al Qaeda, ``none of the provisions of Geneva
apply,'' thus rejecting the Geneva Conventions that protect captives in
wars and other conflicts. By that time, the administration was already
transporting captives from the war in Afghanistan, both alleged al
Qaeda members and supporters, and also Afghans accused of being
fighters in the army of the Taliban government, to U.S.-run prisons in
Afghanistan and to the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The
round-up and detention without charge of Muslim non-citizens inside the
U.S. began almost immediately after the September 11, 2001, attacks on
the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, with some being held as long
as nine months. The U.S., on orders of the president, began capturing
and detaining without charge alleged terror suspects in other countries
and detaining them abroad and at the U.S. Naval base in Guantanamo.
Many of these detainees have been subjected to systematic abuse,
including beatings, which have been subsequently documented by news
reports, photographic evidence, testimony in Congress, lawsuits, and in
the case of detainees in the U.S., by an investigation conducted by the
Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General.
In violation of U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions, the Bush
Administration instructed the Department of Justice and the U.S.
Department of Defense to refuse to provide the identities or locations
of these detainees, despite requests from Congress and from attorneys
for the detainees. The president even declared the right to detain U.S.
citizens indefinitely, without charge and without providing them access
to counsel or the courts, thus depriving them of their constitutional
and basic human rights. Several of those U.S. citizens were held in
military brigs in solitary confinement for as long as three years
before being either released or transferred to civilian detention.
Detainees in U.S. custody in Iraq and Guantanamo have, in violation
of the Geneva Conventions, been hidden from and denied visits by the
International Red Cross organization, while thousands of others in
Iraq, Guantanamo, Afghanistan, ships in foreign off-shore sites, and an
unknown number of so-called ``black sites'' around the world have been
denied any opportunity to challenge their detentions. The president,
acting on his own claimed authority, has declared the hundreds of
detainees at Guantanamo Bay to be ``enemy combatants'' not subject to
U.S. law and not even subject to military law, but nonetheless
potentially liable to the death penalty.
The detention of individuals without due process violates the 5th
Amendment. While the Bush administration has been rebuked in several
court cases, most recently that of Ali al-Marri, it continues to
attempt to exceed constitutional limits.
In all of these actions violating U.S. and International law,
President George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as
President and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional
government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the
manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore,
President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable
offense warranting removal from office.
Article XVIII--Torture: Secretly Authorizing, and Encouraging the Use
of Torture Against Captives in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Other Places, as
a Matter of Official Policy
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W.
Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the
office of President of the United States and, to the best of his
ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under article II,
section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed'', has both personally and acting through his
agents and subordinates, together with the Vice President, violated
United States and International Law and the U.S. Constitution by
secretly authorizing and encouraging the use of torture against
captives in Afghanistan, Iraq in connection with the so-called ``war''
on terror.
In violation of the Constitution, U.S. law, the Geneva Conventions
(to which the U.S. is a signatory), and in violation of basic human
rights, torture has been authorized by the President and his
administration as official policy. Water-boarding, beatings, faked
executions, confinement in extreme cold or extreme heat, prolonged
enforcement of painful stress positions, sleep deprivation, sexual
humiliation, and the defiling of religious articles have been practiced
and exposed as routine at Guantanamo, at Abu Ghraib Prison and other
U.S. detention sites in Iraq, and at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan.
The president, besides bearing responsibility for authorizing the use
of torture, also as Commander in Chief, bears ultimate responsibility
for the failure to halt these practices and to punish those responsible
once they were exposed.
The administration has sought to claim the abuse of captives is not
torture, by redefining torture. An August 1, 2002, memorandum from the
Administration's Office of Legal Counsel Jay S. Bybee addressed to
White House Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales concluded that to constitute
torture, any pain inflicted must be akin to that accompanying ``serious
physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function,
or even death.'' The memorandum went on to state that even should an
act constitute torture under that minimal definition, it might still be
permissible if applied to ``interrogations undertaken pursuant to the
President's Commander-in-Chief powers.'' The memorandum further
asserted that ``necessity or self-defense could provide justifications
that would eliminate any criminal liability.''
This effort to redefine torture by calling certain practices simply
``enhanced interrogation techniques'' flies in the face of the Third
Geneva Convention Relating to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, which
states that ``No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of
coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them
information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer
may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or
disadvantageous treatment of any kind.''
Torture is further prohibited by the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, the paramount international human rights statement adopted
unanimously by the United Nations General Assembly, including the
United States, in 1948. Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment is also prohibited by international treaties
ratified by the United States: the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention Against Torture and Other
Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT).
When the Congress, in the Defense Authorization Act of 2006,
overwhelmingly passed a measure banning torture and sent it to the
President's desk for signature, the President, who together with his
vice president, had fought hard to block passage of the amendment,
signed it, but then quietly appended a signing statement in which he
pointedly asserted that as Commander in Chief, he was not bound to obey
its strictures.
The administration's encouragement of and failure to prevent
torture of American captives in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and
in the battle against terrorism, has undermined the rule of law in the
U.S. and in the U.S. military, and has seriously damaged both the
effort to combat global terrorism, and more broadly, America's image
abroad. In his effort to hide torture by U.S. military forces and the
CIA, the president has defied Congress and has lied to the American
people, repeatedly claiming that the U.S. ``does not torture''.
In all of these actions and decisions in violation of U.S. and
International law, President George W. Bush has acted in a manner
contrary to his trust as President and Commander in Chief, and
subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause
of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the
United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is
guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.
Article XIX--Rendition: Kidnapping People and Taking Them Against Their
Will to ``Black Sites'' Located in Other Nations, Including Nations
Known To Practice Torture
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W.
Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the
office of President of the United States and, to the best of his
ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under article II,
section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed'', has both personally and acting through his
agents and subordinates, together with the Vice President, violated
United States and International Law and the U.S. Constitution by
kidnapping people and renditioning them to ``black sites'' located in
other nations, including nations known to practice torture.
The president has publicly admitted that since the 9/11 attacks in
2001, the U.S. has been kidnapping and transporting against the will of
the subject (renditioning) in its so-called ``war'' on terror--even
people captured by U.S. personnel in friendly nations like Sweden,
Germany, Macedonia and Italy--and ferrying them to places like Bagram
Airbase in Afghanistan, and to prisons operated in Eastern European
countries, African countries and Middle Eastern countries where
security forces are known to practice torture.
These people are captured and held indefinitely, without any
charges being filed, and are held without being identified to the Red
Cross, or to their families. Many are clearly innocent, and several
cases, including one in Canada and one in Germany, have demonstrably
been shown subsequently to have been in error, because of a similarity
of names or because of misinformation provided to U.S. authorities.
Such a policy is in clear violation of U.S. and International Law,
and has placed the United States in the position of a pariah state. The
CIA has no law enforcement authority, and cannot legally arrest or
detain anyone. The program of ``extraordinary rendition'' authorized by
the president is the substantial equivalent of the policies of
``disappearing'' people, practices widely practiced and universally
condemned in the military dictatorships of Latin America during the
late 20th Century.
The administration has claimed that prior administrations have
practiced extraordinary rendition, but, while this is technically true,
earlier renditions were used only to capture people with outstanding
arrest warrants or convictions who were outside in order to deliver
them to stand trial or serve their sentences in the U.S. The president
has refused to divulge how many people have been subject to
extraordinary rendition since September, 2001. It is possible that some
have died in captivity. As one U.S. official has stated off the record,
regarding the program, some of those who were renditioned were later
delivered to Guantanamo, while others were sent there directly. An
example of this is the case of six Algerian Bosnians who, immediately
after being cleared by the Supreme Court of Bosnia Herzegovina in
January 2002 of allegedly plotting to attack the U.S. and U.K.
embassies, were captured, bound and gagged by U.S. special forces and
renditioned to Guantanamo.
In perhaps the most egregious proven case of rendition, Maher Arar,
a Canadian citizen born in Syria, was picked up in September 2002 while
transiting through New York's JFK airport on his way home to Canada.
Immigration and FBI officials detained and interrogated him for nearly
two weeks, illegally denying him his rights to access counsel, the
Canadian consulate, and the courts. Executive branch officials asked
him if he would volunteer to go to Syria, where he hadn't been in 15
years, and Maher refused.
Maher was put on a private jet plane operated by the CIA and sent
to Jordan, where he was beaten for 8 hours, and then delivered to
Syria, where he was beaten and interrogated for 18 hours a day for a
couple of weeks. He was whipped on his back and hands with a 2 inch
thick electric cable and asked questions similar to those he had been
asked in the United States. For over ten months Maher was held in an
underground grave-like cell--3 x 6 x 7 feet--which was damp and
cold, and in which the only light came in through a hole in the
ceiling. After a year of this, Maher was released without any charges.
He is now back home in Canada with his family. Upon his release, the
Syrian Government announced he had no links to al Qaeda, and the
Canadian Government has also said they've found no links to al Qaeda.
The Canadian Government launched a Commission of Inquiry into the
Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar, to investigate
the role of Canadian officials, but the Bush Administration has refused
to cooperate with the Inquiry.
Hundreds of flights of CIA-chartered planes have been documented as
having passed through European countries on extraordinary rendition
missions like that involving Maher Arar, but the administration refuses
to state how many people have been subjects of this illegal program.
The same U.S. laws prohibiting aiding and abetting torture also
prohibit sending someone to a country where there is a substantial
likelihood they may be tortured. Article 3 of CAT prohibits forced
return where there is a ``substantial likelihood'' that an individual
``may be in danger of'' torture, and has been implemented by Federal
statute. Article 7 of the ICCPR prohibits return to country of origin
where individuals may be ``at risk'' of either torture or cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment.
Under international Human Rights law, transferring a POW to any
nation where he or she is likely to be tortured or inhumanely treated
violates article 12 of the Third Geneva Convention, and transferring
any civilian who is a protected person under the Fourth Geneva
Convention is a grave breach and a criminal act.
In situations of armed conflict, both international human rights
law and humanitarian law apply. A person captured in the zone of
military hostilities ``must have some status under international law;
he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third
Convention, [or] a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. . . .
There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside
the law.'' Although the state is obligated to repatriate prisoners of
war as soon as hostilities cease, the ICRC's commentary on the 1949
Conventions states that prisoners should not be repatriated where there
are serious reasons for fearing that repatriating the individual would
be contrary to general principles of established international law for
the protection of human beings. Thus, all of the Guantanamo detainees
as well as renditioned captives are protected by international human
rights protections and humanitarian law.
By his actions as outlined above, the President has abused his
power, broken the law, deceived the American people, and placed
American military personnel, and indeed all Americans--especially those
who may travel or live abroad--at risk of similar treatment.
Furthermore, in the eyes of the rest of the world, the President has
made the U.S., once a model of respect for human rights and respect for
the rule of law, into a state where international law is neither
respected nor upheld.
In all of these actions and decisions in violation of United States
and International law, President George W. Bush has acted in a manner
contrary to his trust as President and Commander in Chief, and
subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause
of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the
United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is
guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.
Article XX--Imprisoning Children
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W.
Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the
office of President of the United States and, to the best of his
ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under article II,
section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed'', has both personally and acting through his
agents and subordinates, authorized or permitted the arrest and
detention of at least 2,500 children under the age of 18 as ``enemy
combatants'' in Iraq, Afghanistan, and at Guantanamo Bay Naval Station
in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relating to the treatment
of ``protected persons'' and the Optional Protocol to the Geneva
Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in
Armed Conflict, signed by the U.S. in 2002. To wit:
In May 2008, the U.S. Government reported to the United Nations
that it has been holding upwards of 2,500 children under the age of 18
as ``enemy combatants'' at detention centers in Iraq, Afghanistan and
at Guantanamo Bay (where there was a special center, Camp Iguana,
established just for holding children). The length of these detentions
has frequently exceeded a year, and in some cases has stretched to five
years. Some of these detainees have reached adulthood in detention and
are now not being reported as child detainees because they are no
longer children.
In addition to detaining children as ``enemy combatants'', it has
been widely reported in media reports that the U.S. military in Iraq
has, based upon Pentagon rules of engagement, been treating boys as
young as 14 years of age as ``potential combatants'', subject to arrest
and even to being killed. In Fallujah, in the days ahead of the
November 2004 all-out assault, Marines ringing the city were reported
to be turning back into the city men and boys ``of combat age'' who
were trying to flee the impending scene of battle--an act which in
itself is a violation of the Geneva Conventions, which require
combatants to permit anyone, combatants as well as civilians, to
surrender, and to leave the scene of battle.
Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, to which the United States has
been a signatory since 1949, children under the age of 15 captured in
conflicts, even if they have been fighting, are to be considered
victims, not prisoners. In 2002, the United States signed the Optional
Protocol to the Geneva Convention on the Rights of the Child on the
Involvement of children in Armed Conflict, which raised this age for
this category of ``protected person'' to under 18.
The continued detention of such children, some as young as 10, by
the U.S. military is a violation of both convention and protocol, and
as such constitutes a war crime for which the President, as Commander
in Chief, bears full responsibility.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has
acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander in
Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of
the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people
of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such
conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from
office.
Article XXI--Misleading Congress and the American People About Threats
From Iran, and Supporting Terrorist Organizations Within Iran, With the
Goal of Overthrowing the Iranian Government
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W.
Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the
office of President of the United States and, to the best of his
ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that
the laws be faithfully executed, has both personally and acting through
his agents and subordinates misled the Congress and the citizens of the
United States about a threat of nuclear attack from the nation of Iran.
The National Intelligence Estimate released to Congress and the
public on December 4, 2007, which confirmed that the government of the
nation of Iran had ceased any efforts to develop nuclear weapons, was
completed in 2006. Yet, the president and his aides continued to
suggest during 2007 that such a nuclear threat was developing and might
already exist. National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley stated at the
time the National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iran was released
that the president had been briefed on its findings ``in the last few
months''. Hadley's statement establishes a timeline that shows the
president knowingly sought to deceive Congress and the American people
about a nuclear threat that did not exist.
Hadley has stated that the president ``was basically told: stand
down'' and, yet, the president and his aides continued to make false
claims about the prospect that Iran was trying to ``build a nuclear
weapon'' that could lead to ``World War III''.
This evidence establishes that the president actively engaged in
and had full knowledge of a campaign by his administration to make a
false ``case'' for an attack on Iran, thus warping the national
security debate at a critical juncture and creating the prospect of an
illegal and unnecessary attack on a sovereign nation.
Even after the National Intelligence Estimate was released to
Congress and the American people, the president stated that he did not
believe anything had changed and suggested that he and members of his
administration would continue to argue that Iran should be seen as
posing a threat to the United States. He did this despite the fact that
United States intelligence agencies had clearly and officially stated
that this was not the case.
Evidence suggests that the Bush Administration's attempts to
portray Iran as a threat are part of a broader U.S. policy toward Iran.
On September 30, 2001, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
established an official military objective of overturning the regime in
Iran, as well as those in Iraq, Syria, and four other countries in the
Middle East, according to a document quoted in then-Undersecretary of
Defense for Policy Douglas Feith's book, ``War and Decision''.
General Wesley Clark, reports in his book ``Winning Modern Wars''
being told by a friend in the Pentagon in November 2001 that the list
of governments that Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul
Wolfowitz planned to overthrow included Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya,
Sudan, and Somalia. Clark writes that the list also included Lebanon.
Journalist Gareth Porter reported in May 2008 asking Feith at a
public event which of the six regimes on the Clark list were included
in the Rumsfeld paper, to which Feith replied ``All of them''.
Rumsfeld's aides also drafted a second version of the paper, as
instructions to all military commanders in the development of
``campaign plans against terrorism''. The paper called for military
commanders to assist other government agencies ``as directed'' to
``encourage populations dominated by terrorist organizations or their
supporters to overthrow that domination''.
In January 2005, Seymour Hersh reported in the New Yorker Magazine
that the Bush Administration had been conducting secret reconnaissance
missions inside Iran at least since the summer of 2004.
In June 2005 former United Nations weapons inspector Scott Ritter
reported that United States security forces had been sending members of
the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK) into Iranian territory. The MEK has been
designated a terrorist organization by the United States, the European
Union, Canada, Iraq, and Iran. Ritter reported that the United States
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had used the MEK to carry out remote
bombings in Iran.
In April 2006, Hersh reported in the New Yorker Magazine that U.S.
combat troops had entered and were operating in Iran, where they were
working with minority groups including the Azeris, Baluchis, and Kurds.
Also in April 2006, Larisa Alexandrovna reported on Raw Story that
the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) was working with and training the
MEK, or former members of the MEK, sending them to commit acts of
violence in southern Iran in areas where recent attacks had left many
dead. Raw Story reported that the Pentagon had adopted the policy of
supporting MEK shortly after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and in response
to the influence of Vice President Richard B. Cheney's office. Raw
Story subsequently reported that no Presidential finding, and no
Congressional oversight, existed on MEK operations.
In March 2007, Hersh reported in the New Yorker Magazine that the
Bush administration was attempting to stem the growth of Shiite
influence in the Middle East (specifically the Iranian Government and
Hezbollah in Lebanon) by funding violent Sunni organizations, without
any Congressional authorization or oversight. Hersh said funds had been
given to ``three Sunni jihadist groups . . . connected to al Qaeda''
that ``want to take on Hezbollah''.
In April 2008, the Los Angeles Times reported that conflicts with
insurgent groups along Iran's borders were understood by the Iranian
Government as a proxy war with the United States and were leading Iran
to support its allies against the United States occupation force in
Iraq. Among the groups the U.S. DOD is supporting, according to this
report, is the Party for Free Life in Kurdistan, known by its Kurdish
acronym, PEJAK. The United States has provided ``foodstuffs, economic
assistance, medical supplies, and Russian military equipment, some of
it funneled through nonprofit groups''.
In May 2008, Andrew Cockburn reported on Counter Punch that
President Bush, six weeks earlier had signed a secret finding
authorizing a covert offensive against the Iranian regime. President
Bush's secret directive covers actions across an area stretching from
Lebanon to Afghanistan, and purports to sanction actions up to and
including the funding of organizations like the MEK and the
assassination of public officials.
All of these actions by the President and his agents and
subordinates exhibit a disregard for the truth and a recklessness with
regard to national security, nuclear proliferation and the global role
of the United States military that is not merely unacceptable but
dangerous in a commander in chief.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has
acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander in
Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of
the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people
of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such
conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from
office.
Article XXII--Creating Secret Laws
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W.
Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the
office of President of the United States and, to the best of his
ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under article II,
section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed'', has both personally and acting through his
agents and subordinates, together with the Vice President, established
a body of secret laws through the issuance of legal opinions by the
Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC).
The OLC's March 14, 2003, interrogation memorandum (``Yoo
Memorandum'') was declassified years after it served as law for the
executive branch. On April 29, 2008, House Judiciary Committee Chairman
John Conyers and Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and
Civil Liberties Chairman Jerrold Nadler wrote in a letter to Attorney
General Michael Mukasey:
``It appears to us that there was never any legitimate basis for
the purely legal analysis contained in this document to be classified
in the first place. The Yoo Memorandum does not describe sources and
methods of intelligence gathering, or any specific facts regarding any
interrogation activities. Instead, it consists almost entirely of the
Department's legal views, which are not properly kept secret from
Congress and the American people. J. William Leonard, the Director of
the National Archive's Office of Information Security Oversight Office,
and a top expert in this field concurs, commenting that `[t]he document
in question is purely a legal analysis' that contains `nothing which
would justify classification'. In addition, the Yoo Memorandum suggests
an extraordinary breadth and aggressiveness of OLC's secret legal
opinion-making. Much attention has rightly been given to the statement
in footnote 10 in the March 14, 2003, memorandum that, in an October
23, 2001, opinion, OLC concluded `that the Fourth Amendment had no
application to domestic military operations'. As you know, we have
requested a copy of that memorandum on no less than four prior
occasions and we continue to demand access to this important document.
``In addition to this opinion, however, the Yoo Memorandum
references at least 10 other OLC opinions on weighty matters of great
interest to the American people that also do not appear to have been
released. These appear to cover matters such as the power of Congress
to regulate the conduct of military commissions, legal constraints on
the `military detention of United States citizens', legal rules
applicable to the boarding and searching foreign ships, the President's
authority to render U.S. detainees to the custody of foreign
governments, and the President's authority to breach or suspend U.S.
treaty obligations. Furthermore, it has been more than five years since
the Yoo Memorandum was authored, raising the question how many other
such memoranda and letters have been secretly authored and utilized by
the Administration.
``Indeed, a recent court filing by the Department in FOIA
litigation involving the Central Intelligence Agency identifies 8
additional secret OLC opinions, dating from August 6, 2004, to February
18, 2007. Given that these reflect only OLC memoranda identified in the
files of the CIA, and based on the sampling procedures under which that
listing was generated, it appears that these represent only a small
portion of the secret OLC memoranda generated during this time, with
the true number almost certainly much higher.''.
Senator Russ Feingold, in a statement during an April 30, 2008,
Senate hearing stated:
``It is a basic tenet of democracy that the people have a right to
know the law. In keeping with this principle, the laws passed by
Congress and the case law of our courts have historically been matters
of public record. And when it became apparent in the middle of the 20th
century that federal agencies were increasingly creating a body of non-
public administrative law, Congress passed several statutes requiring
this law to be made public, for the express purpose of preventing a
regime of `secret law'. That purpose today is being thwarted.
Congressional enactments and agency regulations are for the most part
still public. But the law that applies in this country is determined
not only by statutes and regulations, but also by the controlling
interpretations of courts and, in some cases, the executive branch.
More and more, this body of executive and judicial law is being kept
secret from the public, and too often from Congress as well. . . .
``A legal interpretation by the Justice Department's Office of
Legal Counsel . . . binds the entire executive branch, just like a
regulation or the ruling of a court. In the words of former OLC head
Jack Goldsmith, `These executive branch precedents are ``law'' for the
executive branch'. The Yoo memorandum was, for a nine-month period in
2003 until it was withdrawn by Mr. Goldsmith, the law that this
Administration followed when it came to matters of torture. And of
course, that law was essentially a declaration that few if any laws
applied. . . .
``Another body of secret law is the controlling interpretations of
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that are issued by the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. FISA, of course, is the law
that governs the Government's ability in intelligence investigations to
conduct wiretaps and search the homes of people in the United States.
Under that statute, the FISA Court is directed to evaluate wiretap and
search warrant applications and decide whether the standard for issuing
a warrant has been met--a largely factual evaluation that is properly
done behind closed doors. But with the evolution of technology and with
this Administration's efforts to get the Court's blessing for its
illegal wiretapping activities, we now know that the Court's role is
broader, and that it is very much engaged in substantive
interpretations of the governing statute. These interpretations are as
much a part of this country's surveillance law as the statute itself.
Without access to them, it is impossible for Congress or the public to
have an informed debate on matters that deeply affect the privacy and
civil liberties of all
Americans . . .
``The Administration's shroud of secrecy extends to agency rules
and executive pronouncements, such as Executive Orders, that carry the
force of law. Through the diligent efforts of my colleague Senator
Whitehouse, we have learned that OLC has taken the position that a
President can `waive' or `modify' a published Executive Order without
any notice to the public or Congress--simply by not following it.''.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has
acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander in
Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of
the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people
of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such
conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from
office.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has
acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, and subversive of
constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and
justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an
impeachable offense warranting removal from office.
Article XXIII--Violation of the Posse Comitatus Act
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W.
Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the
office of President of the United States and, to the best of his
ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under article II,
section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed'', has both personally and acting through his
agents and subordinates, repeatedly and illegally established programs
to appropriate the power of the military for use in law enforcement.
Specifically, he has contravened U.S.C. title 18, section 1385,
originally enacted in 1878, subsequently amended as ``Use of Army and
Air Force as Posse Comitatus'' and commonly known as the Posse
Comitatus Act.
The Act states:
``Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly
authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any
part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to
execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more
than two years, or both.''.
The Posse Comitatus Act is designed to prevent the military from
becoming a national police force.
The Declaration of Independence states as a specific grievance
against the British that the King had ``kept among us, in times of
peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures,'' had
``affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the
civil power,'' and had ``quarter[ed] large bodies of armed troops among
us . . . protecting them, by a mock trial, from punishment for any
murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these States''.
Despite the Posse Comitatus Act's intent, and in contravention of
the law, President Bush--
(1) has used military forces for law enforcement purposes
on U.S. border patrol;
(2) has established a program to use military personnel for
surveillance and information on criminal activities;
(3) is using military espionage equipment to collect
intelligence information for law enforcement use on civilians
within the United States; and
(4) employs active duty military personnel in surveillance
agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
In June 2006, President Bush ordered National Guard troops deployed
to the border shared by Mexico with Arizona, Texas, and California.
This deployment, which by 2007 reached a maximum of 6,000 troops, had
orders to ``conduct surveillance and operate detection equipment, work
with border entry identification teams, analyze information, assist
with communications and give administrative support to the Border
Patrol'' and concerned ``. . . providing intelligence . . . inspecting
cargo, and conducting surveillance''.
The Air Force's ``Eagle Eyes'' program encourages Air Force
military staff to gather evidence on American citizens. Eagle Eyes
instructs Air Force personnel to engage in surveillance and then
advises them to ``alert local authorities'', asking military staff to
surveil and gather evidence on public citizens. This contravenes DoD
Directive 5525.5 ``SUBJECT: DoD Cooperation with Civilian Law
Enforcement'' which limits such activities.
President Bush has implemented a program to use imagery from
military satellites for domestic law enforcement through the National
Applications Office.
President Bush has assigned numerous active duty military personnel
to civilian institutions such as the CIA and the Department of Homeland
Security, both of which have responsibilities for law enforcement and
intelligence.
In addition, on May 9, 2007, President Bush released ``National
Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51'', which effectively gives the
president unchecked power to control the entire government and to
define that government in time of an emergency, as well as the power to
determine whether there is an emergency. The document also contains
``classified Continuity Annexes''. In July 2007, and again in August
2007, Rep. Peter DeFazio, a senior member of the House Homeland
Security Committee, sought access to the classified annexes. DeFazio
and other leaders of the Homeland Security Committee, including
Chairman Bennie Thompson, have been denied a review of the Continuity
of Government classified annexes.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has
acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander in
Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of
the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people
of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such
conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from
office.
Article XXIV--Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered
Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W.
Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the
office of President of the United States and, to the best of his
ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under article II,
section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed'', has both personally and acting through his
agents and subordinates, knowingly violated the Fourth Amendment to the
Constitution and the Foreign Intelligence Service Act of 1978 (FISA) by
authorizing warrantless electronic surveillance of American citizens to
wit:
(1) The President was aware of the FISA Law requiring a
court order for any wiretap as evidenced by the following:
(A) ``Now, by the way, any time you hear the United
States Government talking about wiretap, it requires--a
wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by
the way. When we're talking about chasing down
terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order
before we do so.'' White House Press conference on
April 20, 2004. [White House Transcript]
(B) ``Law enforcement officers need a Federal
judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's
phone, or to track his calls, or to search his
property. Officers must meet strict standards to use
any of the tools we're talking about.'' President
Bush's speech in Baltimore, Maryland, on July 20th,
2005. [White House Transcript]
(2) The President repeatedly ordered the NSA to place
wiretaps on American citizens without requesting a warrant from
FISA as evidenced by the following:
(A) ``Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President
Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency
to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United
States to search for evidence of terrorist activity
without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required
for domestic spying, according to government
officials.'' New York Times article by James Risen and
Eric Lichtblau on December 12, 2005. [NYTimes]
(B) The President admits to authorizing the program
by stating ``I have reauthorized this program more than
30 times since the September the 11th attacks, and I
intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a
continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups. The
NSA's activities under this authorization are
thoroughly reviewed by the Justice Department and NSA's
top legal officials, including NSA's general counsel
and inspector general. Leaders in Congress have been
briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization
and the activities conducted under it.'' Radio Address
from the White House on December 17, 2005. [White House
Transcript]
(C) In a December 19th, 2005 press conference the
President publicly admitted to using a combination of
surveillance techniques including some with permission
from the FISA courts and some without permission from
FISA.
Reporter: It was, why did you skip the basic safeguards of asking
courts for permission for the intercepts?
THE PRESIDENT: . . . We use FISA still--you're referring to the
FISA court in your question--of course, we use FISAs. But FISA is for
long-term monitoring. What is needed in order to protect the American
people is the ability to move quickly to detect. Now, having suggested
this idea, I then, obviously, went to the question, is it legal to do
so? I am--I swore to uphold the laws. Do I have the legal authority to
do this? And the answer is, absolutely. As I mentioned in my remarks,
the legal authority is derived from the Constitution, as well as the
authorization of force by the United States Congress. [White House
Transcript]
(D) Mike McConnell, the Director of National
Intelligence, in a letter to Senator Arlen Specter,
acknowledged that Bush's Executive Order in 2001
authorized a series of secret surveillance activities
and included undisclosed activities beyond the
warrantless surveillance of e-mails and phone calls
that Bush confirmed in December 2005. ``NSA Spying Part
of Broader Effort'' by Dan Eggen, Washington Post, 8/1/
07.
(3) The President ordered the surveillance to be conducted
in a way that would spy upon private communications between
American citizens located within the United States borders as
evidenced by the following:
(A) Mark Klein, a retired AT&T communications
technician, submitted an affidavit in support of the
Electronic Frontier Foundation's FF's lawsuit against
AT&T. He testified that in 2003 he connected a
``splitter'' that sent a copy of Internet traffic and
phone calls to a secure room that was operated by the
NSA in the San Francisco office of AT&T. He heard from
a co-worker that similar rooms were being constructed
in other cities, including Seattle, San Jose, Los
Angeles, and San Diego. From ``Whistle-Blower Outs NSA
Spy Room'', Wired News, 4/7/06. [Wired] [EFF Case]
(4) The President asserted an inherent authority to conduct
electronic surveillance based on the Constitution and the
``Authorization to use Military Force in Iraq'' (AUMF) that was
not legally valid as evidenced by the following:
(A) In a December 19th, 2005 Press Briefing General
Alberto Gonzales admitted that the surveillance
authorized by the President was not only done without
FISA warrants, but that the nature of the surveillance
was so far removed from what FISA can approve that FISA
could not even be amended to allow it. Gonzales stated
``We have had discussions with Congress in the past--
certain members of Congress--as to whether or not FISA
could be amended to allow us to adequately deal with
this kind of threat, and we were advised that that
would be difficult, if not impossible.''.
(B) The fourth amendment to the United States
Constitution states ``The right of the people to be
secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not
be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and
the persons or things to be seized.''.
(C) ``The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of
1978 unambiguously limits warrantless domestic
electronic surveillance, even in a congressionally
declared war, to the first 15 days of that war;
criminalizes any such electronic surveillance not
authorized by statute; and expressly establishes FISA
and two chapters of the federal criminal code,
governing wiretaps for intelligence purposes and for
criminal investigation, respectively, as the `exclusive
means by which electronic surveillance . . . and the
interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic
communications may be conducted.'. 50 U.S.C. 1811,
1809, 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(f).'' Letter from Harvard Law
Professor Lawrence Tribe to John Conyers on 1/6/06.
(D) In a December 19th, 2005 Press Briefing
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales stated ``Our position
is, is that the authorization to use force, which was
passed by the Congress in the days following September
11th, constitutes that other authorization, that other
statute by Congress, to engage in this kind of signals
intelligence.''.
(E) The ``Authorization to use Military Force in
Iraq'' does not give any explicit authorization related
to electronic surveillance. [H.J. Res. 114]
(F) ``From the foregoing analysis, it appears
unlikely that a court would hold that Congress has
expressly or impliedly authorized the NSA electronic
surveillance operations here under discussion, and it
would likewise appear that, to the extent that those
surveillances fall within the definition of `electronic
surveillance' within the meaning of FISA or any
activity regulated under title III, Congress intended
to cover the entire field with these statutes.''. From
the ``Presidential Authority to Conduct Warrantless
Electronic Surveillance to Gather Foreign Intelligence
Information'' by the Congressional Research Service on
January 5, 2006.
(G) ``The inescapable conclusion is that the AUMF
did not implicitly authorize what the FISA expressly
prohibited. It follows that the presidential program of
surveillance at issue here is a violation of the
separation of powers--as grave an abuse of executive
authority as I can recall ever having studied.'' Letter
from Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe to John
Conyers on 1/6/06.
(H) On August 17, 2006, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of
the United States District Court in Detroit, in ACLU v.
NSA, ruled that the ``NSA program to wiretap the
international communications of some Americans without
a court warrant violated the Constitution. . . . Judge
Taylor ruled that the program violated both the Fourth
Amendment and a 1978 law that requires warrants from a
secret court for intelligence wiretaps involving people
in the United States. She rejected the administration's
repeated assertions that a 2001 Congressional
authorization and the president's constitutional
authority allowed the program.'' From a New York Times
article ``Judge Finds Wiretap Actions Violate the Law''
8/18/06 and the Memorandum Opinion.
(I) In July 2007, the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals dismissed the case, ruling the plaintiffs had
no standing to sue because, given the secretive nature
of the surveillance, they could not state with
certainty that they have been wiretapped by the NSA.
This ruling did not address the legality of the
surveillance so Judge Taylor's decision is the only
ruling on that issue. [ACLU Legal Documents]
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has
acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander in
Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of
the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people
of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such
conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from
office.
Article XXV--Directing Telecommunications Companies To Create an
Illegal and Unconstitutional Database of the Private Telephone Numbers
and Emails of American Citizens
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W.
Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the
office of President of the United States and, to the best of his
ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under article II,
section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed'', has both personally and acting through his
agents and subordinates, violated the Stored Communications Act of 1986
and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 by creating of a very large
database containing information related to the private telephone calls
and emails of American citizens, to wit:
The President requested that telecommunication companies release
customer phone records to the Government illegally as evidenced by the
following:
``The Stored Communications Act of 1986 (SCA) prohibits the knowing
disclosure of customer telephone records to the government unless
pursuant to subpoena, warrant or a National Security Letter (or other
Administrative subpoena); with the customers lawful consent; or there
is a business necessity; or an emergency involving the danger of death
or serious physical injury. None of these exceptions apply to the
circumstance described in the USA Today story.'' From page 169,
``George W Bush versus the U.S. Constitution.''. Compiled at the
direction of Representative John Conyers.
According to a May 11, 2006, article in USA Today by Lesley Cauley,
``The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone
call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by
AT&T, Verizon, and BellSouth.'' An unidentified source said ``The
agency's goal is to `create a database of every call ever made' within
the nation's borders.''.
In early 2001, Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio rejected a request from the
NSA to turn over customers records of phone calls, emails and other
Internet activity. Nacchio believed that complying with the request
would violate the Telecommunications Act of 1996. From National
Journal, November 2, 2007.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has
acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander in
Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of
the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people
of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such
conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from
office.
Article XXVI--Announcing the Intent To Violate Laws With Signing
Statements, and Violating Those Laws
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W.
Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the
office of President of the United States and, to the best of his
ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under article II,
section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed'', has used signing statements to claim the right
to violate acts of Congress even as he signs them into law.
In June 2007, the Government Accountability Office reported that in
a sample of Bush signing statements the office had studied, for 30
percent of them the Bush administration had already proceeded to
violate the laws the statements claimed the right to violate.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has
acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander in
Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of
the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people
of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such
conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from
office.
Article XXVII--Failing To Comply With Congressional Subpoenas and
Instructing Former Employees Not To Comply
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W.
Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the
office of President of the United States and, to the best of his
ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under article II,
section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed'', has both personally and acting through his
agents and subordinates, refused to comply with Congressional
subpoenas, and instructed former employees not to comply with
subpoenas.
Subpoenas not complied with include:
A House Judiciary Committee subpoena for Justice Department
papers and Emails, issued April 10, 2007;
A House Oversight and Government Reform Committee subpoena
for the testimony of the Secretary of State, issued April 25,
2007;
A House Judiciary Committee subpoena for the testimony of
former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and documents, issued
June 13, 2007;
A Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena for documents and
testimony of White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, issued
June 13, 2007;
A Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena for documents and
testimony of White House Political Director Sara Taylor, issued
June 13, 2007 (Taylor appeared but refused to answer
questions);
A Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena for documents and
testimony of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove,
issued June 26, 2007;
A Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena for documents and
testimony of White House Deputy Political Director J. Scott
Jennings, issued June 26, 2007 (Jennings appeared but refused
to answer questions);
A Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena for legal analysis
and other documents concerning the NSA warrantless wiretapping
program from the White House, Vice President Richard Cheney,
The Department of Justice, and the National Security Council.
If the documents are not produced, the subpoena requires the
testimony of White House chief of staff Josh Bolten, Attorney
General Alberto Gonzales, Cheney chief of staff David
Addington, National Security Council executive director V.
Philip Lago, issued June 27, 2007; and
A House Oversight and Government Reform Committee subpoena
for Lt. General Kensinger.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has
acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander in
Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of
the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people
of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such
conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from
office.
Article XXVIII--Tampering With Free and Fair Elections, Corruption of
the Administration of Justice
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W.
Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the
office of President of the United States and, to the best of his
ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under article II,
section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed'', has both personally and acting through his
agents and subordinates, conspired to undermine and tamper with the
conduct of free and fair elections, and to corrupt the administration
of justice by United States Attorneys and other employees of the
Department of Justice, through abuse of the appointment power.
Toward this end, the President and Vice President, both personally
and through their agents, did:
Engage in a program of manufacturing false allegations of
voting fraud in targeted jurisdictions where the Democratic
Party enjoyed an advantage in electoral performance or
otherwise was problematic for the President's Republican Party,
in order that public confidence in election results favorable
to the Democratic Party be undermined;
Direct United States Attorneys to launch and announce
investigations of certain leaders, candidates and elected
officials affiliated with the Democratic Party at times
calculated to cause the most political damage and confusion,
most often in the weeks immediately preceding an election, in
order that public confidence in the suitability for office of
Democratic Party leaders, candidates and elected officials be
undermined;
Direct United States Attorneys to terminate or scale back
existing investigations of certain Republican Party leaders,
candidates and elected officials allied with the George W. Bush
administration, and to refuse to pursue new or proposed
investigations of certain Republican Party leaders, candidates
and elected officials allied with the George W. Bush
administration, in order that public confidence in the
suitability of such Republican Party leaders, candidates and
elected officials be bolstered or restored; and
Threaten to terminate the employment of the following
United States Attorneys who refused to comply with such
directives and purposes;
David C. Iglesias as U.S. Attorney for the District
of New Mexico;
Kevin V. Ryan as U.S. Attorney for the Northern
District of California;
John L. McKay as U.S. Attorney for the Western
District of Washington;
Paul K. Charlton as U.S. Attorney for the District
of Arizona;
Carol C. Lam as U.S. Attorney for the Southern
District of California;
Daniel G. Bogden as U.S. Attorney for the District
of Nevada;
Margaret M. Chiara as U.S. Attorney for the Western
District of Michigan;
Todd Graves as U.S. Attorney for the Western
District of Missouri;
Harry E. ``Bud'' Cummins, III as U.S. Attorney for
the Eastern District of Arkansas;
Thomas M. DiBiagio as U.S. Attorney for the
District of Maryland; and
Kasey Warner as U.S. Attorney for the Southern
District of West Virginia.
Further, George W. Bush has both personally and acting through his
agents and subordinates, together with the Vice President conspired to
obstruct the lawful Congressional investigation of these dismissals of
United States Attorneys and the related scheme to undermine and tamper
with the conduct of free and fair elections, and to corrupt the
administration of justice.
Contrary to his oath faithfully to execute the office of President
of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve,
protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in
violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed, George W. Bush has without lawful cause or excuse
directed not to appear before the Committee on the Judiciary of the
House of Representatives certain witnesses summoned by duly authorized
subpoenas issued by that Committee on June 13, 2007.
In refusing to permit the testimony of these witnesses George W.
Bush, substituting his judgment as to what testimony was necessary for
the inquiry, interposed the powers of the Presidency against the lawful
subpoenas of the House of Representatives, thereby assuming to himself
functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the checking and
balancing power of oversight vested in the House of Representatives.
Further, the President has both personally and acting through his
agents and subordinates, together with the Vice President directed the
United States Attorney for the District of Columbia to decline to
prosecute for contempt of Congress the aforementioned witnesses, Joshua
B. Bolten and Harriet E. Miers, despite the obligation to do so as
established by statute (2 U.S.C. 194) and pursuant to the direction of
the United States House of Representatives as embodied in its
resolution (H. Res. 982) of February 14, 2008.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has
acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander in
Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of
the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people
of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such
conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from
office.
Article XXIX--Conspiracy To Violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W.
Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the
office of President of the United States and, to the best of his
ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under article II,
section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed'', has both personally and acting through his
agents and subordinates, has willfully corrupted and manipulated the
electoral process of the United States for his personal gain and the
personal gain of his co-conspirators and allies; has violated the
United States Constitution and law by failing to protect the civil
rights of African-American voters and others in the 2004 Election, and
has impeded the right of the people to vote and have their vote
properly and accurately counted, in that--
(1) on November 5, 2002, and prior thereto, James Tobin,
while serving as the regional director of the National
Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee and as the New England
Chairman of Bush-Cheney '04 Inc., did, at the direction of the
White House under the administration of George W. Bush, along
with other agents both known and unknown, commit unlawful acts
by aiding and abetting a scheme to use computerized hang-up
calls to jam phone lines set up by the New Hampshire Democratic
Party and the Manchester firefighters' union on Election Day;
(2) an investigation by the Democratic staff of the House
Judiciary Committee into the voting procedures in Ohio during
the 2004 election found ``widespread instances of intimidation
and misinformation in violation of the Voting Rights Act, the
Civil Rights Act of 1968, Equal Protection, Due Process and the
Ohio right to vote'';
(3) the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause guarantees
that no minority group will suffer disparate treatment in a
Federal, State, or local election in stating that: ``No State
shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor
shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.''.
However, during and at various times of the year 2004, John
Kenneth Blackwell, then serving as the Secretary of State for
the State of Ohio and also serving simultaneously as Co-
Chairman of the Committee to Re-Elect George W. Bush in the
State of Ohio, did, at the direction of the White House under
the administration of George W. Bush, along with other agents
both known and unknown, commit unlawful acts in violation of
the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United
States Constitution by failing to protect the voting rights of
African-American citizens in Ohio and further, John Kenneth
Blackwell did disenfranchise African-American voters under
color of law, by--
(A) willfully denying certain neighborhoods in the
cities of Cleveland, Ohio, and Columbus, Ohio, along
with other urban areas in the State of Ohio, an
adequate number of electronic voting machines and
provisional paper ballots, thereby unlawfully impeding
duly registered voters from the act of voting and thus
violating the civil rights of an unknown number of
United States citizens;
(i) in Franklin County, George W. Bush and
his agent, Ohio Secretary of State John Kenneth
Blackwell, Co-Chair of the Bush-Cheney Re-
election Campaign, failed to protect the rights
of African-American voters by not properly
investigating the withholding of 125 electronic
voting machines assigned to the city of
Columbus;
(ii) forty-two African-American precincts
in Columbus were each missing one voting
machine that had been present in the 2004
primary; and
(iii) African-American voters in the city
of Columbus were forced to wait three to seven
hours to vote in the 2004 presidential
election;
(B) willfully issuing unclear and conflicting rules
regarding the methods and manner of becoming a legally
registered voter in the State of Ohio, and willfully
issuing unclear and unnecessary edicts regarding the
weight of paper registration forms legally acceptable
to the State of Ohio, thereby creating confusion for
both voters and voting officials and thus impeding the
right of an unknown number of United States citizens to
register and vote;
(i) Ohio Secretary of State John Kenneth
Blackwell directed through Advisory 2004-31
that voter registration forms, which were
greatest in urban minority areas, should not be
accepted and should be returned unless
submitted on 80 bond paper weight. Blackwell's
own office was found to be using 60 bond paper
weight;
(C) willfully permitted and encouraged election
officials in Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Toledo to
conduct a massive partisan purge of registered voter
rolls, eventually expunging more than 300,000 voters,
many of whom were duly registered voters, and who were
thus deprived of their constitutional right to vote;
(i) between the 2000 and 2004 Ohio
presidential elections, 24.93 percent of the
voters in the city of Cleveland, a city with a
majority of African-American citizens, were
purged from the voting rolls;
(ii) in that same period, the Ohio county
of Miami, with census data indicating a 98
percent Caucasian population, refused to purge
any voters from its rolls. Miami County
``merged'' voters from other surrounding
counties into its voting rolls and even allowed
voters from other states to vote; and
(iii) in Toledo, Ohio, an urban city with a
high African-American concentration, 28,000
voters were purged from the voting rolls in
August of 2004, just prior to the presidential
election. This purge was conducted under the
control and direction of George W. Bush's
agent, Ohio Secretary of State John Kenneth
Blackwell outside of the regularly established
cycle of purging voters in odd-numbered years;
(D) willfully allowing Ohio Secretary of State John
Kenneth Blackwell, acting under color of law and as an
agent of George W. Bush, to issue a directive that no
votes would be counted unless cast in the right
precinct, reversing Ohio's long-standing practice of
counting votes for president if cast in the right
county;
(E) willfully allowing his agent, Ohio Secretary of
State John Kenneth Blackwell, the Co-Chair of the Bush-
Cheney Re-election Campaign, to do nothing to assure
the voting rights of 10,000 people in the city of
Cleveland when a computer error by the private vendor
Diebold Election Systems, Inc. incorrectly
disenfranchised 10,000 voters;
(F) willfully allowing his agent, Ohio Secretary of
State John Kenneth Blackwell, the Co-Chair of the Bush-
Cheney Re-election Campaign, to ensure that uncounted
and provisional ballots in Ohio's 2004 presidential
election would be disproportionately concentrated in
urban African-American districts;
(i) in Ohio's Lucas County, which includes
Toledo, 3,122 or 41.13 percent of the
provisional ballots went uncounted under the
direction of George W. Bush's agent, the
Secretary of State of Ohio, John Kenneth
Blackwell, Co-Chair of the Committee to Re-
Elect Bush/Cheney in Ohio;
(ii) in Ohio's Cuyahoga County, which
includes Cleveland, 8,559 or 32.82 percent of
the provisional ballots went uncounted;
(iii) in Ohio's Hamilton County, which
includes Cincinnati, 3,529 or 24.23 percent of
the provisional ballots went uncounted; and
(iv) Statewide, the provisional ballot
rejection rate was 9 percent as compared to the
greater figures in the urban areas;
(4) the Department of Justice, charged with enforcing the
Voting Rights Act of 1965, the 14th Amendment's Equal
Protection Clause, and other voting rights laws in the United
States of America, under the direction and Administration of
George W. Bush did willfully and purposely obstruct and
stonewall legitimate criminal investigations into myriad cases
of reported electoral fraud and suppression in the State of
Ohio. Such activities, carried out by the department on behalf
of George W. Bush in counties such as Franklin and Knox by
persons such as John K. Tanner and others, were meant to
confound and whitewash legitimate legal criminal investigations
into the suppression of massive numbers of legally registered
voters and the removal of their right to cast a ballot fairly
and freely in the State of Ohio, which was crucial to the
certified electoral victory of George W. Bush in 2004;
(5) on or about November 1, 2006, members of the United
States Department of Justice, under the control and direction
of the Administration of George W. Bush, brought indictments
for voter registration fraud within days of an election, in
order to directly effect the outcome of that election for
partisan purposes, and in doing so, thereby violated the
Justice Department's own rules against filing election-related
indictments close to an election;
(6) emails have been obtained showing that the Republican
National Committee and members of Bush-Cheney '04 Inc., did, at
the direction of the White House under the Administration of
George W. Bush, engage in voter suppression in five states by a
method know as ``vote caging'', an illegal voter suppression
technique;
(7) agents of George W. Bush, including Mark F. ``Thor''
Hearne, the national general counsel of Bush/Cheney '04, Inc.,
did, at the behest of George W. Bush, as members of a criminal
front group, distribute known false information and propaganda
in the hopes of forwarding legislation and other actions that
would result in the disenfranchisement of Democratic voters for
partisan purposes. The scheme, run under the auspices of an
organization known as ``The American Center for Voting Rights''
(ACVR), was funded by agents of George W. Bush in violation of
laws governing tax exempt 501(c)3 organizations and in
violation of federal laws forbidding the distribution of such
propaganda by the Federal Government and agents working on its
behalf;
(8) members of the United States Department of Justice,
under the control and direction of the Administration of George
W. Bush, did, for partisan reasons, illegally and with malice
aforethought block career attorneys and other officials in the
Department of Justice from filing three lawsuits charging local
and county governments with violating the voting rights of
African-Americans and other minorities, according to seven
former senior United States Justice Department employees;
(9) members of the United States Department of Justice,
under the control and direction of the Administration of George
W. Bush, did illegally and with malice aforethought derail at
least two investigations into possible voter discrimination,
according to a letter sent to the Senate Rules and
Administration Committee and written by former employees of the
United States Department of Justice, Voting Rights Section; and
(10) members of the United States Election Assistance
Commission (EAC), under the control and direction of the
Administration of George W. Bush, have purposefully and
willfully misled the public, in violation of several laws, by;
(A) withholding from the public and then altering a
legally mandated report on the true measure and threat
of Voter Fraud, as commissioned by the EAC and
completed in June 2006, prior to the 2006 mid-term
election, but withheld from release prior to that
election when its information would have been useful in
the administration of elections across the country,
because the results of the statutorily required and
tax-payer funded report did not conform with the
illegal, partisan propaganda efforts and politicized
agenda of the Bush Administration;
(B) withholding from the public a legally mandated
report on the disenfranchising effect of Photo
Identification laws at the polling place, shown to
disproportionately disenfranchise voters not of George
W. Bush's political party. The report was commissioned
by the EAC and completed in June 2006, prior to the
2006 mid-term election, but withheld from release prior
to that election when its information would have been
useful in the administration of elections across the
country; and
(C) withholding from the public a legally mandated
report on the effectiveness of Provisional Voting as
commissioned by the EAC and completed in June 2006,
prior to the 2006 mid-term election, but withheld from
release prior to that election when its information
would have been useful in the administration of
elections across the country, and keeping that report
unreleased for more than a year until it was revealed
by independent media outlets.
For directly harming the rights and manner of suffrage, for
suffering to make them secret and unknowable, for overseeing and
participating in the disenfranchisement of legal voters, for
instituting debates and doubts about the true nature of elections, all
against the will and consent of local voters affected, and forced
through threats of litigation by agents and agencies overseen by George
W. Bush, the actions of Mr. Bush to do the opposite of securing and
guaranteeing the right of the people to alter or abolish their
government via the electoral process, being a violation of an
inalienable right, and an immediate threat to Liberty.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has
acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander in
Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of
the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people
of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such
conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from
office.
Article XXX--Misleading Congress and the American People in an Attempt
To Destroy Medicare
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W.
Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the
office of President of the United States and, to the best of his
ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under article II,
section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed'', has both personally and acting through his
agents and subordinates, together with the Vice President, pursued
policies which deliberately drained the fiscal resources of Medicare by
forcing it to compete with subsidized private insurance plans which are
allowed to arbitrarily select or not select those they will cover;
failing to provide reasonable levels of reimbursements to Medicare
providers, thereby discouraging providers from participating in the
program, and designing a Medicare Part D benefit without cost controls
which allowed pharmaceutical companies to gouge the American taxpayers
for the price of prescription drugs.
The President created, manipulated, and disseminated information
given to the citizens and Congress of the United States in support of
his prescription drug plan for Medicare that enriched drug companies
while failing to save beneficiaries sufficient money on their
prescription drugs. He misled Congress and the American people into
thinking the cost of the benefit was $400 billion. It was widely
understood that if the cost exceeded that amount, the bill would not
pass due to concerns about fiscal irresponsibility.
A Medicare Actuary who possessed information regarding the true
cost of the plan, $539 billion, was instructed by the Medicare
Administrator to deny Congressional requests for it. The Actuary was
threatened with sanctions if the information was disclosed to Congress,
which, unaware of the information, approved the bill. Despite the fact
that official cost estimates far exceeded $400 billion, President Bush
offered assurances to Congress that the cost was $400 billion, when his
office had information to the contrary. In the House of
Representatives, the bill passed by a single vote and the Conference
Report passed by only 5 votes. The White House knew the actual cost of
the drug benefit was high enough to prevent its passage. Yet the White
House concealed the truth and impeded an investigation into its
culpability.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has
acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander in
Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of
the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people
of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such
conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from
office.
Article XXXI--Katrina: Failure To Plan for the Predicted Disaster of
Hurricane Katrina, Failure To Respond to a Civil Emergency
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W.
Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the
office of President of the United States and, to the best of his
ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under article II,
section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed'', has both personally and acting through his
agents and subordinates, failed to take sufficient action to protect
life and property prior to and in the face of Hurricane Katrina in
2005, given decades of foreknowledge of the dangers of storms to New
Orleans and specific forewarning in the days prior to the storm. The
President failed to prepare for predictable and predicted disasters,
failed to respond to an immediate need of which he was informed, and
has subsequently failed to rebuild the section of our nation that was
destroyed.
Hurricane Katrina killed at least 1,282 people, with 2 million more
displaced. 302,000 housing units were destroyed or damaged by the
hurricane, 71 percent of these were low-income units. More than 500
sewage plants were destroyed, more than 170 point-source leakages of
gasoline, oil, or natural gas, more than 2,000 gas stations submerged,
several chemical plants, 8 oil refineries, and a superfund site was
submerged. 8 million gallons of oil were spilled. Toxic materials
seeped into floodwaters and spread through much of the city and
surrounding areas.
The predictable increased strength of hurricanes such as Katrina
has been identified by scientists for years, and yet the Bush
Administration has denied this science and restricted such information
from official reports, publications, and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Agency's website. Donald Kennedy, editor-in-chief of
Science, wrote in 2006 that ``hurricane intensity has increased with
oceanic surface temperatures over the past 30 years. The physics of
hurricane intensity growth . . . has clarified and explained the
thermodynamic basis for these observations. [Kerry] Emanuel has tested
this relationship and presented convincing evidence.''.
FEMA's 2001 list of the top three most likely and most devastating
disasters were a San Francisco earthquake, a terrorist attack on New
York, and a Category 4 hurricane hitting New Orleans, with New Orleans
being the number one item on that list. FEMA conducted a five-day
hurricane simulation exercise in 2004, ``Hurricane Pam'', mimicking a
Katrina-like event. This exercise combined the National Weather
Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the LSU Hurricane Center and
other state and federal agencies, resulting in the development of
emergency response plans. The exercise demonstrated, among other
things, that thousands of mainly indigent New Orleans residents would
be unable to evacuate on their own. They would need substantial
government assistance. These plans, however, were not implemented in
part due to the President's slashing of funds for protection. In the
year before Hurricane Katrina hit, the President continued to cut
budgets and deny grants to the Gulf Coast. In June of 2004, the Army
Corps of Engineers levee budget for New Orleans was cut, and it was cut
again in June of 2005, this time by $71.2 million or a whopping 44
percent of the budget. As a result, ACE was forced to suspend any
repair work on the levees. In 2004 FEMA denied a Louisiana disaster
mitigation grant request.
The President was given multiple warnings that Hurricane Katrina
had a high likelihood of causing serious damage to New Orleans and the
Gulf Coast. At 10 a.m. on Sunday, August 28, 2005, the day before the
storm hit, the National Weather Service published an alert titled
``DEVASTATING DAMAGE EXPECTED''. Printed in all capital letters, the
alert stated that ``MOST OF THE AREA WILL BE UNINHABITABLE FOR WEEKS .
. . PERHAPS LONGER. AT LEAST ONE HALF OF WELL CONSTRUCTED HOMES WILL
HAVE ROOF AND WALL FAILURE. . . . POWER OUTAGES WILL LAST FOR WEEKS. .
. . WATER SHORTAGES WILL MAKE HUMAN SUFFERING INCREDIBLE BY MODERN
STANDARDS.''.
The Homeland Security Department also briefed the President on the
scenario, warning of levee breaches and severe flooding. According to
the New York Times, ``a Homeland Security Department report submitted
to the White House at 1:47 a.m. on August 29, hours before the storm
hit, said, `Any storm rated Category 4 or greater will likely lead to
severe flooding and/or levee breaching.''' These warnings clearly
contradict the statements made by President Bush immediately after the
storm that such devastation could not have been predicted. On September
1, 2005, the President said, ``I don't think anyone anticipated the
breach of the levees.''.
The President's response to Katrina via FEMA and DHS was criminally
delayed, indifferent, and inept. The only FEMA employee posted in New
Orleans in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Marty
Bahamonde, emailed head of FEMA Michael Brown from his Blackberry
device on August 31, 2005, regarding the conditions. The email was
urgent and detailed and indicated that ``The situation is past
critical. . . . Estimates are many will die within hours.''. Brown's
reply was emblematic of the administration's entire response to the
catastrophe: ``Thanks for the update. Anything specific I need to do or
tweak?''. The Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, did not
declare an emergency, did not mobilize the Federal resources, and
seemed to not even know what was happening on the ground until
reporters told him.
On Friday, August 26, 2005, Governor Kathleen Blanco declared a
State of Emergency in Louisiana and Governor Haley Barbour of
Mississippi followed suit the next day. Also on that Saturday, Governor
Blanco asked the President to declare a Federal State of Emergency, and
on August 28, 2005, the Sunday before the storm hit, Mayor Nagin
declared a State of Emergency in New Orleans. This shows that the local
authorities, responding to federal warnings, knew how bad the
destruction was going to be and anticipated being overwhelmed. Failure
to act under these circumstances demonstrates gross negligence.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has
acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander in
Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of
the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people
of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such
conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from
office.
Article XXXII--Misleading Congress and the American People,
Systematically Undermining Efforts To Address Global Climate Change
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W.
Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the
office of President of the United States and, to the best of his
ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under article II,
section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed'', has both personally and acting through his
agents and subordinates, together with the Vice President, ignored the
peril to life and property posed by global climate change, manipulated
scientific information and mishandled protective policy, constituting
nonfeasance and malfeasance in office, abuse of power, dereliction of
duty, and deception of Congress and the American people.
President Bush knew the expected effects of climate change and the
role of human activities in driving climate change. This knowledge
preceded his first Presidential term.
(1) During his 2000 Presidential campaign, he promised to
regulate carbon dioxide emissions.
(2) In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
a global body of hundreds of the world's foremost experts on
climate change, concluded that ``most of observed warming over
last 50 years (is) likely due to increases in greenhouse gas
concentrations due to human activities.'' The Third Assessment
Report projected several effects of climate change such as
continued ``widespread retreat'' of glaciers, an ``increase
threats to human health, particularly in lower income
populations, predominantly within tropical/subtropical
countries'', and ``water shortages''.
(3) The grave danger to national security posed by global
climate change was recognized by the Pentagon's Defense
Advanced Planning Research Projects Agency in October of 2003.
An agency-commissioned report ``explores how such an abrupt
climate change scenario could potentially de-stabilize the geo-
political environment, leading to skirmishes, battles, and even
war due to resource constraints such as: 1) Food shortages due
to decreases in net global agricultural production, 2)
Decreased availability and quality of fresh water in key
regions due to shifted precipitation patters, causing more
frequent floods and droughts, 3) Disrupted access to energy
supplies due to extensive sea ice and storminess.''.
(4) A December 2004 paper in Science reviewed 928 studies
published in peer reviewed journals to determine the number
providing evidence against the existence of a link between
anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide and climate change.
``Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus
position.''.
(5) The November 2007 Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report showed that global
anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gasses have increased 70
percent between 1970 and 2004, and anthropogenic emissions are
very likely the cause of global climate change. The report
concluded that global climate change could cause the extinction
of 20 to 30 percent of species in unique ecosystems such as the
polar areas and biodiversity hotspots, increase extreme weather
events especially in the developing world, and have adverse
effects on food production and fresh water availability.
The President has done little to address this most serious of
problems, thus constituting an abuse of power and criminal neglect. He
has also actively endeavored to undermine efforts by the Federal
Government, States, and other nations to take action on their own.
(1) In March 2001, President Bush announced the U.S. would
not be pursuing ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, an
international effort to reduce greenhouse gasses. The United
States is the only industrialized nation that has failed to
ratify the accord.
(2) In March of 2008, Representative Henry Waxman wrote to
EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson: ``In August 2003, the Bush
Administration denied a petition to regulate CO<INF>2</INF>
emissions from motor vehicles by deciding that CO<INF>2</INF>
was not a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. In April 2007, the
U.S. Supreme Court overruled that determination in
Massachusetts v. EPA. The Supreme Court wrote that `If EPA
makes a finding of endangerment, the Clean Air Act requires the
agency to regulate emissions of the deleterious pollutant from
new motor vehicles.'. The EPA then conducted an extensive
investigation involving 60-70 staff who concluded that
`CO<INF>2</INF> emissions endanger both human health and
welfare.'. These findings were submitted to the White House,
after which work on the findings and the required regulations
was halted.''.
(3) A Memo to Members of the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform on May 19, 2008, stated, ``The record before
the Committee shows: (1) the career staff at EPA unanimously
supported granting California's petition (to be allowed to
regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks,
consistent with California state law); (2) Stephen Johnson, the
Administrator of EPA, also supported granting California's
petition at least in part; and (3) Administrator Johnson
reversed his position after communications with officials in
the White House.''.
The President has suppressed the release of scientific information
related to global climate change, an action which undermines Congress's
ability to legislate and provide oversight, and which has thwarted
efforts to prevent global climate change despite the serious threat
that it poses.
(1) In February, 2001, ExxonMobil wrote a memo to the White
House outlining ways to influence the outcome of the Third
Assessment report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. The memo opposed the reelection of Dr. Robert Watson as
the IPCC Chair. The White House then supported an opposition
candidate, who was subsequently elected to replace Dr. Watson.
(2) The New York Times on January 29, 2006, reported that
James Hansen, NASA's senior climate scientist was warned of
``dire consequences'' if he continued to speak out about global
climate change and the need for reducing emissions of
associated gasses. The Times also reported that: ``At climate
laboratories of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, for example, many scientists who routinely took
calls from reporters five years ago can now do so only if the
interview is approved by administration officials in
Washington, and then only if a public affairs officer is
present or on the phone.''.
(3) In December of 2007, the House Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform issued a report based on 16 months of
investigation and 27,000 pages of documentation. According to
the summary: ``The evidence before the Committee leads to one
inescapable conclusion: the Bush Administration has engaged in
a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science and
mislead policy makers and the public about the dangers of
global warming.'' The report described how the White House
appointed former petroleum industry lobbyist Phil Cooney as
head of the Council on Environmental Quality. The report states
``There was a systematic White House effort to minimize the
significance of climate change by editing climate change
reports. CEQ Chief of Staff Phil Cooney and other CEQ officials
made at least 294 edits to the Administration's Strategic Plan
of the Climate Change Science Program to exaggerate or
emphasize scientific uncertainties or to de-emphasize or
diminish the importance of the human role in global warming.''.
(4) On April 23, 2008, Representative Henry Waxman wrote a
letter to EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson. In it he
reported: ``Almost 1,600 EPA scientists completed the Union of
Concerned Scientists survey questionnaire. Over 22 percent of
these scientists reported that `selective or incomplete use of
data to justify a specific regulatory outcome' occurred
`frequently' or `occasionally' at EPA. Ninety-four EPA
scientists reported being frequently or occasionally directed
to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information from
an EPA scientific document. Nearly 200 EPA scientists said that
they have frequently or occasionally been in situations in
which scientists have actively objected to, resigned from or
removed themselves from a project because of pressure to change
scientific findings.''.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has
acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of
constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and
justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an
impeachable offense warranting removal from office.
Article XXXIII--Repeatedly Ignored and Failed To Respond to High Level
Intelligence Warnings of Planned Terrorist Attacks in the U.S., Prior
to 9/11
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W.
Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the
office of President of the United States and, to the best of his
ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under article II,
section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed'', has both personally and acting through his
agents and subordinates, together with the Vice President, failed in
his Constitutional duties to take proper steps to protect the nation
prior to September 11, 2001.
The White House's top counter-terrorism adviser, Richard A. Clarke,
has testified that from the beginning of George W. Bush's presidency
until September 11, 2001, Clarke attempted unsuccessfully to persuade
President Bush to take steps to protect the nation against terrorism.
Clarke sent a memorandum to then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza
Rice on January 24, 2001, ``urgently'' but unsuccessfully requesting
``a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with the impending al Qaeda
attack.''.
In April 2001, Clarke was finally granted a meeting, but only with
second-in-command department representatives, including Deputy
Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, who made light of Clarke's
concerns.
Clarke confirms that in June, July, and August 2001, the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA) warned the president in daily briefings of
unprecedented indications that a major al Qaeda attack was going to
happen against the United States somewhere in the world in the weeks
and months ahead. Yet, Clarke was still unable to convene a cabinet-
level meeting to address the issue.
Condoleezza Rice has testified that George Tenet met with the
president 40 times to warn him that a major al Qaeda attack was going
to take place, and that in response the president did not convene any
meetings of top officials. At such meetings, the FBI could have shared
information on possible terrorists enrolled at flight schools. Among
the many preventive steps that could have been taken, the Federal
Aviation Administration, airlines, and airports might have been put on
full alert.
According to Condoleezza Rice, the first and only cabinet-level
meeting prior to 9/11 to discuss the threat of terrorist attacks took
place on September 4, 2001, one week before the attacks in New York and
Washington.
On August 6, 2001, President Bush was presented a President's Daily
Brief (PDB) article titled ``Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.''.
The lead sentence of that PDB article indicated that Bin Laden and his
followers wanted to ``follow the example of World Trade Center bomber
Ramzi Yousef and `bring the fighting to America'''. The article warned:
``Al-Qa'ida members--including some who are U.S. citizens--have resided
in or traveled to the U.S. for years, and the group apparently
maintains a support structure that could aid attacks.''.
The article cited a ``more sensational threat reporting that Bin
Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft'', but indicated that the CIA
had not been able to corroborate such reporting. The PDB item included
information from the FBI indicating ``patterns of suspicious activity
in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other
types of attacks, including recent surveillance of Federal buildings in
New York''. The article also noted that the CIA and FBI were
investigating ``a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a
group of Bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with
explosives''.
The president spent the rest of August 6, and almost all the rest
of August 2001 on vacation. There is no evidence that he called any
meetings of his advisers to discuss this alarming report. When the
title and substance of this PDB article were later reported in the
press, then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice began a
sustained campaign to play down its significance, until the actual text
was eventually released by the White House.
New York Times writer Douglas Jehl, put it this way: ``In a single
17-sentence document, the intelligence briefing delivered to President
Bush in August 2001 spells out the who, hints at the what and points
towards the where of the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington
that followed 36 days later.''.
Eleanor Hill, Executive Director of the joint congressional
committee investigating the performance of the U.S. intelligence
community before September 11, 2001, reported in mid-September 2002
that intelligence reports a year earlier ``reiterated a consistent and
constant theme: Osama bin Laden's intent to launch terrorist attacks
inside the United States''.
That joint inquiry revealed that just two months before September
11, an intelligence briefing for ``senior government officials''
predicted a terrorist attack with these words: ``The attack will be
spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S.
facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made. Attack
will occur with little or no warning.''.
Given the White House's insistence on secrecy with regard to what
intelligence was given to President Bush, the joint-inquiry report does
not divulge whether he took part in that briefing. Even if he did not,
it strains credulity to suppose that those ``senior government
officials'' would have kept its alarming substance from the president.
Again, there is no evidence that the president held any meetings or
took any action to deal with the threats of such attacks.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has
acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, and subversive of
constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and
justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an
impeachable offense warranting removal from office.
Article XXXIV--Obstruction of Investigation Into the Attacks of
September 11, 2001
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W.
Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the
office of President of the United States and, to the best of his
ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under article II,
section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed'', has both personally and acting through his
agents and subordinates, together with the Vice President, obstructed
investigations into the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon
on September 11, 2001.
Following September 11, 2001, President Bush and Vice President
Cheney took strong steps to thwart any and all proposals that the
circumstances of the attack be addressed. Then-Secretary of State Colin
Powell was forced to renege on his public promise on September 23 that
a ``White Paper'' would be issued to explain the circumstances. Less
than two weeks after that promise, Powell apologized for his
``unfortunate choice of words'', and explained that Americans would
have to rely on ``information coming out in the press and in other
ways''.
On September 26, 2001, President Bush drove to Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA) headquarters in Langley, Virginia, stood with Director of
Central Intelligence George Tenet and said: ``My report to the nation
is, we've got the best intelligence we can possibly have thanks to the
men and women of the C.I.A.'' George Tenet subsequently and falsely
claimed not to have visited the president personally between the start
of Bush's long Crawford vacation and September 11, 2001.
Testifying before the 9/11 Commission on April 14, 2004, Tenet
answered a question from Commission member Timothy Roemer by referring
to the president's vacation (July 29-August 30) in Crawford and
insisting that he did not see the president at all in August 2001.
``You never talked with him?'' Roemer asked. ``No'', Tenet replied,
explaining that for much of August he too was ``on leave''. An Agency
spokesman called reporters that same evening to say Tenet had
misspoken, and that Tenet had briefed Bush on August 17 and 31. The
spokesman explained that the second briefing took place after the
president had returned to Washington, and played down the first one, in
Crawford, as uneventful.
In his book, At the Center of the Storm (2007), Tenet refers to
what is almost certainly his August 17 visit to Crawford as a follow-up
to the ``Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the U.S.'' article in the
CIA-prepared President's Daily Brief of August 6. That briefing was
immortalized in a Time Magazine photo capturing Harriet Myers holding
the PDB open for the president, as two CIA officers sit by. It is the
same briefing to which the president reportedly reacted by telling the
CIA briefer, ``All right, you've covered your ass now.''. (Ron Suskind,
The One-Percent Doctrine, p. 2, 2006). In At the Center of the Storm,
Tenet writes: ``A few weeks after the August 6 PDB was delivered, I
followed it to Crawford to make sure that the president stayed current
on events.''.
A White House press release suggests Tenet was also there a week
later, on August 24. According to the August 25, 2001, release,
President Bush, addressing a group of visitors to Crawford on August
25, told them: ``George Tenet and I, yesterday, we piled in the new
nominees for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Vice Chairman and
their wives and went right up the canyon.''.
In early February 2002, Vice President Dick Cheney warned then-
Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle that if Congress went ahead with an
investigation, administration officials might not show up to testify.
As pressure grew for an investigation, the president and vice president
agreed to the establishment of a congressional joint committee to
conduct a ``Joint Inquiry''. Eleanor Hill, Executive Director of the
Inquiry, opened the Joint Inquiry's final public hearing in mid-
September 2002 with the following disclaimer: ``I need to report that,
according to the White House and the Director of Central Intelligence,
the president's knowledge of intelligence information relevant to this
inquiry remains classified, even when the substance of the intelligence
information has been declassified.''.
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, also known as the 9/
11 Commission, was created on November 27, 2002, following the passage
of congressional legislation signed into law by President Bush. The
President was asked to testify before the Commission. He refused to
testify except for one hour in private with only two Commission
members, with no oath administered, with no recording or note taking,
and with the Vice President at his side. Commission Co-Chair Lee
Hamilton has written that he believes the commission was set up to
fail, was underfunded, was rushed, and did not receive proper
cooperation and access to information.
A December 2007 review of classified documents by former members of
the Commission found that the commission had made repeated and detailed
requests to the CIA in 2003 and 2004 for documents and other
information about the interrogation of operatives of l Qaeda, and had
been told falsely by a top CIA official that the agency had ``produced
or made available for review'' everything that had been requested.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has
acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, and subversive of
constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and
justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an
impeachable offense warranting removal from office.
Article XXXV--Endangering the Health of 9/11 First Responders
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W.
Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the
office of President of the United States and, to the best of his
ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under article II,
section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed'', has both personally and acting through his
agents and subordinates, together with the Vice President, recklessly
endangered the health of first responders, residents, and workers at
and near the former location of the World Trade Center in New York
City.
The Inspector General of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
August 21, 2003, report numbered 2003-P-00012 and entitled ``EPA's
Response to the World Trade Center Collapse: Challenges, Successes, and
Areas for Improvement'', includes the following findings:
``[W]hen EPA made a September 18 announcement that the air
was `safe' to breathe, it did not have sufficient data and
analyses to make such a blanket statement. At that time, air
monitoring data was lacking for several pollutants of concern,
including particulate matter and polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs). Furthermore, The White House Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) influenced, through the collaboration process,
the information that EPA communicated to the public through its
early press releases when it convinced EPA to add reassuring
statements and delete cautionary ones.''. . .
``As a result of the White House CEQ's influence, guidance
for cleaning indoor spaces and information about the potential
health effects from WTC debris were not included in EPA-issued
press releases. In addition, based on CEQ's influence,
reassuring information was added to at least one press release
and cautionary information was deleted from EPA's draft version
of that press release. . . . [T]he White House's role in EPA's
public communications about WTC environmental conditions was
described in a September 12, 2001, e-mail from the EPA Deputy
Administrator's Chief of Staff to senior EPA officials:
```All statements to the media should be cleared
through the NSC [National Security Council] before they
are released.'
``According to the EPA Chief of Staff, one particular CEQ
official was designated to work with EPA to ensure that
clearance was obtained through NSC. The Associate Administrator
for the EPA Office of Communications, Education, and Media
Relations (OCEMR)<SUP>3</SUP> said that no press release could
be issued for a 3- to 4-week period after September 11 without
approval from the CEQ contact.''.
Acting EPA Administrator Marianne Horinko, who sat in on EPA
meetings with the White House, has said in an interview that the White
House played a coordinating role. The National Security Council played
the key role, filtering incoming data on ground zero air and water,
Horinko said: ``I think that the thinking was, these are experts in WMD
(weapons of mass destruction), so they should have the coordinating
role.''.
In the cleanup of the Pentagon following September 11, 2001,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration laws were enforced, and
no workers became ill. At the World Trade Center site, the same laws
were not enforced.
In the years since the release of the EPA Inspector General's
above-cited report, the Bush Administration has still not effected a
clean-up of the indoor air in apartments and workspaces near the site.
Screenings conducted at the Mount Sinai Medical Center and released
in the September 10, 2004, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR)
of the Federal Centers For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),
produced the following results:
``Both upper and lower respiratory problems and mental
health difficulties are widespread among rescue and recovery
workers who dug through the ruins of the World Trade Center in
the days following its destruction in the attack of September
11, 2001.
``An analysis of the screenings of 1,138 workers and
volunteers who responded to the World Trade Center disaster
found that nearly three-quarters of them experienced new or
worsened upper respiratory problems at some point while working
at Ground Zero. And half of those examined had upper and/or
lower respiratory symptoms that persisted up to the time of
their examinations, an average of eight months after their WTC
efforts ended.''.
A larger study released in 2006 found that roughly 70 percent of
nearly 10,000 workers tested at Mount Sinai from 2002 to 2004 reported
that they had new or substantially worsened respiratory problems while
or after working at ground zero. This study showed that many of the
respiratory ailments, including sinusitis and asthma, and
gastrointestinal problems related to them, initially reported by ground
zero workers persisted or grew worse over time. Most of the ground zero
workers in the study who reported trouble breathing while working there
were still having those problems two and a half years later, an
indication of chronic illness unlikely to improve over time.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has
acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, and subversive of
constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and
justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an
impeachable offense warranting removal from office.
<all>