- Originally published by the Afro-American on 5/21/2004
By. Ron Walters
I have been asked often why George Bush has not been impeached for
malfeasance, given the illegal intervention in Iraq, I have generally
replied that Bush would have to be charged with ''high crimes and
misdemeanors.'' Of course, we all know that the definition this concept
is purely political inasmuch as Bill Clinton was impeached for
consensual sex with a woman in the White House.
Compare what Bill Clinton did with Bush leading the country into an
illegal war. He did so without the support of the country's strongest
allies, under the false pretense of finding ''weapons of mass
destruction.'' In the process, we have wasted precious lives and
financial resources.
Congressman Charles Rangel has recently drawn up impeachment articles
against Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. In remarks on
the House floor, Rangel pointed out that the Constitution gives to the
House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment covering civil
officers of the United States government. So far, only one such
officer, Secretary of War William Worth Belknap, was impeached. And
that was in 1876 for bribery.
I think an additional approach could be for the military’s commission
of crimes against persons who are considered prisoners of war in
contravention to the Geneva Convention. It could be leveled against
both President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld, It should be focused at the
top.
Why?
Because Brig. General Mark Kimmitt and a story in Newsweek
magazine revealed that Rumsfeld demanded to personally sign off on
various tactics would that would be used to interrogate prisoners at
the Guantanomo Base facility in Cuba immediately after the September 11
attack. That fits his detail, hands-on style of micro-management that
has driven the military crazy and caused him to be unpopular with the
higher brass.
We are led to believe that Rumsfeld approved these measures without the
authorization of the president of the United States. In fact, it is
known that Bush was told by Rumsfeld in late January or early February
of this year that abuses of the prisoners had occurred in the facility
at Abu Ghraib. So, we are also led to believe that Bush knew about what
had happened, but did not approve of Rumsfeld participating in a
cover-up by keeping this information away from Congress or the American
people.
That means we should also believe that Rumsfeld participated in a
closed intelligence briefing for the Senate Armed Services Committee on
April 28, but did not disclose the secret report prepared by Major
General Antonio Tagabu on the atrocities - and that President Bush did
not know of his cover-up. Then, we should also believe that General
Myers, the commanding general, called ''60 Minutes II'' to keep them
from showing the pictures and that he did this all on his own, without
any direction from the White House.
In other words, we are supposed to believe that Bush was not informed
about all of this and did not issue any directives or guidance or make
any decisions with respect to these events, taking the concept of
''deniability'' to one of the wildest heights in history. Our
ignorance can only be resolved in the court of an impeachment hearing.
What connects this administration to a ''high crime,'' is that it has
committed war crimes as defined in the Geneva Convention. We have
participated in an International Criminal Court hearing against the
butcher Melosovich of Bosnia fame. And while at first blush the
atrocities committed by the Bush folks don't appear to be anywhere near
that, the fact is that we don't know of the extent to which this has
occurred where prisoners have been kept.
What is coming out is that there was tremendous pressure on the White
House to justify its role in Iraq, to find weapons of mass destruction
and to obtain the kind of intelligence that would lead them to Saddam
Hussein and his remaining combatants who were killing American
soldiers. This pressure was the fuel for the tactics used against other
human beings and could have happened in other locations as well.
So, the question is who, or what entity will lead where the information goes?
The Democrats appear to be knock-kneed, lily-livered punks when it
comes to achieving anything like the aggressiveness with which the
Republican pursued Clinton. You wouldn't know there was an election
going and this issue could decide it. Karl Rove knows and he is
putting up one hell of a fight for Bush while Democrats are
tap-dancing. If Bush gets overcomes this, John Kerry, his
handlers, and Democratic National Committee leaders should be placed in
a prison camp. Don’t even both to send me the pictures.
Ron Walters is the Distinguished Leadership Scholar, director of the
African American Leadership Institute in the Academy of Leadership and
professor of government and politics at the University of
Maryland-College Park. His latest book is “White Nationalism,
Black Interests” (Wayne State University Press).