[Peace-discuss] Let. to ed. draft

[C. G. Estabrook]

[Our discussion of impeachment at last Sunday's meeting leads
me to take figurative pen in hand and once again address the
adamantine consciousness of the editor of the News-Gazette, in
the following wise.  Comments welcome. --CGE]


	I supported Clinton's impeachment.  He was obviously guilty
as charged, of perjury and obstruction of justice.  Under our
constitution, he should have been removed from office; he
wasn't, only because of the partisan voting of Senate Democrats. 
	I also supported the move to impeach Richard Nixon, which
ended only with his resignation.  Corruptly pardoned by his
successor, he was unquestionably guilty of crimes under
domestic and international law.
	Impeachment is in fact an archaic political device, abandoned
by modern governments.  (There what we call an administration
is simply removed when it loses the confidence of the
legislature.)  Our constitution fast-froze the political
theory of the 18th century, so impeachment remains our only
remedy for ineptitude or criminality in the national executive. 
	George Bush is as clearly guilty of "high crimes and
misdemeanors" as were Clinton and Nixon.  He launched an
illegal war, in contravention of international law and the
Nuremberg Principles; misled the Congress and the public as to
the reasons for the war, as the Downing Street Memo shows;
established a policy of torture, illustrated by his aides'
memoranda; ran a secret prison system, meant to be outside the
control of US law; spied on American citizens, in purposeful
violation of statutes; and violated the Bill of Rights, at
least the First, Fourth and Sixth Amendments.
	If impeachment worked according to the original intent of the
founders, there is no question that Bush and senior members of
his administration would be impeached and removed from office. 

Sincerely,
C. G. Estabrook