President Bush Impeached in 2007?

From disregarding the Geneva Conventions to unwarranted wiretaps, President Bush has disregarded American citizens and people's constitutional rights, endangered the lives of current and future prisoners of war, and created a very unstable international community. With Democrats looking to take over the House and Congress, will Bush face articles of impeachment in 2007?

Only two presidents in the history of the United States have been impeached, President Andrew Johnson and President Bill Clinton. President Richard Nixon resigned once the House Judiciary Committee had approved articles of impeachment, but before the full House had voted to on the articles. A president of the United States has to have committed "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" for a House to consider impeachment articles. The Constitution of the United States describes treason and bribery, but leaves high crimes and misdemeanors to be interpreted by lawmakers. President Johnson's articles of impeachment included charges of violating the Office of Tenure Act. President Clinton was impeached on the grounds of perjury to a grand jury and obstruction of justice. If the House Judiciary Committee charges President Bush, articles of impeachment could include violation of the Geneva Convention and illegal wiretaps.

Unconstitutional
In February of 2002, Bush signed an order stating the Geneva Convention did not cover al-Qaeda and Taliban, allowing detainees to be indefinitely held and tortured. President Bush justified his decision by interpreting the Geneva Convention to mean only people who belong to "High Contracting Parties," or states, fall under the protection of the Geneva Convention. Furthermore, since President Bush and the Department of Justice determined the terrorists do not belong to "High Contracting Parties to Geneva" and based on facts supplied by the Department of Defense and recommendation of the Department of Justice, al-Qaeda and the Taliban were not considered prisoners of war under article 4 of the Geneva Convention. In June of 2006, the Supreme Court ruled against Bush, saying the Geneva Convention did in fact apply to prisoners in Guantanamo.

December 17, 2005 the New York Times broke a story that involved President Bush and the NSA. President Bush approved of a program, which allowed the eavesdropping of phone conversations between Americans and people overseas without attempting to seek warrants. The NSA collected phone calls to build a database of every phone call made. FISA, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, permits wiretap warrants of suspected terrorists to be submitted 72 hours after the wiretap is in place. It is unclear why President Bush has not sought warrants for the wiretaps, but a judge ruled against President Bush, saying the wiretaps were unconstitutional.

Endangering Our Troops
The third article, part one, of the Geneva Convention includes language such as "Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment." President Bush says the third article of the Geneva Convention leaves room for interpretation. It is clear that members of al-Qaeda and the Taliban do not and will not abide to the Geneva Conventions, but does that give President Bush the right to treat al-Qaeda and the Taliban inhumanely? Furthermore, does that give other countries the right to so "loosely" interpret the Geneva Convention and hold American Soldiers indefinitely with no charges, simply because they are the enemy?

The international community
Since Bush declared "the axis of evil" in 2002, two of three countries, declared as evil, have created nuclear power. President Bush attacked Iraq without the permission of the United Nations. Iran then pursued creating energy with nuclear power, while North Korea recently claimed to have successfully tested nuclear weapons. President Bush has weakened our relationship with many in the international community, making diplomacy much harder.

The November election might be one of the biggest turnouts in mid-term elections, sending a clear message to President Bush and the leaders of this country. It is the responsibility of those elected to represent the people and when the President of the United States has a consistent job approval rating of less than 45%, the people are sending a clear message.