Is Action Less than Treason Impeachable?

A friend whose intelligence and taste I respect told me not long ago that he really enjoys the television show Boston Legal. His description of the wit and wiles the writers and actors use drew me to watch this week's episode. It turned out to be the season finale, and it lived up to his description in every way.

The premise was that the town of Concord, Massachusetts, represented by Anthony Heald, wanted to secede from the union because the city was completely fed up with the policies of the Bush Administration. The principle partners in the series' law firm - William Shatner and James Spader - represented the opposing parties. In the course of the case, the arguments presented on both sides were cogent, sensible and sensitive with Spader and Heald voicing many of the objections to BushCo's approach to governance that I have spoken to in this blog over the past two years.

Shatner, on the other hand, pointed out that -while he too found BushCo reprehensible - this administration has not done anything that has not been common practice during other administrations, both Democrat and Republican, throughout our nation's history. He pointed to Clinton's use of extraordinary rendition and FDR's interment of American citizens of Japanese descent during WWII. He didn't bother with the faked Maine incident, the Bay of Pigs, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, our hand in the South and Central American death squads, the way we stole Hawaii for Dole Fruit Company, or My Lai.(sp?)

Both sides argued well, but Shatner won the case. The judge, Arte Johnson, summed up his decision by declaring that while he found all the complaints the plaintiff had brought to be true, they did not rise to the level of treason, so he could not allow their secession demand to go any further.

This gave rise to a discussion in our living room on the question of whether or not it is necessary for BushCo's actions to rise to the level of treason before it would be reasonable for our legislature to act against them through impeachment or war criminal charges - both of which I have long believed should have been filed long ago.

My first reaction was to agree with the judge and soften my feelings toward the administration. Further reflection though led me to conclude that a public office holder's actions do not have to rise to the highest crime in order to be impeachable. History shows that Congress can and has impeached prior presidents whose offenses were far less serious than treason.

I think the point the show was trying to make was that as Americans, we should all pull together in a time of war, but that's just another point with which I disagree, as did Spader in his arguments when he said that a time of war was a time when it was especially important for the citizens to be vigilant to ensure that the lives of their children were not jeopardized for the wrong reasons. That, in point of fact, is exactly what BushCo has done and it is, I believe, the most egregious of their offenses because they have chosen - for purely political reasons unrelated to the security of the nation - to risk the lives of the very people they have sworn an oath to protect.

That is the act of an amoral administration that does not deserve to continue in office, and the refusal of Congress to be the agent for their removal makes them complicit.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored. But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR

The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle