http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/07/treason-as-basis-for-impeachment.html

Most people who talk about impeachment are talking about "high crimes and misdemeanors". There are certainly many bases for impeaching Bush and Cheney based upon high crimes and misdemeanors (see, for example, Congressman Kucinich's articles of impeachment against Vice President Cheney; the articles drafted by former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark; this website; and this one).

However, no one is talking about treason as a basis for impeachment. Specifically, Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution provides:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

What have Bush and Cheney done that is treasonous? I'll cite 3 examples off the top of my head.

I. Funding Al Qaeda

Well, to start with, according to to the Pulitzer prize-winning reporter who uncovered the Iraq prison torture scandal and the massacre against Vietnamese civilians, Cheney is currently funding Al Qaeda- linked groups.

The U.S. government claims that Al Qaeda was behind 9/11 and is our main enemy.

So if Mr. Cheney has supported Al Qaeda, then he has committed treason.

II. Outing Covert Operatives

Moreover, outing clandestine operatives weakens national security, and is thus treasonous. It is obvious that Cheney was responsible for outing CIA agent Valerie Plame, and that Bush approved the leak.

Indeed, it turns out that Valerie Plame had unique expertise in assessing Iran's weapons program. And since the administration claims that Iran is a threat, losing her resources has significantly weakened the national security of our country pursuant to the neocons' own reasoning.

III. Facillitating An Attack on the United States

Obviously, if you believe that the government has used false flag terror to promote its agenda, then you believe that our "leaders" have committed treason.

But even if you do not believe that the neocons have committed false flag operations, it cannot be disputed that they have taken actions that have facillitated an attack on our country.

More War and Terrorism

As a preface, it is interesting to note that, in the 90's, the Neocons wanted to go to war against China because "'they felt that the Republican Party didn't do as well' in the absence of a pressing foreign threat."

More importantly, the current head of the Arkansas GOP said we need more 'attacks on American soil' so people appreciate president Bush

And former GOP congressman Rick Santorum is hoping that "some unfortunate events" will give Americans a "very different view of this war", one more in view of that of the administration

And the leader of the effort to form a North American Union is hopeful that acquiescence to such a union is "just a crisis away"

And Mr. Cheney will get his war again Iran if there is a terrorist attack in the U.S. , whether or not Iran is responsible for the attack

And the White House has signed laws allowing martial law in any national emergency, including a national disaster.

Indeed, it is interesting to note that the people running our country have done nothing to secure us from attack.

What Do High-Level Officials Say?

Is saying that the neocons are opening our country up to an attack baseless?

Well, a current republican U.S. congressman stated that the government "is determined to have martial law", and that the government is hoping to get the people "fearful enough that they will accept the man on the white horse"

And a former prominent republican U.S. congressman stated that the U.S. is close to becoming a totalitarian society and that the current administration is using fear to try to ensure that this happens.

And General Tommy Franks stated that if another terrorist attack occurs in the United States "the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government".

And Daniel Ellsberg, the famous Pentagon Papers whistleblower, said "if there is another terror attack, "I believe the president will get what he wants", which will include a dictatorship.

And a retired 27-year CIA analyst who prepared and presented Presidential Daily Briefs and served as a high-level analyst for several presidents stated that if there was another major attack in the U.S., it would lead to martial law. He went on to say:

"We have to be careful, if somebody does this kind of provocation, big violent explosions of some kind, we have to not take the word of the masters there in Washington that this was some terrorist event because it could well be a provocation allowing them, or seemingly to allow them to get what they want."

And a former National Security Adviser told the Senate that a terrorist act might be carried out in the U.S. and falsely blamed on Iran to justify war against that nation.

So its safe to say that the neocons have alot to gain from letting another attack happen on U.S. soil.

Putting aside the question of whether or not the neocons themselves have been carrying out false flag operations to justify their policies, it is beyond dispute that the neocons are not very concerned with preventing war or stopping terror attacks on U.S. soil.

The most basic requirement for leadership is that the leaders wish to protect their people from attack. Because the current leadership is not motivated to protect us from attack, and because their goals and agendas are wholly opposite from those of the people of the U.S., the leaders' actions are de facto treasonous.

They must be impeached and removed.

There are many additional examples of treasonous acts by the current leaders. This is solely intended as a starting point for a discussion of treason as a basis for impeachment.