CIVIL LIBERTIES  
comments_image -

Man Will Walk 500 Miles To Impeach Bush and Cheney

Pelosi needs to put impeachment back on the table.
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Civil Liberties headlines via email.

 
 
 
 

John Nirenberg would walk 500 miles. And it sounds like he would walk 500 more. But unlike the persistent pop tune by The Proclaimers, he refuses to be the man who falls down at Nancy Pelosi's door.

Nirenberg, a hearty New York City native and current resident of Brattelboro, Vermont, intends to be standing when he reaches Washington, D.C. around January 10, at the conclusion of a scheduled 40-day walk that began in Boston on December 1. This fall, the 60-year-old professor of organizational behavior and Air Force veteran decided to traverse Route 1 on foot to implore House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to begin impeachment proceedings against President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

"It was about a whole collection of issues around the Constitution and the behavior of this administration," explains Nirenberg, who finds that his sense of outrage and jogging background help him complete 15 miles per day. "Especially the torture issue, the spying, and an illegal war. All of this, at some point, was the straw that broke the camel's back. I decided that I needed to do something different."

In order to channel his frustration, Nirenberg founded the non-profit organization, March in My Name, where his trek can be followed on the Web site, www.marchinmyname.org. He hopes also that by collecting photos, testimonials and petition signatures, he can show Speaker Pelosi that popular support exists for her, at the very least, to allow the House Judiciary Committee to open a hearing into the behavior of the Bush administration.

Since she assumed office after the mid-term elections in 2006, Speaker Pelosi has continued to insist that the impeachment option is "off the table." Her position disappoints people like Nirenberg who had anticipated a more aggressive outcome from the Democratic majority in Congress. For example, they note with suspicion the change in House Committee Chairman John Conyers, an acknowledged proponent of executive accountability who appeared possibly bullish on impeachment in early 2006. Now in his new role, he cites a lack of votes and refers to the disruptive potential of the process.

"The Speaker is certainly aware of the frustration a lot of Americans feel about the conduct of this war," said Drew Hammill, a Pelosi spokesperson. "But she believes that impeachment would be a distraction to the priorities of this Congress." He declined to speculate whether the Speaker would meet with Nirenberg, who sent a certified letter recently to request an appointment.

Impeachment advocates, on the other hand, ask what could be more important for Congress to undertake than an investigation into the possibility that "high crimes and misdemeanors" have been committed in violation of the Constitution. They argue that uncensored abuses of executive power and subversion of the rule of law would hold dramatic consequences for the remainder of the Bush administration, and the future of the presidency.

Nearly 80 such supporters gathered at an evening rally for Nirenberg at St. Mark's Church in-the-Bowery in late December, when he arrived after beginning his day' journey in Harlem that morning.

"This problem is not solved by the next election," declared speaker Liz Holtzman, who served on the House Judiciary Committee in 1974 during the impeachment hearings on the activities of President Richard Nixon. "Because what is the message? It's like saying, 'This murderer, he's going to die. Why do we have to go through the trouble of bringing him to justice?'"

Duty to future generations aside, immediate concerns about the election next year likely calculate into the decision of House leaders not to pursue impeachment. Democrats may fear that Republicans in the minority would attempt to portray them as obstructionist and politicized, which is precisely how Democrats painted Republicans when they proceeded with the impeachment of President Bill Clinton in 1998 on the grounds of perjury and obstruction of justice pertaining to the Monica Lewinsky scandal and Paula Jones lawsuit.

submit to reddit

-
Email
Print
Share
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest Civil Liberties headlines via email
See more stories tagged with: bush, torture, cheney, constitution, nancy pelosi, spying, john nirenberg, jogging
Advertisement
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading most read content ..
Advertisement
Fox, Breitbart, and Ricketts Try to Bring Back D'Souza's Pseudo-Birtherism

By Steve M | No More Mister Nice Blog

 
 
Activists Speak Out Against Lack of Access to Bradley Manning

By Agence France Presse

 
 
NYPD Catches Sexual Assailant, Then Lets Him Go Free Because He Didn't Feel Like Being Questioned

By Jill F | Feministe

 
 
Gov. Scott Orders Purging of Florida’s Voter Rolls - Just in Time For Prez Election

By Adele Stan | Washington Monthly

 
 
Abortion Clinics Across Country Put On Alert In Wake of Georgia Clinic Arson Cases

By Robin Marty | RH Reality Check

 
 
Former GOP Congresswoman Blasts New GOP Women’s Caucus: ‘They’re Not Voting In Best Interest Of All Women’

By Josh Israel | ThinkProgress

 
 
Debbie Wasserman Schulz is Wrong on Wisconsin

By LaFeminista | DailyKos

 
 
Pro-Coal Group Pays People to Wear Its Shirts at EPA Hearing

By Heather Moyer | Sierra Club

 
 
Kids Inundate NY Governor With Concerns About Fracking

By Seth Gladstone | Food and Water Watch

 
 
Shareholders, Top Doctors Demand McDonald's Assess its Health Impacts

By Sara Deon | Civil Eats

 
 
 
 
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS
 
[ page served from web 1 ]