The pattern of lawlessness of the Bushite regime must be presented to the American people. And maybe we don't have to stand by helplessly in the face of the corruption and cowardice of the major parties.

::::::::

It is doubtful there has ever been, in American history, so urgent a need for honest, impartial investigations as with the Bush administration. In the face of so much evidence that this administration has acted with disdain for the Constitution and contempt for the law, surely the Congress should be conducting hearings into the conduct of this regime.

Among the questions that should be investigated are:

**Did this administration violate its constitutional responsibilities in the way in which it led the United States into the war in Iraq (e.g. deliberate deceptions on the reasons for the war)?

**Has this administration violated the Constitution and/or the law in its programs of surveillance of American citizens?

**Has this administration violated U.S. law and/or American treaty obligations in its handling of prisoners in its "war on terror" (e.g. violations of prohibitions against torture)?

**Has this administration violated U.S. law by lying to Congress on legislative matters, thus "defrauding" the United States (e.g. deliberately fraudulent budget numbers for the prescription drug benefit)?

**Has this administration obstructed justice (e.g. the Plamegate affair)?

**Has this administration usurped powers that constitutionally belong to other branches of government, and made indefensible arguments that would subvert our constitutional system (e.g. in the 751 "signing statements")?

To many of those who have paid close attention to the information that has emerged in recent years, the evidence on these questions cries out for investigation. On many of these questions, indeed, the evidence seems sufficient for indictment. On some, it seems we know enough to convict.

But most of our countrymen have not yet reached these conclusions. The urgent business of America right now, therefore, is to subject these gangsters now ruling America to the thorough and systematic public exposure that will strip this destructive regime of its moral authority and, thereafter, of its power. For the sake of our future freedom, the American body politic needs to rise up to send a strong and clear message to future American leaders that contempt for the oath of office will not be tolerated.

The Watergate hearings accomplished this with the Nixon presidency. And similar hearings could accomplish this for the Bushite regime.

Yet nothing of the sort is happening. The majority Republican Party continues to cover up for its president, and the opposition Democratic Party runs away from even the possibility of censure, fearing that it is bad politics. The American people are not getting the help they need to see the big picture, see the pattern of lawlessness and lying that characterizes this administration's assault on our American democracy.

Do we have to stand by helplessly in the face of the corruption and cowardice of the political parties? If Congress will not hold such hearings, is there any other credible way in which they might be held?

Perhaps there is another way. And I put forward these ideas in the hopes that perhaps a popular movement can provide the impetus to put them into effect.

There are three requirements for a successful alternative form of investigative hearings: 1) credibility, 2) visibility, and 3) a defined result.

Credibility

For credibility, what we need are high quality players, and an honest deck.

The high quality players can be of different kinds. For witnesses, we ought to have excellent expert witnesses who can discuss the meanings of what's already known, or reasonably to be inferred, from the public record.

One significant advantage of having Congress do its job, and fulfill its oath, would be that Congress has the power to subpoena witnesses and documents. By this means, the body of information could be greatly expanded. (For example, we still do not know if the warrantless eavesdropping was confined to a search for terrorists, or whether domestic political opponents were also targeted.)

But we already know a great deal-- quite possibly more than enough. (For example, a study group of the American Bar Association knew enough from the public record to declare that the Bush Administration has violated the law in those warrantless searches, regardless of their targets.) We may well have no need for the kinds of discovery process that proved, through the Watergate hearings, to be Nixon's undoing. What may be more important is to establish the significance of the information already disclosed.

To this end, the "high quality players" could well include constitutional scholars, historians of American government, and other people qualified to pass expert and well-founded judgments on whether various forms of conduct constitute "high crimes and misdemeanors" of the kind envisioned as grounds for impeachment, and on how serious any misconduct has been in the context of American historical experience of various presidencies.

Perhaps also the "high quality players" could include the kind of former office holders who command the respect of Americans generally: perhaps people with a reputation for integrity, such as Warren Rudman, Jimmy Carter, and George Mitchell; perhaps people who performed a similar function for America at the time of Watergate, and who still are around, such as Howard Baker and Elizabeth Holtzmann.

An "honest deck" would mean a process that is seen as fair to both sides, i.e. that presents as strong as possible case against this administration and as strong as possible a defense of the administration.

Years ago, PBS had a series called "The Advocates," each episode of which staged a formal debate, with attorneys and witnesses for both sides, concerning some issue of public importance. Perhaps something of that sort could be conducted as an ongoing series of hearings conducted like legal proceedings, with direct examination and cross-examination of witnesses.

An honest deck would require finding as capable an advocate for the administration as can be found for the job.

Visibility

Of course, if Congress were to hold the investigative hearings that we need, the whole nation would be rivited to the television as it was at the time of the Watergate hearings. Visibility would be automatic, not a challenge to be met.

The next best thing would be if some major media organization would sponsor and broadcast such a series of hearings. Given the performance of the corporate media in covering the Bush administration, and with even the opposition party showing so little courage, can it be realistic to expect any of the major networks to be so bold as to treat the need for such investigative hearings so seriously?

Even though most of the corporate media cover the specific new revelations of administration scandals, they still do little to present the big picture, and still treat the Emperor as if he's wearing clothes. Have things changed enough that any network could be persuaded to hold such hearings? If the millions of people who are ready to move in this direction were to launch a highly visible petition drive, would that create sufficient impetus to induce some network to do so? Would such a petition drive be any more likely to succeed with the media than with Congress? Would PBS, having survived its recent Bushite assault, have the temerity to play such a role?

It is hard to be terribly optimistic.

Perhaps more realistic is the hope that some major players could come together to create such an event and get the major media to cover it as news.

For example, Ted Turner --though he no longer controls CNN-- is still a man of some resources and, still more important, someone who has shown some boldness of vision in the past. His foray into the Soviet Union in the early 1980s was courageous, and helped establish the Track II diplomacy that arugably contributed to the successful conclusion of the cold war. Perhaps a man like Turner would welcome a chance to come off the sidelines where his only laurels are those he rests on and again play an important --perhaps heroic-- role in American history.

A credible and thorough investigation of this regime, and its possible impeachable offenses, would take considerable resources. Besides Ted Turner, one might look to someone like George Soros for such financial backing. Soros is known to have a passion for the creation and defense of genuninely democratic institutions, and he's shown a willingness to back that passion with his wealth. Much of his pro-democracy work has been directed at the newly emerging democracies of his native Eastern Europe, but with the vital institutions of democracy under threat here where modern democracy had its beginning, Mr. Soros might well find the backing of such investigations/hearings the most strategically significant place for him to contribute to the survival and spread of democracy.

And then, of course, there are the millions of us who recognize that our democracy is under threat, and who would be willing to contribute in amounts large and small, just as happened in the campaign of 2004.

A Defined Result

For such a set of proceedings to have the necessary impact, there must be a clear result-- and, moreover, a result of a specific sort. Out of these hearings there must issue what can credibly be called the judgment of the American people.

To achieve this, it will not suffice to rely on the usual opinion polls. "The American people" may number some 300 million, but --as few people pay close attention to public affairs-- we cannot rely on all those people to have an informed opinion. And in addition, we need not rely on the judgment of millions to yield us a credible result.

Rather, a representative sampling of American citizens can be impaneled to stand in for the citizenry as a whole. A kind of jury.

This sampling would be representative of the spectrum of political opinion, of social class, of educational levels, of race and religion, etc. They would be paid to perform this historically vital jury duty. Unlike the citizenry generally, who would probably be exposed only to bits of news, and possibly samplings of the hearings, this representative jury would follow the entire proceedings. And then at the end, the crucial question, or set of questions, would be submitted to the jury for their vote.

**Is there a pattern of lawless behavior in this administration?

**How serious is this administration's misconduct in comparison with misconduct seen in previous presidencies in American history?

**Should this administration, and all those who have abetted and protected it, be held in disgrace?

**Should the president and/or the vice president be impeached?

If a representative group of Americans, after hearing the strongest possible arguments on questions like this, comes back with a clear majority declaring in the affirmative, and if all this is rendered prominently visible by good media coverage, the pressure for the Congress to act will become irresistable.

It remains for the American people to demonstrate to Congress that defending our system of government --as each member of Congress pledges to do upon taking the solemn oath of office-- is good politics, as well as a patriotic duty.

And all this should be moved forward with all deliberate haste, in time to become part of the 2006 election. For there is now no more important business before our nation. We are fighting for the soul of our country.

Authors Bio:
Andy Schmookler, an award-winning author, political commentator, radio talk-show host, and teacher, was the Democratic nominee for Congress from Virginia's 6th District. His new book -- written to have an impact on the central political battle of our time -- is WHAT WE'RE UP AGAINST. His previous books include The Parable of the Tribes: The Problem of Power in Social Evolution, for which he was awarded the Erik H. Erikson prize by the International Society for Political Psychology.