Stardate 20010722.1411 (On Screen, previous coverage 
): We now have a full-scale constitutional crisis in Indonesia. Parliament has convened impeachment hearings against President Wahid, and Wahid has in turn ordered Parliament dissolved, and has issued orders to the national police and armed forces to enforce his orders. In a more mature nation with a firmly established government, this would be decided in the courts (and President Wahid would lose, because if any president could dismiss Parliament on the basis of them starting impeachment proceedings against him, then the impeachment power of Parliament would be meaningless). But in the case of Indonesia, it's going to be settled by the Army, who have already expressed their unwillingness to support him on this, and who have scheduled a press conference for later today to talk about it. I think they're going to announce that they're not going to follow his orders. While that's the correct answer, it's troubling that the army was even put into this situation of being the political power broker. The army should serve the government, not be the king-maker for it. It appears that they're trying to position themselves to not be the kingmaker, which makes them the heroes of this whole episode.
In the US, Congress has the power to impeach and convict a sitting President, removing him from office. It's never happened but two Presidents have been impeached (a legal term similar to "indicted") and have been acquitted in Senate trial (Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton). Richard Nixon would unquestionably have been impeached and convicted if he hadn't resigned first, once evidence of obstruction of justice came to light. The criterion established in the Constitution for this is "high crimes and misdemeanors" but there is no appeal so in actual practice the real criterion is whatever Congress says it is. All that's really required to remove the President is a simple majority of the House and a two-thirds majority of the Senate as part of an unusual procedure. If that were to take place for grossly unjust reasons, the effective appeal would be the fact that all members of Congress would face the voters at their next election, and would not be returned to office. But this would not return the impeached President to office, and that is acceptable. The fate of one politician is ultimately unimportant; what is important is the fate of the Union, and the US system would survive an unjust impeachment in the long run. It is this fact of facing angry voters which is the deterrent which keeps our Representatives and Senators in check and prevents abuse of the Impeachment clause of the Constitution, which is why it's only been abused once (Johnson) in 215 years. (discuss)
