January 31, 2007
CHENEY’S NOTE IMPLICATES BUSH
Filed under: Blog, Evidence, In the News, Facts: Lies and Deceptions, Karl Rove, Facts: Breaking the Law, GOP, Iraq War Crimes, Cover Up, Oversight/Investigations, Neocon Madness
Comments Off
'?>
Filed under: Blog, Evidence, In the News, Facts: Lies and Deceptions, Karl Rove, Facts: Breaking the Law, GOP, Iraq War Crimes, Cover Up, Oversight/Investigations, Neocon Madness
Comments Off

by Allen L. Roland
Libby and his mentor Paul Wolfowitz laid out the case for the illegal invasion of Iraq just one week after the Twin Towers fell in 2001 ~ and both reported to Dick Cheney.
Guy Dinsmore, Financial Times UK, profiled Libby and writes;
” Together with the vice-president, Mr. Libby launched the push to invade Iraq …. And, together with Cheney, Libby has “worked hard to block signs of engagement with Iran, resist direct talks with North Korea, and undermine U.S. legislation prohibiting torture and degrading treatment of detainees.”
As such, Libby was Cheney’s disciple and hit man and was obviously chosen to out Valerie Plame by Darth Vader himself ~ Dick Cheney.
Expect a Bush pardon and eventually a medal if Libby is found guilty. Loyalty to the chief outweighs everything in this den of thieves.
However, the last thing Cheney wants is now happening ~ Fitzgerald digging deeper into Cheney’s secret government and other more flagrant crimes against peace.
by Allison Brophy Champion
Two political activists from Leesburg set up outside the Culpeper post office Tuesday afternoon to hand out literature and call for the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney.
“Impeach Satan first,” said a poster hanging from their table, and at its center was a photo of Cheney with devil horns and a pitchfork. “Go with Larouche.”
“We’re out here to make sure everybody knows Dick Cheney is at the end of his rope,” said Gene Schenk, 52. “That we’ve got to stop Cheney from going to war with Iran.”
Both Schenk and co-activist, Leslie Vaughan, represented the political action committee of 84-year-old Lyndon LaRouche, a controversial political figure who has run, unsuccessfully, for president in every election since 1976. Vaughan declined to elaborate on her reasons for coming to Culpeper, saying, “Cheney is not a very nice man.”
Filed under: Blog, In the News, Facts: Lies and Deceptions, Impeachment Strategy, Constitutional Crisis, Local Action, GOP, Iraq War Crimes, Cover Up, Oversight/Investigations, Neocon Madness
No Comments
by Robert Scheer
Not all lies are created equal. It is understood that there is a chasm of importance between little white lies and big black ones. Most would agree that lying about a consensual sexual affair, even by the president, is of significantly lesser concern than lying about the proliferation of nuclear weapons as an excuse to take the nation to war.
How then is it possible that a Republican-controlled Congress impeached President Bill Clinton over his attempt to conceal marital infidelity but that a Democratic-led Congress will not even consider impeaching this president for far more serious transgressions against the public trust? That is the question that arises from early revelations in the trial of Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff.This case’s importance lies not in the narrow charge that Libby committed perjury in testifying about his role in the outing of CIA operative Valerie Wilson; that was merely one facet of a far-ranging plot to deceive Congress and the public about perhaps the most important issue of our time: the prospect of terrorists obtaining a weapon of mass destruction.
Read More at Huffington Post and Truthdig
Filed under: Blog, Evidence, In the News, Facts: Independent Conclusions, Impeachment Strategy
No Comments
by Mick Youther
I know the Democratic leaders in Congress have said that impeachment is “off the table”, but that is one campaign promise that should not be kept. Oversight of the Bush Administration is not enough.
How do you oversee a torture program? How do you oversee “extraordinary renditions” and secret prisons? How do you oversee the destruction of the U.S. Constitution? What is Congress going to do when Bush starts bombing Iran–watch closely?
You don’t oversee these kinds of things. You stop them. That is why the Founding Fathers wrote impeachment into our Constitution.
The power of impeachment was one of the first proposals presented to the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The Founding Fathers felt it was important enough to mention it six times in the Constitution and once more in an amendment. They believed the new government needed a strong executive, but having just thrown off the rule of one King, they did not want another one–even an elected one.
Filed under: Blog, Evidence, In the News, Facts: Lies and Deceptions, Facts: Independent Conclusions, Must Read, Impeachment Strategy, Constitutional Crisis, Facts: Breaking the Law, Founding Fathers
No Comments
by Larisa Alexandrovna and Muriel Kane
While Iran was named a part of President George W. Bush’s “axis of evil” in 2002, efforts to ignite a confrontation with Iran date back long before the post-9/11 war on terror. Presently, the Administration is trumpeting claims that Iran is closer to a nuclear weapon than the CIA’s own analysis shows and positing Iranian influence in Iraq’s insurgency, but efforts to destabilize Iran have been conducted covertly for years, often using members of Congress or non-government actors in a way reminiscent of the 1980s Iran-Contra scandal.
The motivations for an Iran strike were laid out as far back as 1992. In classified defense planning guidance – written for then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney by then-Pentagon staffers I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, World Bank Chief Paul Wolfowitz, and ambassador-nominee to the United Nations Zalmay Khalilzad – Cheney’s aides called for the United States to assume the position of lone superpower and act preemptively to prevent the emergence of even regional competitors. The draft document was leaked to the New York Times and the Washington Post and caused an uproar among Democrats and many in George H. W. Bush’s Administration.
In September 2000, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) issued a report titled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” which espoused similar positions to the 1992 draft and became the basis for the Bush-Cheney Administration’s foreign policy. Libby and Wolfowitz were among the participants in this new report; Cheney, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other prominent figures in the Bush administration were PNAC members.
More Coverage:
DOWNLOAD: Rebuilding America’s Defenses
Filed under: Blog, Evidence, In the News, Facts: Lies and Deceptions, Facts: Independent Conclusions, Must Read, Facts: Breaking the Law, Iraq War Crimes, Neocon Madness
No Comments
by Elizabeth Holtzman
Approximately a year ago, I wrote in this magazine that President George W. Bush had committed high crimes and misdemeanors and should be impeached and removed from office. His impeachable offenses include using lies and deceptions to drive the country into war in Iraq, deliberately and repeatedly violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) on wiretapping in the United States, and facilitating the mistreatment of US detainees in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the War Crimes Act of 1996.
Since then, the case against President Bush has, if anything, been strengthened by reports that he personally authorized CIA abuse of detainees. In addition, courts have rejected some of his extreme assertions of executive power. The Supreme Court ruled that the Geneva Conventions apply to the treatment of detainees, and a federal judge ruled that the President could not legally ignore FISA. Even Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’s recent announcement that the wiretapping program would from now on operate under FISA court supervision strongly suggests that Bush’s prior claims that it could not were untrue.
Despite scant attention from the mainstream media, since last year impeachment has won a wide audience. Amid a flurry of blogs, books and articles, a national grassroots movement has sprung up. In early December seventy-five pro-impeachment rallies were held around the country and pro-impeachment efforts are planned for Congressional districts across America. A Newsweek poll, conducted just before election day, showed 51 percent of Americans believed that impeachment of President Bush should be either a high or lower priority; 44 percent opposed it entirely. (Compare these results with the 63 percent of the public who in the fall of 1998 opposed President Clinton’s impeachment.) Most Americans understand the gravity of President Bush’s constitutional misconduct.
Filed under: Blog, Evidence, Evidence Overview, In the News, Impeachment Strategy, Constitutional Crisis
No Comments
By Nathanael
Impeachment is only a political act with limited consequences that bear one’s ability to retain or hold elected office. The convicted Party (such as the President or Judge or Congressperson) of an Impeachment is still liable and subject to Indictment and prosecution for any criminal acts according to Law.
There is no language in the Constitution or the US Code that requires an impeachment proceeding to come before a criminal indictment or prosecution. Any Constitutional Scholar, retired Assistant US Attorney, Supreme Court Justice, Attorney General, Congressperson or any Court stating such prior constraint is in violation of the Constitution and the Law. No one is above the law, not even the President. The Constitution cannot be altered by statute, a legislative act, a bill passed by Congress and signed by the President or an Executive Order. A valid Article V procedure must be accomplished before the Constitution is lawfully modified.
Filed under: Blog, Evidence, In the News, Facts: Lies and Deceptions, Facts: Independent Conclusions, Must Read, Impeachment Strategy, Constitutional Crisis, Facts: Breaking the Law, Research/Resources, Iraq War Crimes
No Comments
source: The Capital Times, Madison WI

Does it matter that Democrats took charge of the Senate this month?
President Bush seems to think so.
In a letter sent to Senate Judiciary Committee leaders, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales writes that “the president has determined not to reauthorize the Terrorist Surveillance Program when the current authorization expires.
“Any electronic surveillance that was occurring as part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program will now be conducted subject to the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court,” explains the attorney general’s letter.
The court was created by Congress in 1978 under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act with the specific intent that it would supervise electronic eavesdropping within the United States. But the Bush administration, which launched its spying program in 2001, had refused to obey the court’s authority.
When it was learned late in 2005 that Bush had repeatedly authorized the monitoring of the phone conversations and e-mails of Americans, the president and his lawyers claimed that the White House did not need to consult with the court before engaging in such surveillance.
With Pennsylvania Republican Arlen Specter, a somewhat critical but cautious player, was in charge of the Judiciary Committee, the administration showed no inclination to seek proper authorization.
But Specter lost his chairmanship when Democrats took charge of the Senate after the Nov. 7 elections.
With Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy, a critic of warrantless wiretapping, now in charge of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and with Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold, who proposed censuring the president for failing to obtain proper authorization for his surveillance program, now in charge of the Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, the White House has suddenly developed a newfound respect for the rule of law.
Filed under: Blog, Evidence, In the News, Constitutional Crisis, Facts: Breaking the Law, Opinion
No Comments
by Robert David Steele
WASHINGTON, Jan. 10 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Robert David Steele
(Vivas), CEO of OSS.Net, Inc., an estranged moderate Republican, has today
posted the following for Congressional consideration.
“It has been my privilege to serve my country as a Marine Corps infantry officer, a Marine Corps service-level intelligence plans officer, a clandestine case officer (spy) for the Central Intelligence Agency, and the second-ranking civilian in Marine Corps Intelligence, responsible for creating the Marine Corps Intelligence Command.
“In all that time, I have relied on our Constitution and the protections inherent in the separation of powers among the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial Branches of government, and it has generally worked.
“The extremist Republican take-over of Congress, and their despicable treatment of the minority party, combined with their servile abdication in favor of being foot-soldiers to an imperial Presidency, have broken our government.
“Dick Cheney is guilty of no fewer than twenty-three impeachable offenses. I itemize these in my review of the book by Lou Dubose and Jake Bernstein, “VICE: Dick Cheney and the Hijacking of the American
Presidency,” (Random, 2006). Read my review at http://tinyurl.com/yhtgf6.
Filed under: Blog, Evidence, In the News, Impeachment Strategy, Opinion
No Comments
By Frank J. Ranelli
Considering the Bush administration’s assault on our civil rights, the Constitution itself, American principles as we know it and rampant republican cronyism, there is no shortage of books to read that outline the worst Presidency in American history. In fact, there is a literal litany of them to read and depress one’s self over it all. The problem with such a plethora to pick from is you can’t read them all and many of them are either too dry, histrionic or too full of legal blather to bother with.
Enter David Lindorff and Barbara Olshansky and their book, The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office. Mr. Lindorff is a thirty-year veteran of journalism and Ms. Olshansky, an attorney, is the Director Counsel for The Center for Constitutional Rights. Together they achieve what few other books can on this subject can, mainly a lucid argument for removing the Bush cartel without boring the reader to death or burying them in lawyer lingo. Blending a mixture of just enough pragmatic history, clear-cut evidence and easy-to-understand legal language, the authors present a damaging case that clocks in under 275 pages, including the index and ample supporting documents.
Filed under: Blog, Evidence, Evidence Overview, In the News, Must Read, Impeachment Strategy
No Comments

Senate Passes Detainee Bill
WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 — The Senate approved legislation this evening governing the interrogation and trials of terror suspects, establishing far-reaching new rules in the definition of who may be held and how they should be treated.
The vote, 65-to-34, came after more than 10 hours of often impassioned debate touching on the Constitution, the horrors of Sept. 11 and the nation’s role in the world, but it was also underscored by a measure of politics as Congress prepares to break for the final month of campaigning before closely fought midterm elections.
The legislation sets up rules for the military commissions that will allow the government to prosecute high-level terrorists including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, considered the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. It strips detainees of a habeas corpus right to challenge their detentions in court and broadly defines what kind of treatment of detainees is prosecutable as a war crime.
Read More at The New York Times
DOWNLOAD: Bill Number H.R.6166 for the 109th Congress
Bush Faces Wave of Challenges to Terror Law
The Bush administration yesterday faced a raft of legal challenges to a sweeping new regime for Guantánamo that would deny court oversight to detainees in the war on terror, and would bar prosecution of US personnel for war crimes.
Mr Bush is expected to move within days to sign into law proposals for the treatment and trial before military tribunals of the detainees. The legislation, approved by the senate on Thursday, is a victory for the White House over senate Republicans, who had resisted attempts to relax standards on the treatment of detainees, and depart from standard rules of evidence in their trials.
Read More at Guardian Unlimited, UK
FACT
Subsection 4(b) (26) of section 950v. of HR 6166 - Crimes triable by military commissions - includes the following definition.
“Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct.” (emphasis added)
Response from The Center for Constitutional Rights
Congress gives the president the power to lock up almost anyone he thinks is a terror threat.
Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman states in the L.A. Times, “The compromise legislation….authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights.”
More coverage:
Bush Given Authority To Sexually Torture American Children (Prison Planet)
Legal Residents’ Rights Curbed in Detainee Bill (Boston Globe)
Filed under: Blog, Evidence, In the News, Must Read, Constitutional Crisis, Facts: Breaking the Law
No Comments
By Susan Jones
A bill now pending in the Senate would make the Bush administration’s enemy wiretapping program more practical and flexible, removing all doubt about its legality. But that worries some of Bush’s fiercest critics.
According to one anti-Bush group, the bill “would pardon President Bush for breaking the law by illegally wiretapping innocent Americans without warrants.”
MoveOn.org’s political action committee has accused Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) of caving in to pressure when he introduced a bill that “justifies everything the president did.”
The group quotes Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) as saying that Specter’s bill would “immunize officials who have violated federal law by authorizing such illegal activities.”
Filed under: Blog, In the News, Constitutional Crisis, Facts: Breaking the Law
No Comments
source: Capitol Hill Blue
The often illegal and un-Constitutional administration of President George W. Bush is not giving up on its program to use the National Security Agency to spy on Americans. The administration Friday asked a federal judge to delay enforcing her order for a halt to the NSA’s warrantless communications surveillance program.
The Justice Department argued that ending the intelligence-gathering program threatens “the gravest of harms to the government and to the American public” and leaves the country “more vulnerable to terrorist attack.”
Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley of George Washington University says the government’s argument is a crock and says the court’s decision, if upheld on appeal, could provide grounds for impeachment of the President.
“This ruling is a bad situation that just got worse for the White House,” says Turley. “These crimes could constitute impeachable offenses.”
Turley says the ruling has “serious implications” for Bush and that the President has violated federal law at least 30 times.
Read More at Capitol Hill Blue
VIDEO: Watch Jonathan Turley Comment on MSNBC
Filed under: Blog, In the News, Constitutional Crisis, Facts: Breaking the Law
No Comments
Source: C-Span BookTV
The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office
By Dave Lindorff and Barbara Olshansky
Watch it Now!
Description: Dave Lindorff and Barbara Olshansky are co-authors of “The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office. At a symposium held at Robin’s Bookstore in Philadelphia, the authors argue that President Bush’s administration threatens basic freedoms and the American system of checks and balances. The co-authors review several of what they consider impeachable actions by President Bush, including lying to Congress about the need to invade Iraq for possession of weapons of mass destruction, refusing to cooperate with the congressional 9/11 Commission probes, and obstructing justice in protecting the person responsible for revealing that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, was an undercover CIA operative. The authors suggest that impeachment should be a key issue this election year and impeachment legislation should be submitted to the next House Judiciary Committee.
VIDEO: Watch this program on C-Span BookTV
Filed under: Blog, Evidence, Evidence Overview, In the News, Facts: Independent Conclusions, Video, Impeachment Strategy
1 Comment
source: Mother Jones

The first drafts of history are fragmentary. Important revelations arrive late, and out of order. In this timeline, we’ve assembled the history of the Iraq War to create a resource we hope will help resolve open questions of the Bush era. What did our leaders know and when did they know it? And, perhaps just as important, what red flags did we miss, and how could we have missed them? This is the first installment in our Iraq War timeline project.
View Timeline at MotherJones.com
Filed under: Blog, Evidence, In the News, Facts: Lies and Deceptions, Must Read
No Comments
By Sherwood Ross
If anyone knows anything about international law it’s Dr. Francis A. Boyle of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and he’s more than a little ticked off at the moment at President Bush. Dr. Boyle’s credentials are little short of amazing.
He was the expert who drafted the U.S. domestic implementing legislation for the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 — approved unanimously by both Houses of Congress and signed into law by President George H.W. Bush.
Boyle has also served as legal counsel for Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, the Blackfoot Nation of Canada, and as Legal Advisor to the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East Peace Negotiations.
He has written eight books including “Destroying World Order”(Clarity Press) and “Defending Civil Resistance Under International Law.”
Now he’s written an article with a ring of urgency, saying the House of Representatives “must impeach President Bush for war, lying about war, and threatening more wars.”
The Bush Administration “demonstrates little if any respect for fundamental considerations of international law, international organizations, and human rights, let alone appreciation of the requirements for maintaining international peace and security,” Boyle asserts.
“What the world has watched instead is a comprehensive and malicious assault upon the integrity of the international legal order by a group of men and women who are thoroughly Machiavellian in their perception of international relations and in their conduct of both foreign policy and domestic affairs,” Boyle wrote in “The Long Term View: a Journal of Informed Opinion” published by the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover.
Filed under: Blog, Evidence, In the News, Facts: Independent Conclusions, Impeachment Strategy, Constitutional Crisis
No Comments
By David Lindorff

For the second time in two months, a federal court has ruled that the president is in violation of the Constitution. This time it’s a federal court in Detroit that has ruled that President Bush has violated the Fourth Amendment against illegal search and seizure for his order to the National Security Agency to monitor the phone and Internet messages of Americans without bothering to obtain a court order based upon probable cause.
The first time, it was the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in late June that the president had violated the Constitution by asserting he had the power to ignore the Third Geneva Convention on Treatment of Prisoners of War–a treaty formally signed into law by the U.S. and made an integral part of the U.S. Criminal Code.
The important thing about these two rulings–and it is a point that the squeamish mainstream media have shied away from mentioning–is that they both are declaring the president to be a criminal. That is, he has been found in the first case to be in criminal violation of the Constitution, as well as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, and in the second, he has been found to be in violation of U.S. and International Law.Note that when someone has committed a felony–say a bank robbery or a case of assault and battery or of murder–and when a court has found that person to be guilty of the crime in question, that person is from that moment hence considered a criminal. The case may be appealed to a higher court, but in the meantime, judgment has been rendered, and a penalty assigned.
Read More at the Baltimore Chronicle
Filed under: Blog, Evidence, In the News, Facts: Independent Conclusions, Must Read, Constitutional Crisis
No Comments
By Ray McGovern
Yesterday’s ruling by Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the US District Court in Detroit against warrantless eavesdropping did not beat around the bush, so to speak. Her strong words would, I imagine, have brought broad smiles to the faces of those who crafted the Constitution – despite the irony that, in that sad time of racial exclusion, they would not have thought to include Judge Taylor in “We, the people.”
The power and simplicity of her words brought immediately to mind another distinguished African-American woman and jurist who rose to the occasion a generation ago during the impeachment proceedings against President Richard Nixon. A member of the House Judiciary Committee that approved articles of impeachment against a president she described as “swollen with power and grown tyrannical,” Congressman Barbara Jordan (D-Texas) addressed her colleagues:
“My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total. I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution…. The Constitution charges the president with the task of taking care that the laws be faithfully executed.”
More Coverage:
Judge Finds Wiretap Actions Illegal (NYTimes)
Filed under: Blog, Evidence, In the News, Facts: Independent Conclusions, Constitutional Crisis, Facts: Breaking the Law
No Comments
By CHB Staff
Jonathan Turley, law professor at George Washington University and a recognized expert on constitutional law, says the ruling Thursday by a federal judge in Detroit raises “serious implications for the Bush administration” and indicates that the President “could well have committed a federal crime at least 30 times.”
“This ruling is a bad situation that just got worse for the White House,” says Turley. “These crimes could constitute impeachable offenses.”
Read More at Capitol Hill Blue
Filed under: Blog, Evidence, In the News, Facts: Independent Conclusions, Video, Impeachment Strategy, Constitutional Crisis
1 Comment
By Sarah Karush
DETROIT - A federal judge on Thursday struck down
U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit is the first judge to rule on the legality of the National Security Agency’s program, which the White House says is a key tool for fighting terrorism that has already stopped attacks.
“Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution,” Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion.
Filed under: Blog, Evidence, In the News, Facts: Independent Conclusions, Constitutional Crisis
No Comments
By Byron York
There’s a word you won’t find in the text of Democratic Rep. John Conyers’s new “investigative report” on the Bush administration, “ The Constitution in Crisis: The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Coverups in the Iraq War, and Illegal Domestic Surveillance.” And the word is…impeachment. Yet the 350-page “Constitution in Crisis,” released last week, is, more than anything else, a detailed road map for the impeachment of George W. Bush, ready for use should Democrats win control of the House of Representatives this November. And Conyers, who would become chairman of the House Judiciary Committee — the panel that would initiate any impeachment proceedings — is the man who could make it happen.
Read More at The National Review
Get Full Text of “Constitution in Crisis.”
Filed under: Blog, Evidence, Evidence Overview, In the News, Facts: Lies and Deceptions, Facts: Independent Conclusions, Must Read, Impeachment Strategy, Facts: Breaking the Law
No Comments
By Robert Pear
The (ABA, or American Bar Association) panel said the use of signing statements in this way was “contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers.” From the dawn of the Republic, it said, presidents have generally understood that, in the words of George Washington, a president “must approve all the parts of a bill, or reject it in toto.”
If the president deems a bill unconstitutional, he can veto it, the panel said, but “signing statements should not be a substitute for a presidential veto.”
Read More at The New York Times
Filed under: Blog, Evidence, In the News, Facts: Independent Conclusions, Constitutional Crisis
2 Comments
(Editor’s Note: Today, July 19, 2006, marks the first National Impeachment Day sponsored by the Center for Constitutional Rights to raise awareness about impeachment, offer citizens a strategy to impeachment and organize to stop the assault on the American people and her constitutions.)
By Dave Lindorff
Happy Impeachment Day!
The Center for Constitutional Rights, which has been playing a leading role in battling the Bush administration’s attacks on the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and international law, has declared today to be Impeachment Day, with teach-ins scheduled around the country.
Seems like a great occasion to offer up 10 reasons for impeaching the president, as presented in Barbara Olshansky’s and my new book The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office.
The case for impeachment just grew much stronger, with the US Supreme Court’s powerful decision in Hamdan v Rumsfeld. In that decision, the justices didn’t simply say that the President was wrong and in violation of U.S. and the international law in arbitrarily claiming that the Guantanamo detainees were not subject to the Geneva Convention on Treatment of Prisoners of War. The five-justice majority, which included conservative Anthony Kennedy, declared the President’s bogus claim to have “special powers” as commander in chief in “time of war” to be just that–bogus.
What has been missed in almost all the mainstream media coverage of this important ruling is that this slap-down of Bush’s justification for his Guantanamo decision also undermines his justification for many other of his constitutional violations.
TAKE ACTION: Join the fight at ArticlesOfImpeachment.net
See an excerpt from “How to Impeach a President” (3 mins.)
Filed under: Blog, Evidence, Evidence Overview, In the News, Take Action, Video, Impeachment Strategy, Who to Support
No Comments
By Ron Jacobs
If George Bush were to be impeached, would it make any difference? Whenever I receive emails or mass mailings that bring up the topic of Bush’s impeachment, that is the question I asked. So, it was with some curiosity that I began reading the book A Case for Impeachment, by Dave Lindorff and Barbara Olshansky (Thomas Dunne Books 2006). The process of impeachment has always interested me, at least when it comes to our nation’s presidents and, if any president deserved to face some kind of consequences for what he and his cronies have done to this country, George Bush is certainly first in line.
The complicity of the Congress and the courts proves that the attack on the Constitution is being waged from all three divisions of the US government. Impeaching Bush and Cheney would not end the assault, but it would strike a mighty blow. Like the Hydra of Herculean legend, the beast of despotism has but one essential head and, when that head is destroyed, the Hydra will be, too. The White House is that essential head.
Impeachment will not solve the many problems besetting this too-comfortable nation, but it can begin the cure. For those who consider this to be a worthy project, Lindorff and Olshansky’s book is a necessary read.
Filed under: Blog, Evidence, Evidence Overview, In the News, Facts: Independent Conclusions, Must Read, Impeachment Strategy
No Comments
By Carolyn Jones, San Francisco Chronicle
With resolutions and proclamations, left-leaning cities and counties across the United States have started a drumbeat calling for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
Now Berkeley has taken it one step further.
With overwhelming support from Berkeley residents, the Berkeley City Council unanimously passed a resolution Tuesday night to be the first jurisdiction in the United States to let the public vote for the president’s impeachment. The measure will appear on the Nov. 7 ballot, at a cost of about $10,000.
The measure says the administration violated the Constitution with illegal domestic spying, justified the Iraq war with fraudulent claims and illegally tortured citizens. San Francisco, Oakland, Santa Cruz and dozens of other cities have already passed council resolutions urging impeachment, but none has gone as far as Berkeley.
Voters will be asked to vote yes or no on a measure that will read, “Shall the City of Berkeley call upon the United States House of Representatives to initiate proceedings for the impeachment and removal from office of President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard B. Cheney, call upon the California State Legislature to submit a Resolution in support of impeachment to the United States House of Representatives, and establish a Temporary Task Force on Impeachment?”
Filed under: Blog, In the News, Facts: Independent Conclusions, Impeachment Strategy
No Comments