IMPEACHMENT TOOLKIT: Why Pelosi MUST be removed

Court Indirectly Reminds Congress Wecht Prosecution Linked With Impeachment

By testing - August 6, 2008, 12:48PM

The court ruling against Miers and Bolten mentions the express purpose of an investigation, which the House may investigate. Miers, Bolten, and Rove are, for now, at the heart of the Judiciary Committee inquiry into selective prosecutions.

The court reminded the government and Congress the underlying subject is not narrowly gathering information or conducting an investigation, but the removal of executive officials:

Court: "Moreover, the Executive argues, the Committee cannot rest on an implied right to investigate derived from Article I because the underlying subject matter here -- removal of executive officials -- is an issue on which Congress has no authority to legislate and thus no corresponding right to investigate."

The court rejected this argument.

Selective Prosecution Against Wecht and Others Cited in Letter to Rove Counsel

After the court ruled against Miers on privilege claims, on August 1st, 2008 House Judiciary Chairman Conyers mentioned the Wecht case in a letter to Rove's attorney, whose law firm includes DoD military analysts:

Conyers: "On October 23, 2007, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security and the CAL Subcommittee held a joint hearing exploring several cases of alleged selective prosecution, including the prosecutions of former Democratic Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, Wisconsin state employee Georgia Thompson, and prominent Democrat Cyril Wecht in Pittsburgh."

The letter cites three selective prosecution hearings, footnotes 11-13, page 4 of 12:

A. Allegations of Selective Prosecution: The Erosion of Public Confidence in our Federal Justice System: Joint Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security and the Subcomm. on
Commercial and Admin. Law of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 110th Cong. (2007).

B. Allegations of Selective Prosecution Part II: The Erosion of Public Confidence in our Federal Justice System: Joint Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security and the Subcomm. on
Commercial and Admin. Law of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 110th Cong. (2008).

C. The Politicization of the Justice Department and Allegations of Selective Prosecution: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Commercial and Admin. Law of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 110th Cong. (2008).

The court said "Ms. Miers is not absolutely immune from congressional process and that Mr. Bolten must produce more detailed documentation concerning privilege claims"

On impeachment investigations, there is no debate, and Congress needs to ignore the President's excuses:

Court: "[T]he Executive overlooks the fact that the Supreme Court has already construed Article I in McGrain, Eastland, and other cases to find an implied right of investigation, and indeed an implied right to compel compliance with that investigative power, accruing to Congress."

Conyers' letter says his staff is preparing for Rove's September 2008 testimony.

Conyers: "Particularly in light of yesturday's ruling by Judge Bates clearly rejecting the absolute immunity claims on which Mr. Rove relied, we expect that mr. Rove will agree to appear promptly before the Committee as the subpoena requires."

The only reasonable interpretation of the court ruling is that the court intended to remind the Congress, public, and executive branch the goal of the subpoena is not to narrowly gather facts or conduct an investigation; but to make an informed decision about whether to remove or not remove Executive Branch officials for crimes.

It is absurd for the Speaker and House Members to celebrate this victory against Miers, but then not expressly state their open intent to use this information to support an impeachment investigation or impeachment.

All information and investigations about Wecht must be couched in the proper perspective. It is not narrowly a question of political power, but whether or not the Executive will or will not be examined, and, as needed, punished for that abuse of power against Wecht and the Wecht Jury.

The Executive abuse has happened and continues. The Congress, by refusing to keep all options on the table to challenge that abuse is complicit.

This language from the court shows us why the Senate needs to take a role in conducting investigations. There is nothing stopping the Senate from gathering facts, and transmitting those to the House for their consideration:

Court: "Because the Congress expires every two years, and a subpoena issued by the House remains valid only for the duration of that Congress, it would be difficult for any House subpoena dispute to fit into that two-year window once the time for appeal is factored into the equation."

An impeachment investigation must be expressly linked in Congress with these investigations into selective prosecutions and attorney firings. Until the Congress convinces the public it understands this -- with investigations in both the House and Senate -- the public must reasonably conclude the Congress is incapable of comprehending gentle remind from the Court.

The court reminds us: Congress has the power, not the right, to investigate. An impeachment investigation, as a power, is always on the table. Congress, in refusing to keep impeachment on the table, cannot (in its own mind) convince itself why it is really conducting these investigations.

Impeachment is not the same as a removal. It is a process to gather facts, make charges, and let the Senate
decide what to do. Representative Pelosi must explain why she will not let the Senate
and the House fulfill their legal obligations. Conversely, there is nothing stopping the Senate from independently investigating.

The error isn't simply the government abuse of power; but the Congressional complicity in refusing to challenge that abuse, and the absurd arguments for inaction:

Court: "Two parties cannot negotiate in good faith when one side asserts legal privileges but insists that they cannot be tested in court in the traditional manner."

Power can -- and must -- be tested during impeachment, and Pelosi is not in charge
of Congress. She is the Speaker of the House. She must lead the effort
to investigate in the House; or we must lead an effort to find a new Speaker.

Either the executive branch officials are investigated for possible removal; or Pelosi must be removed.

Congress is lost. This is, in part, a leadership problem with the Speaker. She must convince the public she understands the gentle reminder from the court -- the investigations are about a removal decision. Without her leadership she must be removed as Speaker.

Let's turn our attention to the Senate and their ongoing collusion with the President.

DK says we did it (now let's keep it up .. )

We did it!

Last week, Congressman Dennis Kucinich delivered a petition bearing more than 100,000 names to the Speaker of the House urging that impeachment proceedings begin into the conduct of President Bush. In a special video message (click here), Dennis is asking for your help to deliver an even more powerful message to Congress when it reconvenes in September.

With new disclosures that the Administration tried to "cook the books at the CIA" by creating a phony, forged link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, "We cannot step back and let this President escape accountability."

If you have already signed the impeachment petition at www.kucinich.us, thank you. If you haven't, please do. And, in the next few weeks, please ask just one more person to sign so we can let the members of Congress hear our collective demand that they meet their obligation to uphold the Constitution.

Video by Chad Ely

Okay !! At last !! Nonimpeachment IMPEACHMENT DAY !!!!!!!

Impeachment a hot topic at 'not Impeachment' hearing

Nick Juliano Published: Friday July 25, 2008
Print This Email This

After spending long hours, sometimes late into the night, making his case for impeachment before a nearly barren House chamber, Rep. Dennis Kucinich finally got more of an audience for his case against President Bush Friday.

Even though Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers insisted early on that the panel's evaluation of Bush's "imperial presidency" was decidedly not an impeachment hearing, the prospect was not far from many minds during the six hours of testimony.

Kucinich formally introduced his articles of impeachment into the record of the committees proceedings -- although he did not utter the dreaded I-word, instead referring to the resolutions by their more legalistic titles "H. Res. 333, H. Res. 1258 and H. Res. 1345."

A committee aide tells RAW STORY that members were cautioned to abide by the Rules of the House, which prohibit lawmakers from "impugning" the president's character during official debate. Some apparently took this to mean they could not explicitly call for Bush' impeachment. None of this would stop Republicans from accusing the committee's majority of seeking just that.

The prepared text of Conyers opening remarks referred to Congress's "power to impeach." When he spoke before the committee, Conyers modified that line to the "power to remove through the constitutional process" officials who abused their powers.

Kucinich was similarly circumspect in his testimony to the committee.

"The question for Congress is this: what responsibility does the President and members of his Administration have for that unnecessary, unprovoked and unjustified war?" he asked. "The rules of the House prevent me or any witness from utilizing familiar terms. But we can put two and two together in our minds. We can draw inferences about culpability. ...

"I ask this committee to think, and then to act, in order to enable this Congress to right a very great wrong and to hold accountable those who misled this nation," he concluded.

Kucinich's colleague Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) was far more straightforward.

"Based on all of the things this administration has done, it is probably the most impeachable administration in the history of America,” said Hinchey, who appeared alongside Kucinich and North Carolina Reps. Walter Jones and Brad Miller.

The New York lawmaker even accused the administration of deliberately letting America's No. 1 enemy escape after 9/11.

"I think it is very clear they did not want to capture bin Laden," Hinchey told the committee.

That Hinchey referred to "they" was no accident. House rules forbid direct attacks on the president's individual character or motives, so most of the witnesses were sure to couch ther criticisms as aimed at members of the administration generally.

Hinchey explained his assertion to Politico.

"I think the evidence indicates that very clearly ... bin Laden was close to being captured [in December 2001], there was a clear understanding of where he was, heading up to Tora Bora, in those mountains. He could have been captured," Hinchey said. "But there was a decision that was made through the Pentagon, and probably that decision had been made outside the Pentagon as well, within the administration, not to aggressively pursue bin Laden."

Hinchey added: "I believe that the reason for that was that if bin Laden had been captured, it would have been very difficult, if not impossible, for this administration to then justify an attack against another country. Not Afghanistan, another country. And, of course, Iraq is the country. So I think that it was clear, based upon all of the evidence that we have, that this was a purposeful decision that was made not to capture bin Laden."

In his opening statement Friday, Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL), a Kucinich ally in his push's for impeachment, also threw caution to the wind, outlining an array of Bush administration abuses, he said "certainly include high crimes" including ordering illegal torture and authorizing warrantless wiretapping.

"I am convinced the most appropriate response ... is to hold hearings for impeachment," Wexler said.

Similarly undeterred from mentioning impeachment was Rep. Hank Johnson (D-TX), who echoed Wexler's sentiment and warned of the potential consequences of not pursuing impeachment now.

"If this administration during the last 6 months decides to attack the sovereign nation of Iran," he said, "then Americans will look back and think and rethink whether it would have been worth pursuing impeachment at this time, to deter any further misdoing by this administration."

Committee Republicans weren't having any of the Democrats' hesitance.

"These are impeachment hearings before the United States Congress," said Rep. Steve King (R-IA), pointing out that Conyers's essentially called for impeachment himself even if he didn't precisely say the word.

Several other Republicans echoed the same sentiment, defending Bush from accusations of "high crimes and misdemeanors" that weren't actually the primary issue Friday.

"To the regret of many, this is not an impeachment hearing," Conyers said, pointing out that the full House has not voted to authorize such an inquiry as House rules require.

Hundreds gather for hearing

More than 100 spectators, including dozens of representatives of anti-war group Code Pink, began assembling outside the hearing room more than an hour before the hearing began. The Capitol Hill hearing room was packed to capacity, leaving dozens of activists out in the hallway, unable to enter; some chanted "Shame!" or "We want in!"

The hearing began about 15 minutes after its scheduled start time with Conyers's opening statement.

"We know the executive branch can and does overreach during times of war," Conyers said. "As one who was included on President Nixon's enemies list, I am all too familiar with the specter of an unchecked executive branch. And the risks to our citizens' rights are even graver today, as the war on terror has no specific end point."

More than a dozen witnesses were scheduled to testify, beginning with Kucinich, who accuses Bush and Cheney of lying to Congress in their pursuit of war in Iraq, among a host of other abuses.

"The decision before us is whether Congress will endorse with its silence the methods used to take us into the Iraq war," Kucinich will say, according to his prepared testimony. "The decision before us is whether to demand accountability for one of the gravest injustices imaginable."

The committee's top Republican, Lamar Smith, mocked the proceedings, comparing them to last month's hearing featuring former White House spokesman Scott McClellan, who recently wrote a tell-all memoir about his time as Bush's spokesman.

"If last month it appeared we hosted a 'book of the month club,' this week it seems that we are hosting an anger management class," Smith said. "Nothing is going to come out of this hearing with regard to impeachment of the President. I know it, the media knows it, even the Speaker knows it. ... This hearing will not cause us to impeach the President; it will only serve to impeach our own credibility."

The American Civil Liberties union praised Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers for convening Friday's hearing.

"Every year this administration has been in power has compounded the damage to our ideals and Constitution," Caroline Fredrickson, director the ACLU's Washington legislative office, said in a press release. "An executive branch that demands and holds too much power tips the scales of our system of checks and balances."

A live Web-cast can be viewed here, and RAW STORY will be providing updates on the proceedings throughout the day.

DEVELOPING...

Rep. Wexler recommends impeachment hearings

Download video Rep. Kucinich testifies at executive power hearing Download video

GOOGLE - Please would you make this LOAD PROPERLY !!!!!!!

I am not sure what the problem is - but lots MORE should be showing up !! Lots more !!

Could someone fix it without me going through some weird ritual helpdesk?

OBVIOUSLY, the page elements are loaded properly on the url layout, but something must be done to fix this all up.

Yes, indeedy. Where ARE you John Conyers ?????

"Should Have..." Chairman John Conyers,

grievous crimes committed against the American people and their Constitution by Cheney & Bush are too serious to be ignored and put off as you have doing going on two years.

While you enjoy your holiday break , and plan for a much longer break for the entire month of August, please consider that our brave and honorable soldiers are getting murdered every day fighting George W. Bush's war in Iraq on "false pretenses", which are "unlawful deaths", each and every one, as noted and documented by renowned prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi, in his stunning, best selling true crime book, "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder", Video Link CLICK HERE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klYioEnpOk8

I don't know where John Conyers is on July 4th, but I do know he should be in his House Judiciary Committee Hearing Room chairing impeachment hearings, Cheney first on H.Res. 799, and Bush next on H.Res. 1258.

Are you there John Conyers?

Sincerely,

Lance Ciepiela

WAR CRIMES DOSSIER: repost of 2004 torture article in Commondreams

U.N. Report Slams Use of Torture to Beat Terror

by Thalif Deen

UNITED NATIONS - No country can justify torture, the humiliation of prisoners or violation of international conventions in the guise of fighting terrorism, says a U.N. report released here. The 19-page study, which is likely to go before the current session of the U.N. General Assembly in December, does not identify the United States by name but catalogues the widely publicized torture and humiliation of prisoners and detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan by U.S. troops waging the so-called ”war on terrorism.” Bush is thumbing his nose at the international community and all those who respect human rights by nominating Gonzales. You cannot simply up and bolt from the Geneva Conventions and the Anti-Torture Convention. Gonzales is Ashcroft without the edges and the delirium and the baritone. But the policy will remain the same. Matt Rothschild, editor of 'The Progressive' magazine The hard line taken by the United Nations comes amidst the controversial appointment of a new U.S. attorney general, who has implicitly defended the use of torture against ''terrorists'' and ''terror suspects''. On Wednesday, U.S. President George W Bush named White House legal counsel Alberto Gonzales as attorney general to succeed John Ashcroft, who announced his resignation last week. In a now-infamous memo to the White House in January 2002, Gonzales argued that captured members of the former ruling Taliban regime in Afghanistan were not protected under the Geneva Conventions, which stipulate the treatment of prisoners of war (POWs). The United States has signed the Geneva Conventions. The same policy was applied to prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad who were tortured and humiliated by U.S. troops following the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, raising outrage among human rights activists and other people worldwide. The U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command is now prosecuting several U.S. soldiers on criminal charges, including involuntary manslaughter, for their treatment of prisoners. Gonzales has also described international conventions governing prisoners of war, including the Geneva Conventions, as ''obsolete.'' According to the author of the 19-page U.N. report, 'Torture, and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment', ''The condoning of torture is, per se, a violation of the prohibition of torture.” The study, by U.N. Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Theo van Boven, points out that ''legal argument of necessity and self-defense, invoking domestic law, have recently been put forward, aimed at providing a justification to exempt officials suspected of having committed or instigated acts of torture against suspected terrorists from criminal liability.'' But, Van Boven says, ''the absolute nature of the prohibition of torture and other forms of ill-treatment means that no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as justification for torture.'' Von Boven said he has received information ''on certain methods that have been condoned and used to secure information from suspected terrorists.'' He says these include, ''holding detainees in painful and-or stressful positions, depriving them of sleep and light for prolonged periods, exposing them to extremes of heat, cold, noise and light, hooding, depriving them of clothing, stripping detainees naked and threatening them with dogs.'' ''The jurisprudence of both international and regional human rights mechanisms is unanimous in stating that such methods violate the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment,'' Von Boven adds. In the aftermath of the Sep. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, he says, ''thousands of persons suspected of terrorism, including children, have been detained, denied the opportunity to have legal status determined and prevented from having access to lawyers.'' Some of them, he adds, are said to be still held in solitary confinement, ''which in itself may constitute a violation of the right to be free from torture.'' Asked if he supports a call by Amnesty International for an independent commission to probe U.S. detention policies in Iraq and Afghanistan, Van Boven told reporters in October that such a probe is imperative. ''Whenever there are serious allegations of torture, investigations are absolutely necessary. And the results of these investigations should be made public because it's absolutely a public affair,'' said the special rapporteur. In view of the U.N. position, the appointment of Gonzales as the new U.S. attorney general is a slap in the face of the international community, says Matt Rothschild, editor of 'The Progressive' magazine. ''Bush is thumbing his nose at the international community and all those who respect human rights by nominating Gonzales,'' Rothschild told IPS. ''You cannot simply up and bolt from the Geneva Conventions and the Anti-Torture Convention. Gonzales is Ashcroft without the edges and the delirium and the baritone. But the policy will remain the same,'' he added. ''It was Gonzales, along with Ashcroft and (Defense Secretary Donald) Rumsfeld and (Vice President Dick) Cheney, who signed off on tougher interrogation methods and on the hiding of prisoners from the International Red Cross,'' said Rothschild. According to Francis A Boyle, who teaches international law at the University of Illinois, ''As White House counsel, Alberto Gonzales originated, authorized, approved and aided and abetted grave breaches of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions of 1949, which are serious war crimes.” ''In other words, Gonzales is a prima facie war criminal. He must be prosecuted under the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. War Crimes Act,'' Boyle told IPS. In any event, the U.S. Senate must reject his nomination, because, as a presumptive war criminal, Gonzales is not fit to be attorney general of the United States, he continued. ''Should Gonzales travel around the world in that capacity, human rights lawyers such as myself will attempt to get him prosecuted along the lines of what happened to (former Chilean dictator) General (Pinochet,'' said Boyle, author of 'Destroying World Order'. Jordan J Paust, law foundation professor at the University of Houston, agrees with Boyle's thesis. 'The denial of protections under the Geneva Conventions is a violation of the Geneva Conventions, and every violation of the laws of war is a war crime. Complicity in connection with war crimes (such as aiding and abetting the denial of protections) is also criminally sanctionable,'' Paust told IPS. Thus, it appears Gonzales is reasonably accused of international criminal activity, he added, although he has the human right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law that provides basic human rights to due process protections, ”that he chose to deny others with respect to the military commissions at Guantanamo Bay” (where Washington detains terror suspects). ''Whether or not Gonzales is guilty, the taint in this instance is surely enough to require that he not be confirmed in any U.S. governmental position, especially since the Bush administration has stated that it is still the policy of the United States to have a government under law and to promote the rule of law and human rights -- rights that are reflected also in the Geneva Conventions,'' Paust added. ''Making Alberto Gonzales the attorney general of the United States would be a travesty,'' says Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights. ''It would mean taking one of the legal architects of an illegal and immoral policy and installing him as the official who is charged with protecting our constitutional rights. The Gonzales memo paved the way for Abu Ghraib,'' Ratner said in a statement issued Thursday. ###

WAR CRIMES DOSSIER: Andrew Sullivan: "We Do Not Torture"

"We Do Not Torture"

18 Jun 2008 12:30 pm

The latest reality check on the gravest lie this president has ever told:

Physicians for Human Rights, an advocacy group based in Cambridge, Mass., that investigates abuse around the world and advocates for global health and human rights, did not identify the 11 former prisoners to protect their privacy. Seven were held in Abu Ghraib between late 2003 and summer of 2004, a period that coincides with the known abuse of prisoners at the hands of some of their American jailers. Four of the prisoners were held at Guantanamo beginning in 2002 for one to almost five years. All 11 were released without criminal charges.

Those examined alleged that they were tortured or abused, including sexually, and described being shocked with electrodes, beaten, shackled, stripped of their clothes, deprived of food and sleep, and spit and urinated on.

Or are you going to believe Dick Cheney? What's staggering to me is the moral relativism of these men who report to a fundamentalist Christian. You cannot compromise on the meaning of the word "marriage". But "torture"? No problem. The only outer limit is murder. John Yoo led the way:

Torture "is basically subject to perception," CIA counterterrorism lawyer Jonathan Fredman told a group of military and intelligence officials gathered at the U.S.-run detention camp in Cuba on Oct. 2, 2002, according to minutes of the meeting...

The newly released documents show that in the summer of 2002, Pentagon officials compiled lists of aggressive techniques, soliciting opinions from the CIA and others, and ultimately implementing the practices over opposition from military lawyers who argued that the proposed tactics were probably illegal and could harm U.S. troops.

Lindsey Graham describes these actions as "irresponsible." I guess he can't yet quite believe that his president meant them. When Bush says that Abu Ghraib was the work of a few, he forgot to mention that he was one of them.

(Photo: War criminal John Yoo by Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty.)

"We Do Not Torture"

Trackback: http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/2224950/30305804

Special Prosecutor information, please circulate

I have posted a WAR CRIMES and IMPEACHMENT swicki, please feel free to put in your additions. You can install it and add to it on your site.

I refer you to this item as well:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_ladybroa_080326_water_is_not_a_basic.htm

Many of the basic international law is contained in Jordan Paust's paper as regards crimes against humanity.

And please honor us and all future generations by signing these petitions:

www.wexlerwantshearings.com

Global people for the impeachment of Richard Cheney 


Now that George Bush and Michael Hayden have publicly confessed to government waterboarding in a press conference on February 6, 2008, and in testimony before Congress on February 5, 2008, you may find the following information useful:

The law review article referenced below (available at no cost at: http://www.law.utah.edu/_webfiles/ULRarticles/150/150.pdf ) makes clear that waterboarding is torture and is a crime and a war crime punishable under a number of treaties to which the United States is a party and several U.S. statutes.

The article also explains that there is no defense available due to either (1) prior legal advice, or (2) circumstances (including, without limitation, terrorist acts – see citations in Footnotes 21 and 25 in the article), contrary to the claims of Bush and Hayden.

The law review article (see pages 359 to 374) also establishes that under a number of treaties to which the United States is a party, the U.S. has an obligation to initiate an official investigation regarding confessed acts of torture. For example, the 1984 U.N. Convention Against Torture, (1465 UNTS 85), Article 12 reads as follows:

“Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed in any territory under its jurisdiction.” (NOTE: The article also explains why “territory under its jurisdiction” includes GITMO and all DOD and CIA secret detention sites for the United States.)

The following case, among others, has held that waterboarding is torture:

In re Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos Human Rights Litigation, 910 F. Supp. 1460, 1463 (District of Hawaii, 1995)

Waterboarding is torture regardless of the surrounding circumstances – there is no circumstantial or necessity defense to torture claims.

It is time for the appointment of a special prosecutor – General Mukasey must recuse himself because of his refusal to publicly state that waterboarding is criminal torture. As explained in the law review article and elsewhere, the following individuals played primary roles in the authorization of waterboarding and should be immediately identified as the primary subjects of the investigation:

George W. Bush
Richard “Dick” Cheney
John Ashcroft
Alberto Gonzales
Donald Rumsfeld
George J. Tenet
John E. McLaughlin
Porter Goss
David Addington
Jay S. Bybee
John Yoo
Jack Goldsmith
General Ricardo Sanchez
General Geoffrey Miller
General Janis Karpinski

Bush/Cheney Pardon Calendar

Under the circumstances – a public confession of criminal acts by George W. Bush -- you should expect that immediately after the November elections George W. Bush will pardon all of the people listed above, then resign. At that point, Richard “Dick” Cheney would become President, and you should expect that in that capacity Cheney will immediately pardon George W. Bush.

Immediate Appointment of Special Prosecutor

As a result of the expected pardons, a special prosecutor should be appointed immediately

Commencement of Impeachment Proceedings

As a result of the expected pardons, on the day after the November elections, the House of Representatives should impeach George W. Bush and Richard “Dick” Cheney for high crimes -- torture -- violating the following statutes, among others:

18 USC 3231
18 USC Sections 2340-2340A
18 USC 2441

Please note the strategic importance of simply presenting the impeachment to members of the House with no hearings and an immediate vote on the day after the November elections. There is no reason for hearings or delay, since George W. Bush has admitted the criminal act that is the basis of the impeachment.

International Crimes Not Subject to Pardon Power

It is worth pointing out that torture violations of the Law of War and international treaties are not subject to the Presidential pardon power. We will see these individuals on trial in the Hague for their publicly confessed war crimes.

“Above the Law: Unlawful Executive Authorizations Regarding Detainee Treatment, Secret Renditions, Domestic Spying and Claims to Unchecked Executive Power,” Jordan J. Paust, Utah Law Review, 2007, Number 2, Pages 345 to 419

Article available free at: http://www.law.utah.edu/_webfiles/ULRarticles/150/150.pdf