For Immediate Release
6/27/2008
Conyers Issues Subpoena to DOJ for Valerie Plame Documents
For Immediate Release Contact: Jonathan Godfrey
June 27, 2008 Melanie Roussell
(Washington, DC)- House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) today issued a subpoena to the Department of Justice (DOJ) to provide to the committee a number of previously requested documents by July 9. The Subcommittee on Commercial and Adminstrative Law voted this week to authorize committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. to issue the subpoena at his discretion. The documents the committee is seeking cover a broad range of issues including the Valerie Plame leak, allegations of selective prosecution, and other matters. The subpoena is here.
##110-JUD-062708##
June 29, 2008
WAR CRIMES DOSSIER; Conyers subpoena to Michael Mukasey
June 19, 2008
WAR CRIMES DOSSIER; Torture apologists avoid US House hearings
From Think Progress (with many wonderful links - well, not wonderful, but certainly USEFUL!)
So much for CONgressional subpoenas! When do they appoint a torture Special Prosecutor?
Can this be CONyers reason to ACT and support the US Constitution???
One sure hopes so !! One wants GENEVA "back on the table" !!
Virginia
CONGRESS -- FEITH CHICKENS OUT OF CONGRESSIONAL HEARING ON TORTURE, REFUSES TO APPEAR WITH WILKERSON: Former Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith withdrew from a scheduled appearance before a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing on torture yesterday because he did not want to to appear with Colin Powell's former chief of staff Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, who was also testifying. Feith was to speak about his role in helping the Bush administration evade the Geneva conventions, but informed the committee through his counsel that he "would not appear today because he is not willing to appear alongside one of our other witnesses," said Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY).
"Mr. Feith's unwillingness to attend voluntarily and provide the truth about this government's actions shows a fundamental disrespect for Congress and the American people,"Nadler said. Wilkerson, who left the Bush administration in protest over Bush policies, has criticized Feith's competence, saying "seldom in my life have I met a dumber man." Seated next to Feith's empty chair, Wilkerson testified that Vice President Cheney probably knew that the U.S. was using torture at Guantanamo Bay and in Iraq. "At what level did American leadership fail?" Wilkerson asked. "I believe it failed at the highest levels of the Pentagon, in the Vice President's Office and perhaps even in the Oval Office."
"the Bush administration's war crimes system 'is designed to get criminal convictions' with 'no real evidence.'"Military prosecutors "launder evidence derived from torture," Kuebler said, adding,
"You put the whole package together and it stinks."At the same time, a report released yesterday by the Physicians for Human Rights gives credibility to Kuebler's claim of detainee abuse. "The first extensive medical examinations of former detainees in U.S. military jails offer corroboration for prisoners' claims of physical and psychological abuse at the hands of their American captors," the report found. "The assessments of 11 men formerly held in U.S. detention camps overseas revealed scars and other injuries consistent with their accounts of beatings, electric shocks, shackling and, in at least one case, sodomy." Physicians for Human Rights used "teams of medical specialists" to conduct the "physical and psychological tests, including exams intended to assess if the subjects were lying." In a statement, ret. Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba, "who led the Army's first official investigation on Abu Ghraib, said the new evidence suggested a 'systematic regime of torture' inside U.S.-run detention camps."
June 18, 2008
Countdown to Changing of the Guard, H. Res. 1258, H. res. 333
Yes, it's closer than you think. We can all now connect the "dots."
Those who have the fantasy it's going to take until November had best think hard about the consequences of NOT pursuing impeachment NOW have a chance to now look at the overwhelming evidence of the folly of such a plan.
Each legislator, including state attorney generals, takes a sworn oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.
Under the rules of Geneva, any nation that does not police itself is considered a failed state.
It is fair to say that the United States has been more than lax at that fundamental nationstate requirement.
- Due to the mistreatment of POWs (detainees) - and for information's sake here, it is alleged that those Boeings were used to transfer drugs and the POWs used as a cover for that illegal activity - we can read about this situation here, here, here and here. A great place to put a face on the victims can be found at freedetainees.org. Consider: when the US does the torturing, our soldiers are at risk under the rule of reciprocity. We need to realize that the Military Commissions Act has grave implications.
- involvement in an ILLEGAL war of aggression and continued illegal sabre-rattling at nations from the highest levels of government and even our presidential candidates,
- Russia and China have been chomping at the bit to come to North America and take over.
Medvedev has been in Europe (unhappy with the installation of the US missile shields themselves - the news on THAT leaked out at the last G8 summit, while scores of nations moved frantically to distance themselves from participating in the WAR CRIMES imposed by tyrant BuZhCo.)
The Russians are writing scores of articles on the state of the impeachment effort; they know how to do the "spin" on their efforts to ensure human rights with the use of ngo's (non government organizations).
Now consider this statement following the Supreme Court decision in
The US strategic interests have been threated by the creation of legitimate terrorists,
says Alberto J. Mora, former General Council of the Navy, following The Supremes' decision on habeas corpus. The imposition of lawlessness by The Decider and his CONgressional enablers needs to come to a screeching halt. A reorganization of US intel operations (mostly outsourced and privatized now) is URGENTLY required.
While McCain has been excoriated already, the pro-AIPAC stance of Obama, his ties to organized crime and Rezko, his alliance with Zbig and the failure to be a unifying force in following the US Constitution should have been a testiment to why impeachment must be pursued now. His advisers are nothing about CHANGE; they're just post Clinton Mach 2. There are unions are already upset with his economic "policies". Perhaps it will take time for those in the adrenalated love trance to wake up, but that's an eventuality.
What is needed is a campaign for a new foreign policy.
What is needed is a more realistic economic program: something Dennis Kucinich offered up with his economic advisor, Dr. Michael Hudson.
To get personal, I have a real problem reading "liberal"/"progressive" threads suggesting we must wait for Obama to come to everyone's rescue.
As has been noted over the course of the last eight years of horror, there are NO MORE MESSIAHS. The power lies in We the People.
Our imperative as citizens is to the United States Constitution, not party affiliation ! Geneva is the Supreme Law of the Land - it's been so through the last eight bloody years.
The nexus of the arguments for impeachment was laid out last night on Keith Olbermann's Countdown. I was, unlike many others, not surprised to see this installment of public denunuciation of The Decider's ruthless flaunting of the law and morality.
GENOCIDE is the Supreme International Crime. Two nations have been turned into sand/glass - at least 1 million dead, (1 million before that under sanctions, mostly innocent women and children), 1 million declared refugees, and at least 2 million displaced persons .. real numbers aren't kept so estimates are necessary. This, too, is an international violation.
Regardless of what people think those who do not uphold their oaths are subject to WAR CRIMES prosecutions and subject to death and imprisonment.
Finally, this nation has woken up for it's nightmare and refuses to be victims of the information warfare!
Lawyers for Guantanamo "detainees" left for Guantanamo Bay yesterday.
When they return (and remember they all KNOW THE LAW and have seen the suffering) - they've all learned the real laws of GENEVA. The military JAGS who warned of the illegality of the war and counselled against it are going to make it clear that it's time to get this Constitutional crisis/international humiliation "on the table".
As for us citizens, We the People, our lives our totally threatened by the breakdown of law and order - the market is going to crash by October which is a done deal - BUT the market manipulations continue unabetted without a single piece of oversight. In fact, OUR gold is missing. Chalmers Johson has made the point it was military spending that brought America to its knees. Yet have a little run through of Tom Murtha's proposed 2009 budget! We don't need a police state, martial law depleted uranium and other radiation nor BIOWEAPONS.
Many have been deceived as to the true nature of the obstacles that we face as the earthchanges set in. Our energy must be going towards having the manpower to rescue our fellow countrymen.
There have been so many lies proliferated during the information warfare directed against We the People it's been hard to verify the truth of the realities of our existence. And while the MSM has been complicit in the CRIMES, we have established our own networks and will do fine, as long as we realize that "dots" must be connected and we must find the patterns that have not been reported in this era of mis/disinformation.
Yes, impeachment (an investigation) is going to take awhile to process, but without an immediate return to the RULE OF LAW, there is so much more to lose.
I believe Conyers has been persuaded to save his own neck, that republicans will quickly jump the Decider's ship if they want to retain any chance of re-election. In fact, I am sure within the halls of CONgress all this has been widely discussed already. A full 50% of republicans are ready to revolt according to recent polls. They need a new candidate ... (and it's sure not gonna be Jeb BuZh!)
On my blog, I have provided links to every document relevant - to be downloaded - for your convenience over the course of the past few months.
International WAR CRIMES suits are being filed in other nations, but let's get our house in order, keeping the focus on our nation's own complicity first.
This is our last chance as a civilation to avoid NUCLEAR WAR.
The moment has come! This CAN be done! It shall be done !
We had a problem; now we move to the solution. No more playing with matches! Time to bring the infantile deceptors to a court of LAW.
A special prosecutor on torture will be appointed.
What has happened must never be allowed to happen again.
It's time to planetize.
We can face the truth about global warming, about "peak oil", about AIDS, and move on to being truly global citizens at last.
Sure the right wing and the evangelicals are going to be rabid for a time, but it's our job to convince them by providing the information that will undo the information warfare that's been used against us, We the People.
It's time for a changing of the Guard
and yes, dreams really do come true.
We'll sing our songs and bang our drums instead.
June 17, 2008
WAR CRIMES DOSSIER: Lawyers, alleged terrorists consult on court ruling
Lawyers, alleged terrorists consult on court ruling
GUANTANAMO BAY NAVY BASE, Cuba — Bolstered by a U.S. Supreme Court victory, defense attorneys streamed onto this base Monday to consult alleged al Qaeda captives on whether to sue in federal court over their war-on-terror detention.
The lawyers arrived by early-morning charter from Washington, D.C., organized by the Pentagon’s Office of Military Commissions to ferry lawyers, staff and observers to this week’s hearings for two detainees who were captured, separately, as teenagers in Afghanistan.
Canadian Omar Khadr, accused of the July 2002 grenade killing of a U.S. soldier, Wednesday goes before a new war court judge, Army Col. Patrick Parrish. Khadr’s original judge is retiring.
Then Thursday, an Air Force defense attorney is calling witnesses to argue for dismissal of war crimes charges against Afghan Mohammed Jawad, accused of maiming two other U.S. soldiers in a different grenade attack in a Kabul marketplace.
The military commissions hearings are the first since the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the 270 ”enemy combatants” at this remote U.S. Navy base can, one by one, challenge their detention in federal courts, through habeas corpus petitions.
The Supreme Court decision effectively allows civilian judges to independently evaluate Pentagon findings that the foreign prisoners are too dangerous to be let go, or sent home.
It also undermined the Bush administration doctrine that sought to curb detainee rights by keeping them here, offshore.
”The landscape has changed,” declared Navy Lt. Cmdr. Brian Mizer, defense attorney for Osama bin Laden’s driver.
His client is Salim Hamdan, a Yemeni on track to face trial by military commission later this summer, becoming the first Guantánamo detainee to face the first U.S. war crimes tribunals since World War II.
Australian al Qaeda foot soldier David Hicks earlier averted trial by pleading guilty to a war crimes charge in exchange for a nine-month sentence. He is free.
Monday, Mizer joined the lawyers’ pilgrimage to the prison camps from the Washington Beltway to consult with Hamdan as well as his other client, alleged 9/11 co-conspirator Ammar al Baluchi, facing death if convicted.
Also arriving were the four lawyers for alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed, Baluchi’s uncle; the Army defense attorney for Ahmed Khalfan Ghalani, accused of the 1998 East Africa Embassy bombings; and counsel to Saudi captive Mustafa Hawsawi, accused of financing the 9/11 hijackers.
For his part, Attorney General Michael Mukasey and other Justice Department officials said the Supreme Court ruling would have no impact on the war crimes trials where the Pentagon plans to try up to 80 detainees.
Pentagon prosecutors and Bush administration advocates argue that the point of the war court is that war-on-terror detainees don’t get the same rights as U.S. citizens.
But Mizer and other war court lawyers argue that detainees facing trial can use the habeas corpus petitions as a tool to contest their charges as well, invoking a range of constitutional rights.
As captives, the argument goes, they were interrogated without the right to remain silent, subjected to ”cruel and unusual punishment” and are facing ex post facto charges for crimes enacted after they were allegedly committed.
Unclear Monday was whether the alleged architect of the Sept. 11 terror attacks would seek to sue for his freedom to avert or delay the Pentagon’s complex war crimes case, which seeks the death penalty for five alleged conspirators in the mass murder of 2,973 men, women and children in New York, the Pentagon and a Pennsylvania field.
”We’re going to talk to him about his options,” said Boise, Idaho, lawyer David Nevin, a civilian criminal defense attorney chosen by the American Civil Liberties Union to defend Mohammed, known in CIA circles as KSM.
”I’m going to talk to Mr. Mohammed about where he wants to go from here,” he added.
The meeting would be the first since Mohammed’s June 5 arraignment, in which Mohammed said he would defend himself at trial — and would welcome martyrdom were the U.S. to execute him.
Now that the Supreme Court has given detainees recourse to civilian courts in a case called Boumediene vs. Bush, the question is whether Mohammed wants attorneys to file a habeas corpus petition on his behalf — claiming his detention is unlawful.
The Supreme Court ruling ”may change our client’s perspective. But I don’t have the faintest idea,” said Navy Reserves Capt. Prescott Prince, KSM’s Pentagon-appointed defense lawyer.
Also, lawyers who had been shuttling to remote Guantánamo for years noted that the Supreme Court ruling rendered this outpost useless to the degree that it did not seal off detainees from recourse to the U.S. Constitution.
”The thing about Boumediene is, we really don’t need to be down here any more,” said Navy Lt. Cmdr. William Kuebler, a military defense attorney, as he rode a ferry crossing Guantánamo Bay ahead of Wednesday’s hearing for the Canadian captive, Khadr.
WAR CRIMES DOSSIER: more on torturegate
This Pentagon file photo, obtained by The Associated Press, shows Sgt. Michael Smith, left, with his dog Marco, menacing a detainee at an unspecified date in 2003 at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, Iraq.
Military psychologists were enlisted to help develop more aggressive interrogation methods, including snarling dogs, forced nudity and long periods of standing, against terrorism suspects, according to a Senate investigation.
Before they were approved by then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, such harsh techniques had drawn warnings from military lawyers that they could be illegal, an investigation by the Senate Armed Services Committee has found. Officials familiar with the findings discussed them on condition of anonymity because the information has not been formally released . . .
And this from Capital Hill Blue
People often scoff at the notion of "military justice," opining that it is an oxymoron. Nothing could be further from the truth. To get a feel for the value that the military puts in its lawyers, watch this video: Gitmo hearing 'not justice'; in this case, MAJ Jackson is willing to put his career on the line to call the proceeding what it is - an injustice. That's pretty outspoken for a military officer, but it is a value that the Army in particular expects from its officers - to do the right thing, even when it is the hard thing.
Those of us who are trained in the law, and military law in particular, are not as surprised as others. We understand that the Uniform Code of Military Justice is quite a remarkable instrument for justice - which is apparently why the administration was so reluctant to use it. For example, most people think that the famous phrase "you have the right to remain silent..." comes from the Supreme Court's decision in Miranda v. Arizona - it actually is modeled on the UCMJ's Article 31, which preceded Miranda by 16 years. F. Lee Bailey, the famous defense attorney, has opined that if he were innocent he would rather be tried in a military court martial than in a civilian court because of the safeguards required in such trials. That is the objection that many of us have to the Military Commissions Act. There were established procedures, recognized as "just" around the world, including in international law, that could have been used. The Geneva Conventions specifically provide that:
I have been disturbed by other authorizations by the administration that are not in conformity with the Geneva Conventions, in particular GC III, Art. 99, which provides:
Quote:No moral or physical coercion may be exerted on a prisoner of war in order to induce him to admit himself guilty of the act of which he is accused.
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond - impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer - N. Hussein O'Ponderer
WAR CRIMES DOSSIER: Diane Abbott's 42-day speech
Diane Abbott's 42-days speech
The Hackney North and Stoke Newington MP's speech last night was hailed by the Tory who followed her, David Davies, as 'one of the finest speeches I have heard since being elected to the House of Commons'. Here is what she said.
guardian.co.uk, Thursday June 12 2008
Diane Abbott protesting against the increase in the length of time terrorism suspects can be detained without charge on June 10. Photograph: Nils Jorgensen/Rex Features
As has been said throughout this debate, the first duty of parliament is the safety of the realm. It is because I believe that the proposals on 42-day detention will make us less safe, not more safe, that I oppose them. I do not take terrorism lightly.
I am a Londoner and I heard the last major IRA bomb, at Canary Wharf, from my kitchen in east London. Like thousands of Londoners, I waited for the early-morning call that assured me that friends and family on their way to work and school had not been caught up in those bombings. I will not take lectures from ministers about not taking terrorism seriously.
I do not believe, as ministers continue to insist, that there is some trade-off between our liberties and the safety of the realm. What makes us free is what makes us safe, and what makes us safe is what will make us free.
I ask the house to reflect on how we got here. Two years ago, this house emphatically rejected the proposal for 90-day detention. I do not talk very much about custom and practice in parliament, but it is custom and practice that when the government lose a vote on a proposal, they do not bring back a similar proposal in the same parliament.
My hon friends in the whips office now know why that is so: it is because losing the vote is a clue that the government do not have the votes. The government machinery has devoted 10 days to bone-crunching pressure on potential rebels, again because they do not have the votes. Ministers have appeared in the media saying that they have won the argument. They may win the vote, but they have emphatically not won the argument.
Two years ago, the house rejected the 90-day proposal. The issue should never have come back, and all this high drama has been caused by bringing back something that the house has already rejected. I voted for 28 days, but I remind the house that I and others did so only under duress.
We believed that by voting for 28 days the debate would be finished for this parliament and an upper limit would be established. Some of us were unwilling to go as far as 28 days. That is why we are so upset that the government have come back with this proposal, reneging—as far as we are concerned—on a tacit understanding that voting for 28 days would finish the debate on this issue for this parliament.
Why have the government come back with this proposal? Speculation has raged on the Labour benches as to what has moved the prime minister to take this dangerous course. Some people say that he wants to try to do something that Tony Blair could not do. Some people say that he is driven by the polls. Some people say that last year he saw an article in the Sun that said that he was soft on terrorism and he has been heading down this path ever since.
In reality and despite everything that ministers say, nothing has changed since two years ago. The arguments that they used then about computers and complications are the arguments that they are using now. I ask ministers to spare the house those arguments about decrypting computers. The law exists to deal with people who wilfully refuse to decrypt computer evidence.
The government came back with a proposal that the house rejected two years ago. Interestingly, when they did so it then took them several months to come up with a time limit. Was it to be 29 days, or 30, or 40? At one point, some of us offered to put our hands in a hat and to draw out a number for the home secretary.
They did not have a number of days because this is not an objective, evidence-driven bill. It is the purest politics. It is about the polls and about positioning. It is about putting the Conservative party in the wrong place on terrorism.
I put it to colleagues that we should not play ducks and drakes with our civil liberties in order to get a few months' advantage in the opinion polls. We have got here through a process that involved the wrong practical politics and was wrongly motivated.
Let me remind the house of what is problematic about the proposal. The security services have unusually gone public and said that they are not calling for the change. The director of public prosecutions, unusually, has gone public and said that he is not calling for it. I remind the House that he is the prosecuting authority.
"We will hear from ministers about the police, but the police are split on the subject. We have heard about Sir Ian Blair—whose days might be numbered under the former Member for Henley; hey, that's life—but the most senior Muslim policeman in the Metropolitan police force, Tarique Ghaffur, has said privately and emphatically that he believes that the risk to community cohesion of the proposal is not worth any operational advantage.
It is alleged—I use that word because I do not want to abuse parliamentary privilege—that he was called in by Sir Ian Blair and asked to consider his position. The police are split on this subject. Let us hear no more about the police as a whole being behind the proposal.
WAR CRIMES DOSSIER: Police arrest demonstrators in London
Protesters clash with police in attempt to storm Whitehall
By Cahal Milmo, Chief Reporter
Monday, 16 June 2008
EPA
Police arrest an anti-Bush protester yesterday
Police wielding batons clashed with protesters last night when a demonstration against George Bush's farewell visit to Britain turned violent a few hundred metres from where the US President was dining with Gordon Brown.
Within the shadow of the Houses of Parliament, officers dressed in riot gear skirmished with several hundred demonstrators who had been attending a rally organised by the Stop the War Coalition.
The Metropolitan Police said 25 protesters were arrested. In some cases, squads of police in riot gear had swooped upon individual demonstrators , picking out their target then barging through the crowd to detain them.
Police drew batons and truncheons in an attempt to push back a crowd which at 6.20pm moved from the rally on Parliament Square to try to gain entry to Whitehall. A squad of riot officers and horses were later sent to reinforce the barricade as protesters chanting "George Bush, terrorist" and "Bush go home" repeatedly tried to break through the reinforced crowd barriers and concrete blocks.
The decision to close Whitehall while Mr Bush and his wife, Laura, dined with Mr Brown and his wife, Sarah, was condemned by campaigners and the Liberal Democrats as an example of civil liberties being curtailed at the request of a foreign government.
The clashes were in stark contrast to Mr Bush's arrival in London at the end of a week-long tour expected to be his last in Europe before he leaves office.
A grand total of 28 protesters from the Stop the War Coalition gathered at Windsor, where Mr Bush had tea with the Queen.
Iqbal Siddiq, 26, a student at the Windsor protest, said: "The message is good riddance. He's still the mass murderer-in-chief. But ... he's yesterday's man. Everything he did to engineer the war in Iraq still makes me angry but it is fast becoming history. We've got to concentrate on the next guy and the mess Bush has left behind."
Mr Bush became the first US president to be hosted at Windsor since Ronald Reagan in 1982. Buckingham Palace confirmed the couple had shown particular interest in a suit of armour worn by Henry VIII.
Whether this aside sparked a conversation about the perils of foreign invasions or armed combat will go unrecorded by history but more serious matters awaited Mr Bush as some of the 1,000 police deployed at a cost of £1m to ensure his security took up positions among the trees and on turrets with rifles and sub-machine guns.
But it was the closure of Whitehall by Scotland Yard and its implications for civil liberties that provoked the strongest feelings. A Stop the War spokesman, Andrew Burgin, said: "What would the Americans think if Gordon Brown turned up with a 700-strong entourage who told them to close down central Washington? It is the sort of high-handed attitude that has been shown by Bush all along."
June 15, 2008
WAR CRIMES DOSSIER: Special Prosecutor Information
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.
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:
global people for the impeachment of Richard Cheney
Petition to remove Nancy Pelosi as House Speaker
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
June 14, 2008
As George Bush visits London, Reprieve tells Bush and Brown: Bring Binyam Back to Britain
Where: Trafalgar Square, in front of the National Gallery
When: 3 pm, Sunday 15 June
Who: Reprieve Director Clive Stafford Smith, former Guantánamo prisoners, Barney the Dinosaur and other special guests
On Sunday 15 June, US President George W. Bush is visiting London as part of his valedictory world tour, and will be having tea with the Queen and dinner with Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
Reprieve, the legal action charity that represents over 30 Guantánamo prisoners, is using this opportunity to highlight the suffering of Binyam Mohamed, the London resident who remains in Guantánamo Bay. The US military has announced that it wants to put him through its discredited military commission process, and a final decision will be made in the next two weeks. The commission system is so corrupt that Col. Morris Davis recently quit as the chief military prosecutor, because of the system’s many flaws, one being that evidence derived from torture was going to be used against the prisoners.
Nothing could be more true of Binyam, who was taken to Morocco where his genitals were razor-bladed for 18 months. After that he was rendered to more abuse in the CIA-run “Dark Prison” in Kabul, where he was tortured psychologically, hung up and subjected to incredibly loud music for 20 days at a time. He has been imprisoned in Guantánamo Bay since September 2004.
The timing of President Bush’s visit to London is fortuitous but only if we can make sure that he gets the message. We are meeting at 3 pm outside the National Gallery in Trafalgar Square and are working towards a finale outside the Southbank Centre, where Massive Attack are hosting a series of Reprieve events as part of Meltdown 2008, at 4.30pm.
Throughout this initiative, Reprieve will dramatize the torture-by-music that Binyam and other prisoners have suffered. Barney the Purple Dinosaur will be making a personal appearance, as the theme tune to this popular children’s show has been one of the US torturers’ favourite pieces of torture music. We are also hoping to involve other creative “cartoon characters”: Katy the Kangaroo Court, and even Roger the Razor Blade. Cosmetics firm Lush, who have been supporting the work of Reprieve, have kindly agreed to bring along their massive “Fair Trial My Arse” orange underpants, to highlight the nature of the unjust process that Binyam is facing.
You don’t have to sing the Barney theme song with us (although you’d be welcome to!). Or you can dress up in any outfit you think dramatises Binyam’s torture over the past six years. We are also very keen for credible spokespeople to stand up for Binyam and demand that Gordon Brown place his immediate repatriation to Britain on the summit agenda.
Please join us!
WAR CRIMES DOSSIER: War Profiteers articles
Dogs of War: Inherently governmental?
May 9th, 2008
Amid all the polemics over the use of private military and security contractors by the U.S. government there are two words one rarely sees, but they lie at the very heart of the debate: "inherently governmental."
KBR puts more emphasis on construction
by John Porretto, Associated Press
May 7th, 2008
KBR Inc.'s proposed $550 million acquisition of an Alabama engineering and construction company is further evidence of its drive to expand its presence in industrial construction, the top executive of the military and engineering contractor said Tuesday.
CorpWatch’s Pratap Chatterjee and Ex-Titan Translator Marwan Mawiri on Corporate Cronyism and Intelligence Outsourcing in Iraq
by Juan Gonzalez, Democracy Now!
A Senate Democratic committee heard testimony Monday alleging fraud and waste by the Pentagon’s largest contractor in Iraq, Kellogg Brown and Root, or KBR. KBR denied all the allegations. It used to be a subsidiary of Halliburton, the company formerly headed by Vice President Dick Cheney.
5th Circuit to Weigh Jurisdiction Over Contractors in Iraq
by Daphne Eviatar, The American Lawyer
CorpWatch's Pratap Chatterjee is referenced regarding the Iraq War outsourcing of military functions to KBR
The Great Iraq Swindle
by Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone
August 23rd, 2007
Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi chronicles how the U.S. government botched the reconstruction of Iraq, drawing on examples from CorpWatch's new book: Baghdad Bonanza (City Lights Books, 2008)
Houston Chronicle: Though CEO leaving for Mideast, he says city is still key
by Brett Clanton, Houston Chronicle
May 17th, 2007
Halliburton CEO David Lesar distances himself from problems with former subsidiary in Iraq, in reply to CorpWatch questions at the company annual meeting.
Democracy Now! Iraq's Missing Oil and Halliburton's Houston Send-Off
by Amy Goodman
May 15th, 2007
Democracy Now!'s Amy Goodman interviews CorpWatch about the new "Goodbye, Houston" alternative annual Halliburton report on the eve of CEO David Lesar's departure for Dubai
Independent: Halliburton: From Bush's favourite to a national disgrace
by Andrew Buncombe, Independent (UK)
March 14th, 2007
Sunday Times (UK): How the West short-changed Afghanistan
by Fariba Nawa, Sunday Times (London)
October 29th, 2006
CorpWatch's Fariba Nawa reports on the troubles of her homeland, Afghanistan, in the Sunday Morning Times.
CNN International: Hurricane Katrina One Year Later
by Jonathan Mann, CNN International
August 29th, 2006
Independent: Katrina: disaster profiteers pocket millions in deals
by Andrew Buncombe, The Independent (UK)
August 20th, 2006
The Independent examines CorpWatch's report on the reconstruction following Hurricane Katrina.
New Orleans Times Picayune: FEMA contracts reignite protests
by James Varney, New Orleans Times Picayune
The Times Picayune references CorpWatch's report on Hurricane Katrina in this article discussing how travel trailer contracts were awarded to a Californian and Texan firm that were supposed to benefit small local firms.
Marketplace (National Public Radio): Katrina Profiteering
by Kai Ryssdal , Marketplace Radio
August 17th, 2006
Marketplace host Kai Ryssdal speaks to CorpWatch's Pratap Chatterjee about the parallels between Iraq and Hurricane Katrina, where reconstruction has been marred by profiteering.
Financial Times: Weapons and dice, and all things vice
Financial Times
Financial Times Money Management feature cites CorpWatch as a source in review of 'corporate social responsibility'
Bergen Record: Watchdog group accuses contractor of shoddy Afghan work
by Hugh R. Morley, Bergen Record
May 21st, 2006
Morning Edition: Report Takes Dim View of Afghan Rebuilding Work
by Renee Montagne, Morning Edition (NPR)
May 5th, 2006
Writing for the non-profit group CorpWatch, journalist Fariba Nawa tells Renee Montagne she found evidence of flawed work on schools, health clinics, roads and other public projects financed by the United States and other countries.
Denver Post: Lewis: Dubai deal business as usual
by Al Lewis, The Denver Post
February 25th, 2006
East Bay Express: Far From Home
by Chris Thompson, East Bay Express
February 8th, 2006
CorpWatch's Afghan investigative correspondent, Fariba Nawa, gets featured in this cover article for our local weekly newspaper.
MSNBC: The Abrams Report
MSNBC
February 2nd, 2006
MSNBC's Abram Report interviews CorpWatch's Pratap Chatterjee about fraud involving Defense Department contractors.
New York Newsday: Christian right exhorts consumer crusades
by Carol Eisenberg, Newsday
December 14th, 2005
CorpWatch is quoted in an article about the consumer activism of the religious right.
Boston Globe: Raytheon to employ retired officers
by Robert Weisman, The Boston Globe
December 10th, 2005
CorpWatch's Pratap Chatterjee comments on the hiring of retired high-ranking Army, Navy, and Air Force officers for a new line of executive jobs.
Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Workers from poor countries serve the 48th
by Moni Basu, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
November 6th, 2005
CorpWatch's research cited in this article about third country nationals (TCNs) from Asia who work for low pay to support the U.S. occupation of Iraq.
CNN International: Investment Activism
by Jonathon Mann, CNN
August 24th, 2005
CNN interviews Pratap Chatterjee of CorpWatch about shareholder activism on the left and on the right.
Washington Post: Halliburton's Higher Bill
by Griff Witte, Washington Post
July 6th, 2005
Washington Post quotes our research as source for new secret $5 billion contract with Halliburton. Our military correspondent provided the Post with military contracts that the Pentagon refused to release.
New York Newsday: Working in a war zone
by Patricia Kitchen, Newsday
February 13th, 2005
In an article about job recruiting and conditions for military contractors in Iraq, CorpWatch explains how people will often contact CorpWatch, looking to get hired by these firms.
WAR CRIMES DOSSIER: Over the Counter Intelligence
Posted by Philip Mattera on June 13th, 2008
Tim Shorrock, a veteran investigative journalist and a longtime subscriber to the Dirt Diggers Digest, has just come out with a book called Spies for Hire: The Secret World of Intelligence Outsourcing. Shorrock describes how an activity that used to be handled by spooks on the federal payroll has been steadily transformed into a $50 billion Intelligence-Industrial Complex.
Thanks to the contracting scandals surrounding Halliburton and its former subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root, the public learned of the extent to which the Pentagon has turned over routine functions to private military companies. The outrageous behavior of Blackwater has highlighted the use of mercenaries to protect U.S. diplomats and other VIPs in Iraq.
Shorrock shines a light on another group of corporations that are carrying out a more sensitive function that most people have no idea is being handed over to the private sector. Careful readers of the revelations concerning abuses at the U.S.-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq would have learned that interrogators alleged to have abused detainees included civilians employed by a company called CACI. But that is only the tip of a lucrative iceberg, Shorrock shows.
For example, he writes, more than half the people working at the super-secret National Counterterrorism Center in Virginia are employees of companies such as Science Applications International Corporation ( SAIC ), BAE Systems and Lockheed Martin. The Center’s terrorist database is maintained by The Analysis Corporation, which subcontracted collection activities to CACI.
Since 9/11, Shorrock says, the Central Intelligence Agency has been spending 50-60 percent of its budget (or about $2.5 billion a year) on contractors—both individuals and companies. At the CIA and its sister spook agencies: “Tasks that are now outsourced include running spy networks out of embassies, intelligence analysis, signals intelligence (SIGINT) collection, covert operations, and the interrogation of enemy prisoners.”
Shorrock devotes an entire chapter to Booz Allen Hamilton, known to most people as a management consultant for large corporations but which pioneered the intelligence outsourcing industry (though it recently agreed to sell its federal business to the Carlyle Group). When Mike McConnell, a former Booz Allen executive, was named by President Bush as Director of National Intelligence, it was the first time, Shorrock notes, that a contractor was put in charge of the country’s entire spy apparatus.
Spies for Hire has much more to offer that cannot be adequately summarized here. I recommend that you read it in full. But let me let also note that profiles of some of the intelligence contractors discussed by Shorrock—such as CACI and ManTech International—can be found on the Crocodyl wiki to which I contribute. Also note that the updated edition of Jeremy Scahill’s valuable book Blackwater , recently issued in paperback, has a discussion (p.453 forward) on the mercenary company’s move into another form of privatized intelligence—a product called Total Intelligence Solutions that is designed to bring “CIA-style” services to Fortune 500 companies.
http://dirtdiggersdigest.org/archives/60
Dirt Diggers Digest is written by Philip Mattera, director of the Corporate Research Project, an affiliate of Good Jobs First.
See also feature articles by Tim Shorrock on CorpWatch.org:
Domestic Spying, Inc.
QinetiQ Goes Kinetic: Top Rumsfeld Aide Wins Contracts From Spy Office He Set Up
Carlyle Group May Buy CIA Contractor: Booz Allen Hamilton
June 13, 2008
WAR CRIMES DOSSIER: Pentagon blocked Cheney's attack on Iran
Pentagon blocked Cheney's attack on Iran
By Gareth Porter
WASHINGTON - Pentagon officials firmly opposed a proposal by Vice President Dick Cheney last summer for airstrikes against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) bases by insisting that the administration would have to make clear decisions about how far the United States would go in escalating the conflict with Iran, according to a former George W Bush administration official.
J Scott Carpenter, who was then deputy assistant secretary of state in the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, recalled in an interview that senior Defense Department (DoD) officials and the Joint Chiefs used the escalation issue as the main argument against the Cheney proposal.
D
From the Asian Times - more here (good read in one sense, not in another .. )
It's not LEGAL to provoke another nation .. plus it's a Constitutional VIOLATION.
Under Geneva no one can saber rattle.
Under the Constitution, no one can declare WAR without Congressional approval. (and OBVIOUSLY some wimpy, selfish souls in the Armed Forces committee knew all about it.)
June 12, 2008
WAR CRIMES DOSSIER: reasons to remove Nancy Pelosi, Part II
Exploring Constitutional Language On Pardons of Presidents
Arguments:
1. Constitutional Language Restricts President's Pardon Power if House Starts An Impeachment; and
2. The Pardon Power of the President is not constrained only if there is a Senate Conviction.
This comment points to language in the Constitution showing the Framers:
A. Intended for the House to thwart the President from granting pardons;B. Made an important distinction between impeachment proceedings started by the House, and the trial phase with judgment in the Senate on issues related to the Pardon;
C. Intended to place in the Constitution an inherent power of the House, regardless the Senate Action, to deny the Executive of any prospect of a pardon.
Let's accept the Supreme Court's view that Congress may not, by statute, affect a pardon. We accept for discussion pardon is unreviewable, but this does not help the President. The Court concludes the Constitution is the source of the limitation, if any:
"We therefore hold that the pardoning power is an enumerated power of the Constitution, and that its limitations, if any, must be found in the Constitution itself." [ Schick v. Reed, 419 U.S. 256 (1974) ]
Exploring the Constitution
Let's compare two sections of the Constitution discussing impeachment and pardons: Article I Section 3; and Article II Section 2.
Argument:
There is language in the Constitution distinguishing between "case of impeachment" and "judgment":
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office
A I, S 3
One way to interpret this clause is to say, the Framers intended for the "Case of impeachment" -- the proceeding, started by the House -- to be distinguished from and different than the Judgment in the Senate.
Going back to Article II, the framers repeated the language of "Cases of impeachment", but does not mention, "Judgment". That omission is important:
"[H]e shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."
A II S 2
The Framers clearly distinguished in Article I Section 3 between
"judgment"
and
"cases of impeachment"
This suggests one way to interpret the Constitution is the House, by starting an impeachment hearing and trial, could prevent the President from enjoying a pardon.
Article II repeats the language of Article I, meaning the House -- by starting an impeachment proceeding -- denies the President of a pardon.
Had the framers want to permit the President to enjoy a pardon for offenses against the Constitution, the Framers would have delegated a power to the Senate to trump the House; and included express language in re the pardon, "Except in judgment for impeachment."
There is no word "judgment" in Article II meaning, the distinguishing language in Article I defines the pardon power as permissible, except when the House starts an impeachment ["cases of impeachment"].
Any effort to grant a pardon to President Bush after any impeachment proceeding -- regardless the judgment of the Senate -- would be unconstitutional.
The Speaker and President must argue their legal theory to justify no removal, investigation, or Impeachment. However, it is for the House to decide through legislative debate, not for the Speaker to assert, what the Constitution means on this inherent House power of "denying a President any chance of pardon through an impeachment proceeding."
The above is not intended to be a definitive assertion of what the Constitution says or means. Rather, it is the job of the Speaker and President to argue their case, view, legal position before the House and the Senate.
This is a power of the House which the Speaker and President have jointly attempted to thwart the House from discussing, reviewing, debating, or asserting. The House is not obliged to embrace the Speaker or President's views; the House has the power to challenge the Speaker and say,
We would like to act as an independent body, unconnected from the SEnate, and not pressured by the President.We in the House would like to investigate, review the facts, and let the Speaker and President justify why we should not deny the President a pardon; and why the Speaker should not be removed.
When we gather the facts, we can make an informed decision:
A. Do we charge the President with a crime; and
B. Do we declare the Speaker's position vacant.
Only the House, not the Speaker or President, has the power to decide the above.
Indeed, this has not been tested. We've never had a Speaker make excuses for a President who ignored the Constitution and defied the Geneva Conventions. The way forward is not to throw this to the winds and say, "We have other things to think about." The agenda must be the Constitution, not the partisan smokescreen of fear of division.
The Framers intended there to be division; division challenges tyranny. This Speaker and President fear division because it is a threat to their assertions. They are antithetical to what the Framers intended: Challenges to power.
The answer is to respectfully put the question to the Speaker, in the form of a proclamation declaring her position vacant, and ask her:
Why is she not making the President do the work, make the defense, and argue the Constitution says something in his favor?
The answer is for the House to debate, not for the Speaker or President to declare, "That question is off the table."
No, the Constitution is on the table, and the Speaker and President have not addressed the question: The Constitution.
Let's stop making the President' argument for him. It's time to make the Speaker maker her argument: Why does she take a view of the Constitution that favors the President; but when it comes to the Constitution itself, she puts her party above the Constitution.
The courts have ruled that the language about "pardons" is derived not by the government, but form the Constitution. Pelosi is ignoring the Constitution; but doing what the Framers did not intend: For one faction or one branch to dictate how the Constitution will or will not be interpreted.
The Constitution -- not the Speaker -- says what the President, the House, and the Senate do or do not have by way of power. The Speaker is doing what the President has done with Iraq: Unilaterally asserting a foregone conclusion, sticking to that conclusion regardless the facts, and mandating her view of the law trumps the House, the Senate, and the Constitution. McClellan warned us of this.
That is tyranny, and it must be challenged by removing her as Speaker. The President and Speaker must be confronted for their joint decision to put their decision and agreement before the Constitution. The House is not obliged to accept either decision.
Nor are We the People.
WAR CRIMES DOSSIER: Arguments for Nancy Pelosi's removal, Part IIi
Federalist 69: Hamilton Foresaw Bush's Rebellion, Pelosi's Complicity
You are encouraged to closely study Federalist 69 on issues of impeachment, Presidential pardons, and independent House power to strip the President of any hope of a pardon.
Here is one view. Let's assume for the sake of argument you do not agree with the above interpretation of Article I S 3; and Article II Section 2. There is language which suggests what the Framers intended: Hamilton's Federalist 69.
Keep the following in mind as you read this, the alleged treason of permitting spies in Guantanamo, but blocking the FBI from reviewing that activity.
These issues are ones for the House to debate, not for the Speaker or President to assert.
Let's review Hamilton's comments no pardon in Federalist 69.
Note there is no mention of "judgment," merely Hamilton mentions "all cases", without mentioning a conviction.
Hamilton: "Thirdly. The power of the President, in respect to pardons, would extend to all cases, EXCEPT THOSE OF IMPEACHMENT."
Arguably, once the President is charged by the House with any crime -- those charges brought in criminal court outside impeachment -- are immune to pardon.
Note the mention of "political" consequence. Here Hamilton repeats the "all cases", does not use the word "judgment":
Notice also, Hamilton is saying something important here: The pardon is linked with a criminal trial and an impeachment. The governor of NY can pardon in (a) all criminal cases; and (b) cases of impeachment. The criminal case is separate than the impeachment case.
Hamilton: "The governor of New York may pardon in all cases, even in those of impeachment, except for treason and murder. Is not the power of the governor, in this article, on a calculation of political consequences, greater than that of the President?"
The Speaker has no power to screen the President on the eve of an investigation. The question is whether, after an investigation, the illegal treason is challenged. This means the all attempts can be pardoned; but where there is an actual offense, not just an attempt, that offense by the Executive cannot be pardoned.
But notice the issue: There are two things happening: A criminal trial, and an impeachment. The latter is while they are in office; the former is after leaving office. That is incorrect. A sitting President may be prosecuted by a prosecutor or impeached by the House.
Hamilton: "All conspiracies and plots against the government, which have not been matured into actual treason, may be screened from punishment of every kind, by the interposition of the prerogative of pardoning."
This means the President, who does not bring his efforts into an illegal end, should enjoy the option of enjoying a pardon. But the opposite means that once the President achieves the illegal outcome, the President should have known that the House -- with the impeachment -- would deny him of a pardon in any future criminal case.
This means the President tried after leaving office, cannot enjoy a pardon; to leave the pardon on the table would reward the President for hiding not just attempts but the illegal effects of his conspiracy. That President's activity cannot enjoy the gift of a pardon from another executive.
Propaganda Strategy: Shifting Attention From Actions of Executive To Legislature
Here, Hamilton says a State governor could shield people, until there was an overt act. The issue is not the action of the Senate or House; but the actions of the conspirators:
Hamilton: "If a governor of New York, therefore, should be at the head of any such conspiracy, until the design had been ripened into actual hostility he could insure his accomplices and adherents an entire impunity."
We look at the results, not the attempt: Was there illegal activity? If there was, and the House charges but the Senate refuses to convict, the President is not immune to a trial because of a promise of a pardon. Rather, once convicted in court, the House impeachment would thwart the President from enjoying a Constitutional pardon.
President Cannot Do What Hamilton Said A Governor Might Do
Hamilton says the President has less assurance than a governor he will be immune to sanctions. Hamilton says the President cannot be given the option to shield people, as a governor might. Note closely, he separates "impeachment" and "conviction". They are not the same:
Hamilton: "A President of the Union, on the other hand, though he may even pardon treason, when prosecuted in the ordinary course of law, could shelter no offender, in any degree, from the effects of impeachment and conviction."
"And" in our view means, impeachment is different from the trial phase: "Offenders cannot be shielded from the adverse consequences of both an impeachment by the House or a conviction by the Senate."
Once a criminal trial starts -- on those charges subject to the impeachment -- the President cannot pardon someone, and block a trial or conviction; or overturn that conviction. The effect of impeachment by the House is expressly one Hamilton says no defendant can be insulated.
Hamilton wanted to ensure the President -- who engages in war crimes -- could not be sure of any pardon. Hamilton reminds us that the President could not reasonably believe he would avoid consequences by simply avoiding a Senate Conviction. Rather, the threat of a House impeachment -- outside, unrelated to the Senate -- must discipline the President to not engage in that offensive conduct.
Today's problem is the President did not waiver in his rebellion, despite the threat of being denied a pardon. It is not a well grounded legal argument for the President to assert, "I thought I was above the law. I believed it." No, this President asserted he was above the law. He is not.
The House impeachment, not just the Senate trial, opens the door to a criminal prosecution of the President; and denies the President of any hope for a pardon.
Hamilton reminds us that a President, believing he only needs to carry 34 votes in the Senate and ignore the House, could engage in genocide and crimes against humanity. That is impermissible.
Hamilton: "Would not the prospect of a total indemnity for all the preliminary steps be a greater temptation to undertake and persevere in an enterprise against the public liberty, than the mere prospect of an exemption from death and confiscation, if the final execution of the design, upon an actual appeal to arms, should miscarry?"
Hamilton foresaw Pelosi might support the President, and thwart the House from investigating:
Hamilton: "Would this last expectation have any influence at all, when the probability was computed, that the person who was to afford that exemption might himself be involved in the consequences of the measure, and might be incapacitated by his agency in it from affording the desired impunity?"
Hamilton warned us in so many words: Those who are involved may have a vested interest in not acting, not confronting, and taking impeachment off the table.
Indeed, one issue is treason. The Question is whether the House will consider the possibility this Speaker and President have jointly committed treason in secret, and made excuses to induce the House not to assert its power:
Hamilton: "The better to judge of this matter, it will be necessary to recollect, that, by the proposed Constitution, the offense of treason is limited "to levying war upon the United States, and adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort''; and that by the laws of New York it is confined within similar bounds."
This does not mean that the charge of treason must be on the table before the Speaker is challenged, removed, or forced to start an investigation.
It does mean we need to have an investigation to find out what happened, and why Pelosi is spending this much time removing a legal option to deny the President a pardon. Until the investigation is complete, it is reasonable to remove Pelosi pending a House review under the House Ethics rule. If warranted, the evidence of her alleged rebellion and cooperation with the President may be presented to war crimes prosecutors or adjudicated before a United States Criminal court.
We the People need to know why the House, Pelosi, and the President appear quick to avoid facts. Hamilton suggested we be proceed with caution. Pelosi and the President are not sharing Hamilton's caution.
The prospect of an acquittal in the Senate incorrectly gave the President a green light to beleive he was above the law, would not be held to account, and could defy the Law. Hamilton intended for the threat of a House impeachment to dissuade this President. It appears Addington, the GOP, and Pelosi convinced themselves, each other, and this President -- as long as the DNC did not have enough votes to convict -- nothing could happen.
Hamilton's language in Federalist 69 must be openly discussed by the nation at large, the media, and on the House floor. The issue isn't what Hamilton meant; but what Addington, the President, and Pelosi construed the language to permit or prevent. What they did or would have us believe they believed has no relationship to what the Framers intended; or what the express language recognizes: An impeachment is not the same as a judgement.
The Framers intended for this risk to be a deterrent:
All the legal issues and cases -- subject to the House charges in an impeachment -- may never be pardoned by any future executive.
This crew ignored the foreseeable consequences -- a conviction, without prospect of a pardon -- and destroyed war crimes evidence; then induced the DNC to believe any House action would be bad for the DNC. No, the House action is bad for the President and his alleged war crimes co-conspirators.
A plain reading of Hamilton's words in Federalist 69 strongly suggests the reason the President blocked the FBI General Counsel Valerie E. Caproni from reviewing the DoJ OLC memoranda on torture was that it was evidence the President wanted to suppress from the FBI. The President cannot explain what happened to the FBI war crimes evidence at Guantanamo. Those files have disappeared. That is not a defense, but a subsequent offense warranting the House review, not an issue to sweep under the table.
Hamilton would reject any assertion that the President faces no consequences until the minority party has 67 votes in the Senate. Hamilton intended for the threat of a House impeachment alone to deter the President by denying the President of any hope of a pardon; and expose this President after a trial in the Senate to another trial, and have no hope for a pardon.
Denying a pardon does not mean the President is unfairly subjected to prosecution. He may be acquitted, but that is something Hamilton intended for this President to fight for in court, not coast along, smugly assuming nothing would happen.
Hamilton and the Framers intended for the President to be deterred, and have no hope of coasting through a trial, and avoiding consequences for attempting to shred the Constitution. The House has the power to strip this President of any hope for a pardon merely by doing what Hamilton intended: Removing the President from all assurances he might enjoy immunity for illegal activity. That prospect -- a foreseeable risk known to the President's private counsel -- is this President would have us believe he never imagined.
Non-sense. He knew what he was doing, what he was ignoring, and what the foreseeable consequences were. He ignored the law and the consequences. He views himself as above the law and reality: Hence, is reckless handling of Katrina, the failure to adjust in Iraq, and the inability to defeat people living in caves in Afghanistan.
Indeed, the threat of a war crimes trial and adjudication of war crimes failed to inspire this President to comply with the laws of war, but the opposite: He thwarted the FBI General Counsel from examining the legal arguments used to thwart Geneva restrictions against all POW abuse.
This President has a problem. So does the Speaker. So does the White House and DoJ and DoD staff counsel. This is connected to the DoD emails, the FISA violations, rendition, POW abuse, Abramoff, and McClellan's book. The same people, the same coordination, and the same excuses to pretend they had a belief; but distract attention from the known lack of evidence of an imminent threat. Their beliefs do not seem credible. They do not appear to have reasonably relied on any orders.
Their job as a defendant will be to prove -- despite Hamilton -- that they believed they were above the law, would face no consequences, and only the Senate was relevant. No, the only issue is the Supreme Law and the Geneva Conventions; and what they did. Whether the Senate does or does not convict is unrelated to what Hamilton intended the House to have: A large stick to wave before the Executive. Pelosi has no power to take that stick off the table.
We the People have a very large stick. It is the Constitution, and our inherent power to discuss what must be done to ensure this abuse -- despite Hamilton's assurances -- does not happen again. Pelosi cannot remove that debate from the public forum.
