Did Democrat leadership bury Cheney impeachment?

Did Democrat leadership bury Cheney impeachment?

David Swanson talks about U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich's impeachment bill

Wednesday November 7th, 2007

This is a merely POLITICAL statement and doesn't represent people's views.

Polls have CONSISTENTLY shown that people voted for the Democrats to get RID OF THE TORTURE part of the US' attacks on people and the torture they have been shown.

Why Harry Reid, Henry Waxman, John Conyers and Nancy Pelosi REFUSE to stop these practics and war funding continues is beyond comprehension. This is not about playing "safe"; this is about refusal to end the occupation in Irak and give up all that lovely OIL and what they perceive as a way to get kickbacks from defense contractors, Homeland Security firms while going along with the right-wing think tanks' apologies for "America's midrange 'strategic' advantage".

The killing and torture will not stop unless the PEOPLE stop it. Forget the committees, they aren't working - they are simply STONEWALLING. Yes, push your representative, yes keep on calling but remember the killing has made them INSENSITIVE otherwise they would be leading the antiwar, antinuke movements, even the environmental movement - but obviously they are NOT.

This is a global question and again, if we DON'T act, the rest of the world will be doing it anyway OR they'll have LEGAL GROUNDS TO ATTACK AMERICA, something not even mentioned on this The Real News interview.

I am not interested in watching more TV interviews, I am interested in watching MORE TV interviews, I am interested in seeing an end to the killing and nuclear pollution of INNOCENT VICTIMS.

Remember: The people in CONgress willingly voted to keep funding the war in full cognizence that this was against the Geneva Conventions!! They have all the Constitutional and international lawyers anyone to come and give them this opinion. The know fully well what they are doing. And to put it bluntly.

They do not care.

But we, you and me, we care. It's definitively time to get Nancy Pelosi and John Conyers out of the way.

And don't think you are "Helping" a single politician by insisting on impeachment - just do it

BECAUSE IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO

Transcript:

PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR: On Tuesday in the House of Representatives, Dennis Kucinich tried to move his resolution to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney in a crazy back-and-forth of votes to table the motion, votes to send it to the judiciary committee, with the Republicans first voting one way to table it and then changing their minds and then voting not to table it, trying to force a debate, in theory to embarrass the leading Democrats. In the final analysis, it came to a vote whether to let the thing proceed or get stuck in the judiciary committee. And only five Democrats voted with Kucinich, with all Republicans who wanted to push this thing ahead. It was a rather confusing and dramatic day, and to help us make sense of it is David Swanson, the founder of the Website impeachcheney.org. So, David, what the heck happened yesterday?

Rest of the transcript HERE

10 Reasons to Impeach

Ten Reasons to Impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney

I ask Congress to impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney for the following reasons:

1. Violating the United Nations Charter by launching an illegal "War of Aggression" against Iraq without cause, using fraud to sell the war to Congress and the public, misusing government funds to begin bombing without Congressional authorization, and subjecting our military personnel to unnecessary harm, debilitating injuries, and deaths.

2. Violating U.S. and international law by authorizing the torture of thousands of captives, resulting in dozens of deaths, and keeping prisoners hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross.

3. Violating the Constitution by arbitrarily detaining Americans, legal residents, and non-Americans, without due process, without charge, and without access to counsel.

4. Violating the Geneva Conventions by targeting civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, and using illegal weapons, including white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new type of napalm.

5. Violating U.S. law and the Constitution through widespread wiretapping of the phone calls and emails of Americans without a warrant.

6. Violating the Constitution by using "signing statements" to defy hundreds of laws passed by Congress.

7. Violating U.S. and state law by obstructing honest elections in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006.

8. Violating U.S. law by using paid propaganda and disinformation, selectively and misleadingly leaking classified information, and exposing the identity of a covert CIA operative working on sensitive WMD proliferation for political retribution.

9. Subverting the Constitution and abusing Presidential power by asserting a "Unitary Executive Theory" giving unlimited powers to the President, by obstructing efforts by Congress and the Courts to review and restrict Presidential actions, and by promoting and signing legislation negating the Bill of Rights and the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

10. Gross negligence in failing to assist New Orleans residents after Hurricane Katrina, in ignoring urgent warnings of an Al Qaeda attack prior to Sept. 11, 2001, and in increasing air pollution causing global warming

IMPEACHMENT TOOLKIT. Kunich Privileged Resolution

Rep. Dennis Kucinich Privileged Resolution The Flag of the United States of America Washington, Nov 6 - Below is a copy of the speech Congressman Dennis Kucinich gave on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives today. Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to 2.A.1. of Rule 9, I rise to give notice of my intent to raise a Question of the Privilege of the House, The form of the resolution is as follows: Resolved, That Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate: Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors. Article I In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests, to wit: (1) Despite all evidence to the contrary, the Vice President actively and systematically sought to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction: (A) `We know they have biological and chemical weapons.' March 17, 2002, Press Conference by Vice President Dick Cheney and His Highness Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa, Crown Prince of Bahrain at Shaikh Hamad Palace. (B) `. . . and we know they are pursuing nuclear weapons.' March 19, 2002, Press Briefing by Vice President Dick Cheney and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in Jerusalem. (C) `And he is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time . . .' March 24, 2002, CNN Late Edition interview with Vice President Cheney. (D) `We know he's got chemicals and biological and we know he's working on nuclear.' May 19, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney. (E) `But we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons . . . Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.' August 26, 2002, Speech of Vice President Cheney at VFW 103rd National Convention. (F) `Based on intelligence that's becoming available, some of it has been made public, more of it hopefully will be, that he has indeed stepped up his capacity to produce and deliver biological weapons, that he has reconstituted his nuclear program to develop a nuclear weapon, that there are efforts under way inside Iraq to significantly expand his capability.' September 8, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney. (G) `He is, in fact, actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.' September 8, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney. (H) `And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.' March 16, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney. (2) Preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq the Vice President was fully informed that no legitimate evidence existed of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The Vice President pressured the intelligence community to change their findings to enable the deception of the citizens and Congress of the United States. (A) Vice President Cheney and his Chief of Staff, Lewis Libby, made multiple trips to the CIA in 2002 to question analysts studying Iraq's weapons programs and alleged links to al Qaeda, creating an environment in which analysts felt they were being pressured to make their assessments fit with the Bush administration's policy objectives accounts. (B) Vice President Cheney sought out unverified and ultimately inaccurate raw intelligence to prove his preconceived beliefs. This strategy of cherry picking was employed to influence the interpretation of the intelligence. (3) The Vice President's actions corrupted or attempted to corrupt the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, an intelligence document issued on October 1, 2002, and carefully considered by Congress prior to the October 10, 2002, vote to authorize the use of force. The Vice President's actions prevented the necessary reconciliation of facts for the National Intelligence Estimate which resulted in a high number of dissenting opinions from technical experts in two Federal agencies. (A) The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate stated `Lacking persuasive evidence that Baghdad has launched a coherent effort to reconstitute it's nuclear weapons program INR is unwilling to speculate that such an effort began soon after the departure of UN inspectors or to project a timeline for the completion of activities it does not now see happening. As a result INR is unable to predict that Iraq could acquire a nuclear device or weapon.'. (B) The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate also stated that `Finally, the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious.'. (C) The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate references a Department of Energy opinion by stating that `INR accepts the judgment of technical experts at the US Department of Energy (DOE) who have concluded that the tubes Iraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment and finds unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the case that they are intended for that purpose.'. The Vice President subverted the national security interests of the United States by setting the stage for the loss of more than 3800 United States service members; the loss of more than 1 million innocent Iraqi citizens since the United States invasion; the loss of approximately $500 billion in war costs which has increased our Federal debt; the loss of military readiness within the United States Armed Services due to overextension, lack of training and lack of equipment; the loss of United States credibility in world affairs; and the decades of likely blowback created by the invasion of Iraq. In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office. Article II In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda in order to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests, to wit: (1) Despite all evidence to the contrary, the Vice President actively and systematically sought to deceive the citizens and the Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda: (A) `His regime has had high-level contacts with Al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to Al Qaeda terrorists.' December 2, 2002, Speech of Vice President Cheney at the Air National Guard Senior Leadership Conference. (B) `His regime aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda. He could decide secretly to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against us.' January 30, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney to 30th Political Action Conference in Arlington, Virginia. (C) `We know he's out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the Al Qaeda organization.' March 16, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney. (D) `We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on biological weapons and chemical weapons . . .' September 14, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney. (E) `Al Qaeda had a base of operation there up in Northeastern Iraq where they ran a large poisons factory for attacks against Europeans and U.S. forces.' October 3, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney at Bush-Cheney '04 Fundraiser in Iowa. (F) `He also had an established relationship with Al Qaeda providing training to Al Qaeda members in areas of poisons, gases, and conventional bombs.' October 10, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney to the Heritage Foundation. (G) `Al Qaeda and the Iraqi intelligence services have worked together on a number of occasions.' January 9, 2004, Rocky Mountain News interview with Vice President Cheney. (H) `I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government.' January 22, 2004, NPR: Morning Edition interview with Vice President Cheney. (I) `First of all, on the question of--of whether or not there was any kind of relationship, there clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to; the evidence is overwhelming.' June 17, 2004, CNBC: Capital Report interview with Vice President Cheney. (2) Preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq the Vice President was fully informed that no credible evidence existed of a working relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, a fact articulated in several official documents, including: (A) A classified Presidential Daily Briefing ten days after the September 11, 2001, attacks indicating that the United States intelligence community had no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11th attacks and that there was `scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda'. (B) Defense Intelligence Terrorism Summary No. 044-02, issued in February 2002 by the United States Defense Intelligence Agency, which challenged the credibility of information gleaned from captured al Qaeda leader al-Libi. The DIA report also cast significant doubt on the possibility of a Saddam Hussein-al-Qaeda conspiracy: `Saddam's regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control.'. (C) A January 2003 British intelligence classified report on Iraq that concluded that `there are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaeda network'. The Vice President subverted the national security interests of the United States by setting the stage for the loss of more than 3,800 United States service members; the loss of more than 1 million innocent Iraqi citizens since the United States invasion; the loss of approximately $500 billion in war costs which has increased our Federal debt; the loss of military readiness within the United States Armed Services due to overextension, lack of training and lack of equipment; the loss of United States credibility in world affairs; and the decades of likely blowback created by the invasion of Iraq. In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office. Article III In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran absent any real threat to the United States, and done so with the United States proven capability to carry out such threats, thus undermining the national security of the United States, to wit: (1) Despite no evidence that Iran has the intention or the capability of attacking the United States and despite the turmoil created by United States invasion of Iraq, the Vice President has openly threatened aggression against Iran as evidenced by the following: (A) `For our part, the United States is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime. And we join other nations in sending that regime a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.' March 7, 2006, Speech of Vice President Cheney to American Israel Public Affairs Committee 2006 Policy Conference. (B) `But we've also made it clear that all options are on the table.' January 24, 2007, CNN Situation Room interview with Vice President Cheney. (C) `When we--as the President did, for example, recently--deploy another aircraft carrier task force to the Gulf, that sends a very strong signal to everybody in the region that the United States is here to stay, that we clearly have significant capabilities, and that we are working with friends and allies as well as the international organizations to deal with the Iranian threat.' January 29, 2007, Newsweek interview with Vice President Cheney. (D) `But I've also made the point and the President has made the point that all options are still on the table.' February 24, 2007, Vice President Cheney at Press Briefing with Australian Prime Minister in Sydney, Australia. (2) The Vice President, who repeatedly and falsely claimed to have had specific, detailed knowledge of Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction capabilities, is no doubt fully aware of evidence that demonstrates Iran poses no real threat to the United States as evidenced by the following: (A) `I know that what we see in Iran right now is not the industrial capacity you can [use to develop a] bomb.' Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency, February 19, 2007. (B) Iran indicated its `full readiness and willingness to negotiate on the modality for the resolution of the outstanding issues with the IAEA, subject to the assurances for dealing with the issues in the framework of the Agency, without the interference of the United Nations Security Council'. IAEA Board Report, February 22, 2007. (C) `. . . so whatever they have, what we have seen today, is not the kind of capacity that would enable them to make bombs.' Mohamed El Baradei, Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency, February 19, 2007. (3) The Vice President is fully aware of the actions taken by the United States towards Iran that are further destabilizing the world as evidenced by the following: (A) The United States has refused to engage in meaningful diplomatic relations with Iran since 2002, rebuffing both bilateral and multilateral offers to dialogue. (B) The United States is currently engaged in a military buildup in the Middle East that includes the increased presence of the United States Navy in the waters near Iran, significant United States Armed Forces in two nations neighboring to Iran, and the installation of anti-missile technology in the region. (C) News accounts have indicated that military planners have considered the B61-11, a tactical nuclear weapon, as one of the options to strike underground bunkers in Iran. (D) The United States has been linked to anti-Iranian organizations that are attempting to destabilize the Iranian government, in particular the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), even though the state department has branded it a terrorist organization. (E) News accounts indicate that United States troops have been ordered into Iran to collect data and establish contact with anti-government groups. (4) In the last three years the Vice President has repeatedly threatened Iran. However, the Vice President is legally bound by the U.S. Constitution's adherence to international law that prohibits threats of use of force. (A) Article VI of the United States Constitution states, `This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.' Any provision of an international treaty ratified by the United States becomes the law of the United States. (B) The United States is a signatory to the United Nations Charter, a treaty among the nations of the world. Article II, Section 4 of the United Nations Charter states, `All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.' The threat of force is illegal. (C) Article 51 lays out the only exception, `Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.' Iran has not attacked the United States; therefore any threat against Iran by the United States is illegal. The Vice President's deception upon the citizens and Congress of the United States that enabled the failed United States invasion of Iraq forcibly altered the rules of diplomacy such that the Vice President's recent belligerent actions towards Iran are destabilizing and counterproductive to the national security of the United States. In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office. Mr. Speaker: This resolution is similar to a resolution which I introduced earlier this year and has the support of 22 of my colleagues here in the House of Representatives.

Print version of this document

Impeachment Must Happen

Please drop by the comments section of this article and leave your remarks.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1879

This is another in a series of URLS discussing impeachment!

Please leave further urls/threads discussing impeachment on the comments section of my blog post.
For further information, just put impeachment of Dick Cheney, Nancy Pelosi or war crimes in the searchbox, or hit on the links listed to the side.

Thanks!!


By Carol Davidek-Waller

11/29/07 "ICH" -- -- Clearly the nation has turned against Vice President Cheney and President George W. Bush. Their approval ratings are the lowest of any elected leaders in American history. We are weary of war and bled white from profligate spending and larceny. Our civil rights have been severely restricted and crimes have been committed. A once peaceful world stands on the brink of turmoil.

As the 2008 elections draw near, it's tempting to look upon regime change as an end to our long night. We would like to believe that a change of face in the Oval Office would repair the damage done by the current administration. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Without investigation and impeachment, electing a new president will only serve to codify the unprecedented and illegitimate power stolen from the Congress and the American people. The powers of a dictator will be passed on like an Olympic torch where they will reside with the next president.

The nation has been wounded in its beating heart. The president is no longer obligated to uphold and defend the Constitution or obey and execute the laws of the land. We no longer have the full protection of the Bill of Rights. Our elected leaders are no longer bound to tell the truth. These wounds will continue to fester until they are cleansed by a strong dose of sunlight.

Failure to impeach is a threat to our national security. In the same way that we cannot expect our nation to be secure if we don’t understand what threatens us beyond our borders, we cannot expect the nation to be secure if we don’t understand and check what threatens us from within. The excesses of our own government can become a far greater threat than terrorism.

Articles of Impeachment against Dick Cheney were filed several months ago and the majority of Americans favor impeachment. Congress has refused to act. They even turned a blind eye when Rep. Dennis Kucinich read out the well-document charges against Cheney on the floor of the House and demanded action.

The charges against Cheney are chilling. They outline in stark relief the peril our nation faces when even one man exercises unrestrained power; even a man whose office is purely ceremonial. How could so much damage be done in such a short time? Why has no one stopped him?

Elections give us an opportunity to choose our representatives and leaders. They do not and were never meant to address the gross abuses of power, war crimes, felonies and fraud that Cheney and Bush have engaged in. Impeachment not elections gets top billing in the Constitution.

Elections will not address the tragedy of the hundreds of thousands who have died in an unnecessary war nor honor their sacrifice. Elections will not prevent your government from spying on you without cause or restore your right to privacy. They will not prevent you from being incarcerated or having your assets seized because one man, the president, says so. Elections will not prevent you from being tortured or flown to another country to be tortured. Elections will not keep your own military from being used against you. They will not restore the rule of law or the integrity of the Judiciary. They will not restore the balance of powers. Elections will not prevent this nation or any other from making war at will or stealing another nation’s resources. They will not restore the delicate balance of the global community, shattered by broken treaties and unchecked lust for domination and power.

Elections will not prevent a president Clinton from declaring you an enemy combatant and shipping you off to Guantanamo. They won’t prevent a president Obama from sweeping up Americans and holding them indefinitely on his word alone. They won’t prevent a president Guiliani from illegally and immorally murdering millions of Iranians for no legitimate reason. They won’t prevent a president Romney from seizing your home and assets because he alleges you are impeding operations in Iraq. It won’t prevent a president Thompson from exempting himself, his entire administration and his political supporters from the rule of law. It won’t prevent any president from leaving the nation unprotected by ignoring or rewriting the intelligence to suit his or her political agenda. Elections won’t guarantee that anyone you elect to lead or represent you has to tell you, the congress or the judiciary the truth.

Under the Constitution, we have the right to know if our elected leaders are doing their jobs or abusing the power of their office.

When serious allegations are made, it is our right to have public investigations that are immune to state secrets and executive privilege.

We have a responsibility as citizens to act on that information.

There is no more important work for congress to do. You cannot build anything on a weak foundation. Unscrupulous men and women have damaged the very foundation of our nation: the Constitution is the very bedrock upon which the order and legality of our nation rests. These same people have suspended the rule of law by which we govern ourselves. They assert that the government is theirs to do with as they wish. We cannot let that stand.

The genius of the Constitution is that it contains the remedy for its own healing, it’s own restoration. That remedy is impeachment. Not elections. Impeachment.

Carol Davidek-Waller is a news junkie and an avid blogger.

Click on "comments" below to read or post comments

Comments (9) Comment (0)

"What will impeachment do? nothing not a thing’ it won’t pay for the wrong that has been done’ or the lives’ of those innocent’s you would have to lock up the whole American congress’ because they are just as guilty’ just as the Nazis who stood in the Nuremberg trials’ they the American congress have to be punished collectively in the manner to which they killed with impunity when they convened to do mass murder in the name of “freedom and democracy”

Look. This is mother talking.

We cannot afford the luxury of DENIAL. Some of us working diligently night and day, day after day to establish the legal options as Henry Wasman, John Conyers and Nancy Pelosi continue to block the way. It's called STONEWALLING.

So we are developing a three prong attack, please join.

1. to see that PELOSI, in particular gets removed, as she is not following her Constitutional imperative and that can/does make her a war crime co-conspirator. As Speaker, she MUST move the HR resolution along; she KNOWS that. The legal is building on that.

2. to take the issue to the state legislatures, a move also already under way.

3. Develop SPECIFIC [legal] charges to lay at The Hague.

ALL attempts to impeach MUST be pursued to lay this claim at The Hague and we are shifting through mountains of stuff about SPECIFIC legal claim, the history of how the tribunal was built ..

We must (and we are trying) to unite all those who would pursue impeachment together. That includes people outraged by the thought crimes bill that is pending who have ALREADY gone to state legislatures. It includes outraged Iraqis, French people (who already have made their criminal complaints known, environmentalists, British antiweapons activists, artists, the list is long, longer than you think. Cheney must go first, rather than BuZh to ensure Cheney doesn't mess it up and with the Scott McClellan finally there is an insider who has SPECIFIC evident to criminal wrongdoing that cannot be ignored, even by the AG of the US or HE becomes a war criminal as well.

Check out my blog, www.ladybroadoak.blogspot.com or go to Daily Kos. Do a search of my blog and you'll get each thread carrying SPECIFICS on joining urls.

Afterdowningstreet is another great site that understand we MUST go after Pelosi.

When you learn about the precise EFFECTS of Nuremberg, you will see that we must do this for future generations, for the victims of genocide perpetrated in these wars no matter how great the conspiracy is to keep them going!

Impeachment IS the remedy. I am sure if you put in about 2 hours on my blog, we can convince ANYONE that this what we MUST do. [ caveat; Anyone not braindead.] There will be PLENTY of downloadable "stuff" to pass on to your friends as days go by.

Remove PELOSI NOW. there are moves to have her unseated ALREADY in Congress.
Help us give her a good push!!
Virginia Simson

Removal of Dick Cheney, stop war crimes - arguments for an attack on US justified

Three key issues dovetail:

1. Nuremberg [“Under any civilized judicial system he could have been impeached and removed from office or convicted of malfeasance in office on account of the scheming malevolence with which he administered injustice. ] Source

2. Constitutional clause in re pardon-impeachment [AII S2: “he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” ]

3. State level prosecutions are possible. [Jonathan Turley, “From Pillar to Post”: The Prosecution of Sitting Presidents, 37 American Criminal Law Review 1049-1106 (2000)]

The idea is to ensure impeachment proceedings start.

The outcome is less important than ensuring the evidence is carefully presented.

However, if there is no impeachment, and the President/VP are pardoned, this means the second prong of Nuremberg — prosecutions — cannot be met.

This opens the US to lawful attack to enforce Geneva.

Nuremberg made it clear that unless impeachment or prosecutions were used, the nation could not be considered civilized.

If Americans will not enforce the law against the President through impeachment; nor challenge Pelosi with removal to make way for investigations, Geneva would permit other nations to use military force to constrain the US.

Prosecutions at the DOJ-level may be thwarted, but there are options to use State AG’s to enforce the law.

The arguments defending the President against impeachment are similar to those which attempt to avoid confronting Pelosi. They’re both frivolous.

In the meantime, the effort to remove Pelosi —

to make way for an investigation —

continues.

What You Can Do

A. Say hello to Gareth.

B. Say hello to this Kos diary on this topic.

C. Stay informed, drop by here!!