Friday, November 30, 2007

If Bush Attacks Iran, He Won't Get My Taxes: Chris Hedges

Hi, Impeachment Person,
This is the best statement of its kind I've seen. Ralph Nazareth found it.

If Bush Attacks Iran, He Won't Get My Taxes

By Chris Hedges

11/29/07 "The Nation" -- - -- I will not pay my income tax if we go to
war with Iran. I realize this is a desperate and perhaps futile
gesture. But an attack on Iran -- which appears increasingly likely
before the coming presidential election -- will unleash a regional
conflict of catastrophic proportions. This war, and especially Iranian
retaliatory strikes on American targets, will be used to silence
domestic dissent and abolish what is left of our civil liberties. It
will solidify the slow-motion coup d'état that has been under way
since the 9/11 attacks. It could mean the death of the Republic.

Let us hope sanity prevails. But sanity is a rare commodity in a White
House that has twisted Trotsky's concept of permanent revolution into
a policy of permanent war with nefarious aims -- to intimidate and
destroy all those classified as foreign opponents, to create permanent
instability and fear and to strip citizens of their constitutional

A war with Iran is doomed. It will be no more successful than the
Israeli airstrikes on Lebanon in 2006, which failed to break Hezbollah
and united most Lebanese behind that militant group. The Israeli
bombing did not pacify 4 million Lebanese. What will happen when we
begin to pound a country of 65 million people whose land mass is three
times the size of France?

Once you begin an air campaign it is only a matter of time before you
have to put troops on the ground or accept defeat, as the Israelis had
to do in Lebanon. And if we begin dropping bunker busters and cruise
missiles on Iran, this is the choice that must be faced: either send
US forces into Iran to fight a protracted and futile guerrilla war, or
walk away in humiliation.

But more ominous, an attack on Iran will ignite the Middle East. The
loss of Iranian oil, coupled with possible Silkworm missile attacks by
Iran against oil tankers in the Persian Gulf, could send the price of
oil soaring to somewhere around $200 a barrel. The effect on the
domestic and world economy will be devastating, very possibly
triggering a global depression. The Middle East has two-thirds of the
world's proven petroleum reserves and nearly half its natural gas. A
disruption in the supply will be felt immediately.

This attack will be interpreted by many Shiites in the Middle East as
a religious war. The two million Shiites in Saudi Arabia (heavily
concentrated in the oil-rich Eastern Province), the Shiite majority in
Iraq and the Shiite communities in Bahrain, Pakistan and Turkey could
turn in rage on us and our dwindling allies. We could see a
combination of increased terrorist attacks, including on American
soil, and widespread sabotage of oil production in the Persian Gulf.
Iraq, as bad as it looks now, will become a death pit for US troops.

The Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, which has so far not joined the
insurgency, has strong ties to Iran. It could begin full-scale
guerrilla resistance, possibly uniting for the first time with Sunnis
against the occupation. Iran, in retaliation, will fire its missiles,
some with a range of 1,100 miles, at US installations, including
Baghdad's Green Zone. Expect substantial casualties, especially with
Iranian agents and their Iraqi allies calling in precise coordinates.
Iranian missiles could be launched at Israel. The Strait of Hormuz,
which is the corridor for 20 percent of the world's oil supply, will
become treacherous, perhaps unnavigable. Chinese-supplied antiship
missiles, mines and coastal artillery, along with speedboats packed
with explosives and suicide bombers, will target US shipping, along
with Saudi oil production and oil export centers.

Hezbollah forces in southern Lebanon, closely allied with Iran, may in
solidarity fire rockets into northern Israel. Israel, already struck
by missiles from Tehran, could then carry out retaliatory raids
against both Lebanon and Iran. Pakistan, with its huge Shiite
minority, will become even more unstable. Unrest could result in the
overthrow of the already weakened Pervez Musharraf and usher Islamic
radicals into power. Pakistan, rather than Iran, would then become the
first radical Islamic state to possess a nuclear weapon. The neat
little war with Iran, which many Democrats do not oppose, has the
potential to ignite an inferno.

George W. Bush has shredded, violated or absented America from its
obligations under international law. He has refused to ratify the
Kyoto Protocol, backed out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, tried
to kill the International Criminal Court, walked out on negotiations
on chemical and biological weapons and defied the Geneva Conventions
and human rights law in the treatment of detainees. Most egregious, he
launched an illegal war in Iraq based on fabricated evidence we now
know had been discredited even before it was made public. He seeks to
do the same in Iran.

This President is guilty, in short, of what in legal circles is known
as the "crime of aggression." And if we as citizens do not hold him
accountable for this crime, if we do not actively defy this
government, we will be complicit in the codification of a new world
order, one that will have terrifying consequences. For a world without
treaties, statutes and laws is a world where any nation, from a rogue
nuclear state to a great imperial power, will be able to invoke its
domestic laws to annul its obligations to others. This new order will
undo five decades of international cooperation -- largely put in place
by the United States -- and thrust us into a Hobbesian nightmare. We
must as citizens make sacrifices to defend a world where diplomacy,
broad cooperation and the law are respected. If we allow these
international legal systems to unravel, we will destroy the
possibility of cooperation between nation-states, including our
closest allies.

The strongest institutional barrier standing between us and a war with
Iran is being mounted by Defense Secretary Robert Gates; Adm. William
Fallon, head of the Central Command; and Gen. George Casey, the Army's
new chief of staff. These three men have informed Bush and Congress
that the military is too depleted to take on another conflict and may
not be able to contain or cope effectively with a regional
conflagration resulting from strikes on Iran. This line of defense,
however, is tenuous. Not only can Gates, Fallon and Casey easily be
replaced but a provocation by Iran could be used by war propagandists
here to stoke a public clamor for revenge.

A country that exists in a state of permanent war cannot exist as a
democracy. Our long row of candles is being snuffed out. We may soon
be in darkness. Any resistance, however symbolic, is essential. There
are ways to resist without being jailed. If you owe money on your
federal tax return, refuse to pay some or all of it, should Bush
attack Iran. If you have a telephone, do not pay the 3 percent excise
tax. If you do not owe federal taxes, reduce what is withheld by
claiming at least one additional allowance on your W-4 form -- and
write to the IRS to explain the reasons for your protest. Many of the
details and their legal ramifications are available on the War
Resisters League's website.

I will put the taxes I owe in an escrow account. I will go to court to
challenge the legality of the war. Maybe a courageous judge will rule
that the Constitution has been usurped and the government is guilty of
what the postwar Nuremberg tribunal defined as a criminal war of
aggression. Maybe not. I do not know. But I do know this: I have
friends in Tehran, Gaza, Beirut, Baghdad, Jerusalem and Cairo. They
will endure far greater suffering and deprivation. I want to be able,
once the slaughter is over, to at least earn the right to ask for
their forgiveness.

Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer prize-winning reporter, was the Middle East
bureau chief for The New York Times. He spent seven years in the
Middle East and reported frequently from Iran. His latest book is
American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America.

Thursday, November 29, 2007

Fournier vs Larson; Pax Christi; Valerie Plame & treason; Catherine Wilkerson

Hi, Impeachment Person,
We have some good and useful reading and requests for action (#1, #2 and #4):
1) Steve Fournier et al v. John Larson;
2) Pax Christi's request for letters, faxes, and calls to support
civil liberties;
3) Forwarded by Ann Gallagher: Treason is not Old News;
4) A particularly despicable example of how the police state is
intensifying its gross and arbitrary violence: Alexander Cockburn on
Catherine Wilkerson, MD.

1) Steve Fournier et al v. John Larson:
Connecticut Accountability Project
(Hartford, November 26, 2007) Congressman John Larson was today
presented with a set of pointed questions challenging his stated
position on the impeachment of the President of the United States.
Larson has told local impeachment advocates that the Congress has moreimportant things to do and that it's too late to hold the executive
branch accountable.
The questions, twelve in all, originated with a group calling itself
"Greater Hartford Impeach. " In a document signed on-line by 27
additional petitioners, 12 of whom vote in Larson's 1st district, the
group challenges Larson to acknowledge (or refuse to acknowledge) that
it's a crime to lie to Congress, to hold prisoners without legal
process, to torture captives in the course of interrogation, to apply
pressure to federal prosecutors over prosecutorial decisions, and to
instruct federal employees to ignore federal laws, among other acts of
presidential misconduct enumerated by the group.
Larson is asked to acknowledge that the House of Representatives has
sole law enforcement authority over crimes committed by a president
and malfeasance by the commander-in-chief. He is challenged to answer
whether his failure to hold this president accountable will set a
precedent for lawlessness in future administrations, and he is asked
explicitly whether it is his intention by his inaction to create a
presidency that is above the law.
The spokesman for Greater Hartford Impeach, Hartford lawyer Stephen
Fournier, had asked twice for a brief personal audience with the
congressman, but staff members who promised to reply never called
back. Fournier left the 12 questions with aides in Larson's Hartford
office Monday afternoon.
"It appears that big-d Democrats are more interested in the outcome of
the next presidential election than in the future of the presidency,
the Congress, and our small-d democratic system," said Fournier. "My
congressman must be held accountable for refusing to discharge his
constitutional duties. To this end, I am forming a political action
committee whose purpose will be to remind John Larson of his
responsibilities and replace him if necessary. "
Fournier says he is making himself available as a candidate for
Larson's seat, but only tentatively. "There are more qualified people
than me who haven't considered the possibility of taking on Larson.
This move might empower somebody," said Fournier. "I want Larson to
face the strongest possible opponent who will confront the racketeers
that now control Congress. I'll do it if nobody else will. "
Fournier--former Democrat, former Republican, now Green--made himself
a write-in candidate for Larson's seat in 2006, receiving fewer than
100 votes. Fournier vows that, "in 2008, Larson will face an opponent
who is an articulate and passionate advocate of the rule of law and
whose name will appear on the ballot. In the last election, Larson
could blame the Republican majority, but that excuse evaporated a year
ago. Our political action committee will mount a frontal attack on
Larson's performance in office, and we will warn voters in the
district about the dire consequences to our nation if we continue on
the course Larson and his party have been following. "
Letter to Congressman Larson
Stephen Fournier
74 Tremont Street
Hartford, Connecticut 06105
Tel: 860 794 6718 Fax: 860 233 3044
November 26, 2007
Representative John B. Larson
221 Main Street
Hartford, CT 06106
Dear Congressman Larson:
I write on behalf of a local discussion group called "Greater Hartford
Impeach." Our periodic discussions have yielded a dozen questions that
I have been asked to pose to you:
· The rationale for the resolution purporting to authorize the
military occupation of Iraq was based on false and misleading
statements by the president. Isn't lying to Congress a felony?
· Executive branch officials are holding prisoners without
access to legal process. Isn't this kidnapping?
· Executive branch officials conducted warrantless wiretapping
of Americans. Isn't this a felony under the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act?
· Executive branch officials interfered in federal
prosecutions, removed federal prosecutors for noncompliance with
political demands, and committed perjury before congress when asked to
remember critical facts relevant to the prosecutors' removal. Doesn't
this amount to obstruction of justice?
· The president has defied subpoenas duly issued by Congress.
Isn't it the duty of Congress to enforce its subpoenas with a contempt
citation and to enforce that citation by appropriate legal means?
· Executive branch officials, military and civilian, have
tortured prisoners during interrogation. Isn't this felonious conduct
under federal law?
· The president has issued "signing statements" authorizing or
directing federal employees to violate selected provisions of duly
enacted laws. Isn't this contrary to his constitutional oath to see
that the laws are faithfully executed?
· Officials of the executive branch maintain contracts with
armed civilians that purport to authorize the killing of other
civilians. Isn't this a violation of the laws prohibiting homicide?
· As commander-in-chief, the president has permitted the
misdirection of billions in cash and government property and has
failed to equip soldiers properly. Other than mutiny, isn't Congress
the sole check on criminal malfeasance by the commander-in-chief?
· Aren't you and the other members of the House of
Representatives the only people in America who can hold the president
accountable for these crimes and isn't it your responsibility to do
that, regardless of the political consequences?
· If you fail to hold the president accountable, aren't you
setting a precedent for future presidents and future congresses not to
hold the executive accountable for high crimes?
· Aren't you concerned that your failure to act will be seen as
a deliberate step in the creation of a presidency that is no longer
subject to the rule of law?
I have attached a list of names of people who subscribed to these
questions at my website: The
names in bold type are of people who vote in our district. Several
subscribers also submitted a message, and I have included these just
after their names.
Stephen Fournier
David J Norton: "Do the right thing, impeach Bush"
David Kideckel: "You took an oath. You need to keep it. Honor the
Constitution. Impeach the criminals."
Mary L. Sanders: "Out of Iraq Now - Impeach Yesterday!"
Frank O'Gorman
William R. Petrillo, Sr.
Tracy Thompson Gale
Sadu Nanjundiah: "We should ask these questions of all our reps. and
force them to either pursue impeachment for all the right reasons or
admit to their being utterly incapable of doing their duty and so,
Paula Zeiner
Barb Schade: "It is of utmost importance that you answer these
questions openly and honestly and publicly."
Guy Blais
Valentin Rosario : "Act now and hold the president accountable!!!"
Kris Treat
Janet Conley: "Please hold the President and the Administration
accountable for the crimes they have committed. It is your
Flo Woodiel
Gail Canzano
Jeremy Brecher: "From a Connecticut Democratic Party member."
Ana Lachelier: "I fully concur with questions posed here.
Unfortunately, I am quite sceptical that Congressman Larson will
answer these questions fully and honestly."
David Schneider: "Is it permitted for the Executive Branch of our
government is permitted to break the laws and harm the people of
America? Is there no justice in the land? Are we becoming so separated
from integrity, honesty, decency, HUMANITY?"
Steven Santoni
Marge Schneider: "How could you possibly be working in a democratic
system and not fight to uphold the foundation of our democracy - our
Constitution? Are you not willing to honor the moral fibre and
integrity of this nation and help to restore democracy?"
Diane Mellen
Miriam Kurland: "What kind of strategies can you offer, suggest, or
help everyday citizens who are determined to hold the current
administration accountable to their many numerous crimes, to proceed
with to attain this goal?"
Paula Norton
David Ionno
Gerry George: "Show some leadership. Take responsibility. Represent
your people who somehow have lost their voice in the press but who are
screaming at the top of their lungs at you. Pay attention, please.
Show some courage."
Thomas S. George: "Act like a public servant. Take the responsibility
of your office."
Bruce Martin: "I look forward to your answers to our questions re Bush
& Co.'s constitutional malfeasance deserving rapid impeachment."

2) Pax Christi's request for letters, faxes, and calls to support
civil liberties:

Dear Pax Christi friends, There are two items here which relate to
civil rights and how you can help defend them.

The first is a request for prayers that the Supreme Court will make
the right decision on Dec. 5, regarding the right of detainees The
second is a request to phone District Attorney Morgenthau asap about
the rights of people to protest.
1) On December 5, the Supreme Court will hear arguments for the cases
of Al Odah vs. U.S. and Boumediene vs. Bush. A key issue in these
cases is the right of detainees to challenge their detention using
habeas petitions. The cases represent a challenge to the
constitutionality of the Detainee Treatment Act and the Military
Commissions Act of 2006.

2) On September 25th, while Bush was speaking at the UN, deriding what
he considers the "brutal regimes" of the world (while it his that has
made torture legal, invaded and occupied two countries with one
million people dead, and is making plans to attack a third country),
hundreds of people were outside the UN in protest. A sea of orange
filled the plaza, with a contingent marching in wearing the orange
jumpsuits and hoods that Guantanamo detainees are forced to wear
everyday, as well as a plethora of orange bandanas, flags, clothes,

The authorities clearly did not like this showing of resistance,
cutting off the sound permit an hour early. When more than a dozen
people sat down on a sidewalk just over the police barricade in an act
of civil disobedience, police arrested them. And they also arrested
three who protested the initial arrests and they were held overnight
and slapped with more serious charges. This did not deter people,
hundreds of people took off downtown, marching all the way from the UN
to Washington Square Park.

People are rightly disgusted with the way protesters are herded in
pens, off to the side and marginalized. That people who sat down a
few feet outside those pens, on a street already closed to traffic
would be arrested is an outrage. Then several weeks later, rather
than dropping these charges, the highly unusual step of adding
additional charges against those who engaged in this civil
disobedience action. This is an additional outrage which should be
called out and reversed.

On November 27th, the three who spoke out against the arrests and then
themselves were arrested are to appear in court and the initial group
of 14 arrested are to appear in January 17.

We call on people to stand with all of these defendants. Their
actions should be applauded, not punished!

And beginning immediately, call or send letters or faxes to:
Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney
One Hogan Place, New York, NY 10013
Phone: 212-335-9000
Fax: 212-385-9789

3) Forwarded by Ann Gallagher: Treason is not Old News:
Treason is Not Old News
Posted November 22, 2007 | 04:37 PM (EST)

Read More: Dick Armitage, I Lewis Scooter Libby, Joe And Valerie
Wilson, Joe Wilson, Karl Rove, Richard Armitage, Scooter Libby, Scott
Mcclellan, Scott McClellan Book, Scott Mcclellan Lies, Valerie Plame,
Valerie Plame Wilson, Valerie Plame Wilson Book, Breaking Politics

"I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust
by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most
insidious, of traitors." George Herbert Walker Bush, CIA dedication
ceremony, April 26, 1999.

When Bush administration officials I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Karl
Rove, Richard Armitage and Ari Fleischer betrayed Valerie Plame
Wilson's identity as a covert CIA operations officer, they fell into
the category of "the most insidious of traitors." Now we learn from
the president's former press secretary, Scott McClellan, that the
president himself "was involved" in sending him out to lie to the
American public about the betrayal. If his direction to McClellan was
deliberate and knowing, then the president was party to a conspiracy
by senior administration officials to defraud the public. If that
isn't a high crime and misdemeanor then we don't know what is. And if
the president was merely an unwitting accomplice, then who lied to
him? What is he doing to punish the person who misled the president to
abuse his office? And why is that person still working in the
executive branch? Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald made clear his
suspicions about the culprit when he said "a cloud remains over the
office of the vice president." But we may never know exactly what
happened because President Bush thwarted justice and guaranteed the
success of the cover-up when he commuted Scooter Libby's felony
sentence on four counts of lying, perjury and obstruction of justice.
With the exception of MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, and the
intrepid David Shuster, the mainstream media would have you believe
that McClellan's revelation is old news. "Now back to Aruba and the
two-year old disappearance of a blond teenager." But treason is not
old news. The Washington press corps, whose pretension is to report
and interpret events objectively, has been compromised in this matter
as evidence presented in the courtroom demonstrated. Prominent
journalists acted as witting agents of Rove, Libby and Armitage and
covered up this serious breach of U.S. national security rather than
doing their duty as journalists to report it to the public.
So far there is no apparent desire for redemption driving the press to
report on the treachery of senior officials. Instead, the mainstream
press has compounded its complicity by giving the Bush administration
yet another free pass and shifting blame. The New York Times failed to
publish an article on McClellan's revelation and The Washington Post
buried it at the end of a column deep on page A-15 in the newspaper.
Earlier in the week, Newsweek magazine, owned by the Washington Post
Company, proudly announced the identity of its new star columnist --
Karl Rove, one of the key actors in this collective treason. Robert
Novak, who willfully disclosed Valerie's identity, having been twice
warned not to do so by the CIA, and who transmitted his column to Rove
before it was published, remains a regularly featured columnist in The
Washington Post.

With nearly 70 percent of the public now believing that our country is
on the wrong track, it is no wonder that many feel let down by major
institutions, including the Washington press establishment that
increasingly resembles the corrupt Soviet propaganda mill. One
reporter from a major news organization even asked whether McClellan's
statement wasn't just "another Wilson publicity stunt." Try following
this tortuous logic: Dick Cheney runs an operation involving senior
White House officials designed to betray the identity of a covert CIA
officer and the press responds by trying to prove that the Wilsons are
publicity seekers. What ever happened to reporting the news? Welcome
to Through the Looking Glass.

Fearful of its access to the powerful, and defensive about its status
in the high school social culture that permeates the capital of the
Free World, much of the press has forgotten its responsibility to the
public and the Constitution.
Presidents and those who aspired to be president in the past once took
strong positions in defense of U.S. national security. Today,
Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson has tried to build his
support through fronting for the Scooter Libby Defense fundraising
efforts. Meanwhile, other Republican candidates accuse Patrick
Fitzgerald of being "a runaway prosecutor" and remain silent about the
stain on Bush's presidency.
Where is the outrage? Where is the "contempt and anger?"
Click here to read more from Valerie Plame Wilson on The Huffington Post.

4) A particularly despicable example of how the police state is
intensifying its gross and arbitrary violence:
Weekend Edition
November 24 / 25, 2007
Welcome to the Jackboot State, Ann Arbor Division
The Ordeal of Catherine Wilkerson, M.D.
Welcome to the jackboot state, not to mention the jackboot campus,
anno domini 2007. A doctor gives verbal advice to protect the life of
an unconscious man and she duly gets hit with attempted felonies by
vindictive campus cops, with the connivance of the University of
Michigan. Jury selection for her trial starts on Monday in a county
courthouse in Ann Arbor.
This case began with an on-campus talk about Iran last November 30 by
Raymond Tanter, a former Reagan administration foreign policy advisor
and nutball cofounder of the Committee on the Present Danger. More
recently he's co-founder of the Iran Policy Committee. Tanter has said
publicly on more than one occasion that nuking Iran wouldn't be a bad
The audience at November 30 event was lively and contentious. On the
campus that Columbia's Lee Bollinger once ran there's an elaborate
policy about free speech, but those precepts were promptly flouted. As
is now the fashion at many universities, the U of M campus guards are
gun-toting goons who decided to wade in aggressively at the behest of
the event's organizers.
Here's how Dr. Catherine Wilkerson described what happened next, on
this site on March 13 of this year.
I heard a commotion in the hall and stepped out of the room. In the
hall I saw the same huge cop on top of the second protester who'd come
to the first victim's aid. The cop had the man, a relatively small guy
in his forties, pinned down, arms pulled behind his back, getting
handcuffed. The cop used PPCT against this person also, not once but
twice. The man writhed and cried out in pain.
The cop used his far-greater strength and body weight, along with the
force of his knee on his victim's back to press his chest against the
floor. It would be impossible for a person to inflate his lungs
pressed against the floor with his hands cuffed behind his back like
that. Asphyxiation being a well-known cause of death of people in
custody, when the man started calling out that he couldn't breathe, I
approached, identified myself as a doctor, and instructed the cop to
turn him over immediately. The victim went limp. The cop turned him
onto his back. I saw that the victim had a wound on his forehead and
blood in his nostrils. He was unconscious. Reiterating numerous times
that I was a doctor, I tried to move to where I could assess the
victim for breathing and a pulse. The cop shoved me, until finally,
after my imploring him to allow me to render medical care to the
victim, he allowed me to determine that the victim was alive. But he
refused to remove the cuffs despite my requests. A person lying with
hands cuffed beneath his body risks nerve damage to the extremities
and, moreover, cannot be resuscitated. I continually re-assessed the
man, who had now become my patient, and who remained unconscious.
Eventually an ambulance arrived, along with the fire department and a
contingent of Ann Arbor police officers. While the paramedics went
about their business, the first thing being to have the cop un-cuff
the patient, I tried to fulfill my obligation to my patient. I tried
to oversee what the paramedics were doing, which, contrary to protocol
and the normal relationship between physician and paramedic, was all
that I was allowed to do. I was forced to stay away. What I witnessed
in the course of their treatment appalled me. When the patient didn't
respond to a sternal rub, one of the paramedics popped an ammonia
inhalant and thrust it beneath the patient's nostrils. If you're
interested in what's wrong with that, google Dr. Bryan Bledsoe,
foremost authority on paramedicine, and read his article condemning
this dangerous practice. That it's "just bad medicine" is sufficient
to make the paramedic's actions unacceptable, but what happened next
made my blood curdle. He popped a second inhalant and a third, then
cupped his hands over the patient's nostrils to heighten the noxious
effect. "You don't like that, do you?" he said.
At that point I issued a direct medical order for him to stop, but he
ignored me. "What you're doing is punitive," I said, "and has no
efficacy." Then as the patient retched, rather than rolling him onto
his side to avoid the chance of his choking on his own vomit, a
firefighter held his feet down and yelled, "don't spit." In thirty
years of doctoring, I have never witnessed such egregious maltreatment
of a patient. Again I spoke up, "this is punitive." I hoped to shame
the paramedical into stopping his unethical behavior."
Please note that at no point did Wilkerson do anything other than
offer verbal advice.
The police--by now not just campus but also city cops were on the
scene -- ordered her to leave. As she was doing so, a city cop seized
her and put her under arrest. His superiors soon determined there were
no grounds for arrest and she was released without having been
handcuffed or requested to produce ID.
Wilkerson has made her career serving low-income patients. For the
last 5 to 6 years she's worked at a community medical clinic. She
takes the U.S. Constitution seriously and filed a complaint about the
incident alleging police misconduct. It took seven weeks for the cops
to answer the charges, which they did by the expedient of filing a
report plump with mendacity about Wilkerson's conduct the night of the
arrests. The Washtenaw County Prosecutor, Brian Mackie, at the
apparent request of the UM police, charged her with two attempted
felonies based on "attempted interference" with the police officer who
had seized her.
Her attorney, civil rights lawyer Buck Davis, tells me that that
county judge Elizabeth Pollard Hines recently threw out two subsequent
charges, claiming that Wilkerson had tried to interfere with the
campus police as well as the police officer.
This coming week Wilkerson faces jury trial at the 15th District Court
in Ann Arbor. Wilkerson's lawyers will bring in eyewitnesses to the
events on November 30, 2006, plus expert witnesses including Brian
Bledsoe, a Texas attorney who has testified in cases across the
country on the use of ammonia. (Ammonia was involved in the death of
Martin Lee Anderson at a juvenile 'boot camp' detention facility in
Buck Davis tells me that "ten or fifteen years ago this case would
have been a slam dunk, on First Amendment and medical privilege
arguments, with no physical contact with the cops, all in liberal Ann
Arbor." Wilkerson would have been swiftly acquitted.
"But now people are scared to death. They know the social system is
falling apart. They no longer have a generous spirit. I've learned
that the erosion of the economic and social fabric means people want
to believe the cops. They're frightened. So I'm not as arrogant about
'slam dunk' cases as I once was."
The case will probably run all week, except Thursday. If you can, show
up in court to support Catherine Wilkerson.
Learn more at or sign the petition at

Monday, November 26, 2007

Kucinich tv tonight, New Broom Coalition, Chomsky, Lindorff

1) Dennis Kucinich now has his own internet tv station at He'll be on the air tonight from the
Impeachment Teach-In, Live from Dartmouth College, Nov. 26 at 7pm.
Co-sponsored by Nation Magazine and Wednesday night from the Defending
the Constitution Town Hall Meeting w/ Congressman Dennis Kucinich,
Manchester, NH, Nov. 28 at 8PM.

2) Noam Chomsky is also getting better coverage by internet. Both a
video and its transcript is on Chomsky,
insightful as always, talks on American assumptions about Iran. He
makes it unavoidably obvious that the Bush Administration's demands on
Iran consist of the same irrational bullying that preceded our attack
on Iraq.

3) The New Broom Coalition announces itself (below) and

4) issues a press release demanding that US Special Prosecutor Patrick
Fitzgerald open an investigation of the outing of Valerie Plame.

5) The transcript of David Lindorff being interviewed by Scott Harris
on Kucinich's progress

6) Japan offers to mediate between the US and Iran.
Items 3 to 6 are below:


We are a group of challengers for Congressional seats currently held
by people who won't support impeachment.
We are Democrats, Greens, independents, from around the country, who
believe the current Congress is craven and corrupt, complicit with the
treason of the Bush administration.
We are seeking like-minded candidates. Our goal is to have challengers
in every Congressional district, both in the primaries and in the
general election; thus we can have up to two challengers per district.
We believe that by next November, we can put enough of our candidates
into Congress to change the direction of this country, no matter who
is elected president.
To join, a candidate must subscribe to our mission statement- see below.
If you are a candidate, or know a suitable candidate, please contact
us through our website
Or email me directly, at
1) Bush and Cheney have committed many impeachable offenses. If
elected, we will work to impeach them in the first two opening weeks
of the 111th Congress, and will continue the process after they leave
office. We will get rid of precedents they have set, and make them
subject to criminal proceedings, as well as strip them of the perks
and protections that ex- executives usually receive. We will restore
the rule of law, and bring lawbreakers to justice.
2) We will seek to restore the Constitution, especially the balance of
powers among the branches, and the Bill of Rights.
3) We will work to restore paper ballots and ensure the integrity of
the election process.
4) We will work for withdrawal from occupations of Iraq and
Afghanistan, stop threatening Iran, and seek a negotiated peace with
these countries, on a fair basis. We will work actively for world
5) We will make it priority to address global concerns such as global
warming, and to work with other nations on the basis of leadership,
not military might. We will put planetary survival above private
6) We will seek to control nuclear weapons by restoring the nuclear
NonProliferation Treaty, pressuring Israel, India and Pakistan to join
it, and start the process of disarmament of nuclear nations mandated
by Article VI.
7) We will seek to redirect federal monies from the military budget to
rebuilding the commons, including universal health care, social
welfare, education, infrastructure, water, wilderness, public access
TV, and others.
8) We will put people's needs above corporate profit, and work for
long -term goals, such as sustainable energy, protection of the
environment, and fairness to all segments of the population.



A national coalition of pro-impeachment candidates for the 2009 US
Congress is asking US Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to reopen his
investigations of President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard
Cheney, former Bush chief of staff Andrew Card, Karl Rove and Scooter
Libby. We are responding to allegations by former White House Press
Secretary Scott McClellan that President Bush was directly involved in
the outing of CIA officer Valerie Plame. McClellan says in his
forthcoming book, "What Happened" that he " unknowingly passed along
false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the
administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the Vice
President, the President's chief of staff, and the President himself."

The congressional hopefuls in the New Broom Coalition have already
begun local campaigns to sweep from Congress those incumbents who
refuse to hold the Bush administration accountable by impeachment.
Bush and Cheney need to be held accountable for the lies told to sell
the Iraq war and occupation, and to out Ms. Plame.
Ms. Plame was a CIA agent assigned to tracking nuclear
weapons development, when her undercover identity was revealed by
administration leaks to journalist Robert Novak and others. US Special
Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald investigated the case for almost a year
before winning a conviction against Cheney aide "Scooter" Libby, whose
sentence was commuted by Bush. Fitzgerald personally interviewed
Bush for 70 minutes during that investigation, with Bush's criminal
attorney present.

The New Broom Coalition is composed of Democrats, Greens and
independent candidates for Congress from across the nation.
(Republicans who accept our mission statement are also free to join.) We
are outraged by the crimes of the administration in prosecuting the
war and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, by threats to national
security in the case of outing Valerie Plame, and by the malfeasance
of Congress in its repeated failures to uphold and defend the
Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, evinced by
these policies and actions. The Coalition meets regularly on the
internet to discuss issues, policies, and strategies to achieve its
The Coalition's call to Special Prosecutor Fitzpatrick is our first joint
public statement on its intentions to try to return the nation to sane
foreign policy, constitutional government based on the rule of law.
We believe that further investigation of Scott McClellan's statements
and beliefs will provide a legal basis for prosecution of the Bush
administration for threatening the national defense by exposing its
undercover CI
A agents. Some have called it a treasonous offense.
drafted by

Attorney Harold Burbank
84 N. Mountain Rd.
Canton, CT 06019
Ph: 860-693-2687; Cell 860-205-0102

5) :: Article nr. 38464 sent on 22-nov-2007 02:20 ECT


From Bob Nixon:
Kucinich Succeeds in Moving
Impeachment Resolution Against Cheney Forward

Interview with journalist David Lindorff,
conducted by Scott Harris

Listen in RealAudio

As voters cast ballots in local elections across the U.S. on Nov. 6,
Congress was voting on a resolution calling for the impeachment of
Vice President Dick Cheney. The measure, sponsored by Ohio
Representative and Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich
has 22 co-sponsors, but had been bottled up by the Democratic
leadership for six months.

When a vote finally did occur, Republicans in an attempt to embarrass
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has repeatedly stated that impeachment
was "off the table," supported the legislation. At the last minute,
however, many Democrats not wanting to be seen as defending Cheney,
changed their votes from supporting Pelosi's attempt to table the
measure, to supporting the resolution. As a result of all the
political maneuvering, the impeachment debate will now move to the
House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Michigan Democrat John Conyers.

Between The Lines' Scott Harris spoke with journalist Dave Lindorff,
who co-authored the book, "The Case for Impeachment, The Legal
Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office," with
attorney Barbara Olshansky. Lindorff summarizes the basis for the
Cheney impeachment resolution and looks at the road ahead for getting
a serious hearing on the high crimes and misdemeanors that Dennis
Kucinich and many others assert have been committed by both the vice
president and President Bush.

DAVID LINDORFF: Dennis (Kucinich) explains that one of the prime
arguments that's thrown out by his colleagues against impeachment is:
"Well then, we'll have Cheney for president." Kucinich took it at face
value, said, let's just acknowledge the fact that everybody knows that
Cheney is the real president and go after him first. And that's what
he's doing. He has also said that he's going to introduce an
impeachment bill against Bush. So I think we can look for that.

BETWEEN THE LINES: What are the strongest arguments that Dennis
Kucinich and supporters of impeachment of Dick Cheney have to back up
their resolution of impeachment?

DAVID LINDORFF: Well, people should go to his website because he's got
it very, very well-documented and footnoted. But the key point is, and
he made this on the floor (of the House) when he introduced it. The
vice president clearly lied about both the nuclear threat posed by
Iraq, which was zero, and everybody knew that in the intelligence
community - and the alleged link which he said was ironclad between
Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. And everybody in the State Department and
the intelligence community knew that Saddam Hussein had absolutely not
only no love for the al Qaeda group, but was afraid of them because
they were appealing to religion and he was a strict secularist and
creating a secular state there. There were specific lies about the
alleged attempt to purchase uranium ore in Niger; there were the lies
about the aluminum tubes that were actually rocket bodies being for
centrifuges—there were no centrifuges being built in Iraq and the
tubes were the wrong size for centrifuges and they were anodized
aluminum and you can't make centrifuges out of anodized aluminum. It
was all nonsense.

The supposed poison gas trucks that were supposed to be mobile labs …
all that stuff they knew were lies. And Cheney is caught with that, so
that's (Kucinich's) basic point on that article. His other big one is
that it's illegal under the UN charter, which the U.S. is a signatory
to and which is therefore part of U.S. law, to threaten war against a
country that doesn't pose an imminent threat to the country making the
threat. So, for Cheney, to threaten as he has, war against Iran is a
crime. So, there's plenty to impeach the vice president on. He's also
implicated in being a prime mover behind the NSA spying for five years
illegally. He's a prime mover behind the administration's violation of
the Geneva Conventions in approving torture and in international
kidnapping. All of these things are Cheney. So, if we can get these
hearings going, we're going to have a pretty exciting time, I think.
We'll find television has become entertaining again.

BETWEEN THE LINES: Before the 2006 congressional election, which the
Democrats won, Rep. John Conyers was one of the most outspoken
proponents of impeachment in beginning that process in Congress. But
after the Democrats won the House and Senate, Conyers stood by House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and said, "Yes, Impeachment is off the table."
Does Dick Cheney have anything to worry about now? And how likely is
it that Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers will revert to his
former position, which was to advocate impeachment?

DAVID LINDORFF: Well, it's going to be interesting to see, because
Conyers has been talking out of two sides of his mouth for a year now.
He tells progressives, when he goes to meetings of progressives, "make
me hold hearings." "Put pressure on me, get more members of congress
to support impeachment." Well, he just got a vote of 218, including
Republicans, saying they want hearings on impeachment. So, now he
can't say, make me impeach, because he's gotten the vote. We
understand that they were forced into that, but why were they forced
into that? They were forced into that because 80 Democrats were so
scared of what their constituents would think if they protected
Cheney, that they voted to get rid of that tabling motion. That tells
you that at least 80 Democrats know that the public wants Cheney

BETWEEN THE LINES: Where's public opinion at now, with regards to the
impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney or President George Bush?

DAVID LINDORFF: Well this is really the fascinating thing. Polls have
shown that between 70 and 80 percent of Democrats would like to see
Cheney impeached. And the last major poll done of the American public
at large found that 54 percent of all Americans thought Cheney should
be impeached. So, it sort of boggles the mind that Nancy Pelosi would
find this to be a bad idea.

Read Lindorff's articles online at his website:

Related links:


Scott Harris is executive producer of Between The Lines, which can be
heard on more than 40 radio stations and in RealAudio and MP3 on our
website at This interview excerpt was
featured on the award-winning, syndicated weekly radio newsmagazine,
Between The Lines for the week ending Nov. 23, 2007. This Between The
Lines Q&A was compiled by Anna Manzo and Scott Harris.

Between The Lines Radio Newsmagazine
Squeaky Wheel Productions
P.O. Box 110176
Trumbull, CT 06611
Phone: (203) 268-8446

Fax: (203) 268-3180

6) 'Japan ready to mediate between US, Iran on nuclear issue'
By ANI [Asian News International]
Tuesday November 13, 03:32 PM
Tehran, Nov 13 (ANI): Japan is ready to mediate between the United
States and Iran to help resolve the standoff with the West over the
latter's nuclear programme, according to the president of the Japanese
Centre for International Public Policy Studies.
Pointing out that imposing sanctions on Iran would not be in Japan's
national interests, Naoki Tanaka said that as Tokyo has good relations
with both Tehran and Washington, it has the potential to mediate
between the two sides to help resolve the differences over the nuclear
Emphasising that Iran has the inalienable right to utilize nuclear
technology, Tanaka expressed regret over certain powers' double
standards toward Tehran's nuclear dossier.
The Tehran Times quoted him as saying that negotiation is the only way
to resolve the dispute over Iran's nuclear program.
He further called for establishment of a neutral international
organization tasked with "eliminating nuclear weapons" and supporting
peaceful nuclear studies of the world's scientists, without any
political biases.
The leaders of the US, Russia, and other world powers should know that
no matter how advanced their military equipment is, they should not
give up searching for a diplomatic settlement of the nuclear row, he
said, adding: "Power without wisdom is destructive."
He went on to say that Japan was interested in expanding its relations
with the Islamic Republic, but UN Security Council resolutions and the
United States' unilateral sanctions against Iran were the major
obstacles blocking efforts to develop bilateral relations.
"I know that over the course of history, the Iranian nation has
repeatedly witnessed the betrayal of European countries, including the
5+1 group," he said.
Predicting a bright future for the two countries' scientific
advancement through peaceful nuclear cooperation, Tanaka said Japan
considers Iran a friendly state and making use of Tehran's energy
resources was a priority for Japan. (ANI)

Saturday, November 24, 2007

Frances Boyle to lawyers on Law and Resistance

Dear Impeachment Person,
Harold Burbank has forwarded to us what has to be one of the
half-dozen finest and most important speeches of the year--by Francis
Boyle to the Northwestern U School of Law.

Law and Resistance: The Republic in Crisis and the People's Response*
Professor Francis A. Boyle of University of Illinois College of Law
Tuesday, November 20, 2007 at Northwestern University School of Law
Sponsored by: National Lawyers Guild, Northwestern University Student
Law School Chapter and Chicago Chapter of the NLG

*(c)Copyright 2007 by Francis A. Boyle. All Rights reserved.

Since the impeachable installation of George Bush Jr. as President by
the U.S. Supreme Court's Gang of Five, the people of the world have
witnessed a government in the United States that has demonstrated
little if any respect for fundamental considerations of international
law, human rights, or the United States Constitution. Instead, the
world has watched a comprehensive and malicious assault upon the
integrity of the international and domestic legal orders by a group of
men and women who are thoroughly Machiavellian and Straussian in their
perception of international relations and in their conduct of both
foreign affairs and American domestic policy. Even more seriously, in
many instances specific components of the Bush Jr. administration's
foreign policy constitute ongoing criminal activity under well
recognized principles of both international law and United States
domestic law, and in particular the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg
Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles, as well as the Pentagon's own
U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 on The Law of Land Warfare, which applies
to President Bush Jr. himself as Commander-in-Chief of United States
Armed Forces under Article II, Section 2 of the United States

Depending on the substantive issues involved, these international and
domestic crimes typically include but are not limited to the Nuremberg
offences of "crimes against peace"-- so far Afghanistan, Iraq,
Somalia, and perhaps their longstanding threatened war of aggression
against Iran. Their criminal responsibility also concerns "crimes
against humanity" and war crimes as well as grave breaches of the Four
Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the 1907 Hague Regulations on land
warfare: torture at Guantanamo, Bhagram, Abu Ghraib, and elsewhere;
enforced disappearances, assassinations, murders, kidnappings,
extraordinary renditions, "shock and awe," depleted uranium, white
phosphorous, cluster bombs, Fallujah, etc. Furthermore, various
members of the Bush Jr. administration have committed numerous
inchoate crimes incidental to these substantive offences that under
the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles as well as U.S. Army
Field Manual 27-10 (1956) are international crimes in their own right:
planning, and preparation—which they are currently doing today against
Iran—solicitation, incitement, conspiracy, complicity, attempt, aiding
and abetting. Of course the terrible irony of today's situation is
that six decades ago at Nuremberg the U.S. government participated in
the prosecution, punishment and execution of Nazi government officials
for committing some of the same types of heinous international crimes
that the Neo-Conservative Straussian members of the Bush Jr.
administration currently inflict upon people all over the world. To be
sure, I personally oppose the imposition of capital punishment upon
any human being for any reason no matter how monstrous their crimes,
whether they be Bush Jr., Tony Blair, or Saddam Hussein.

According to basic principles of international criminal law set forth
in paragraph 501 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10, all high level
civilian officials and military officers in the U.S. government who
either knew or should have known that soldiers or civilians under
their control (such as the C.I.A. or mercenary contractors), committed
or were about to commit international crimes and failed to take the
measures necessary to stop them, or to punish them, or both, are
likewise personally responsible for the commission of international
crimes. This category of officialdom who actually knew or should have
known of the commission of these international crimes under their
jurisdiction and failed to do anything about them include at the very
top of America's criminal chain-of-command President Bush Jr. and
Vice-President Cheney; former U.S. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld;
Secretary of State Rice; Director of National Intelligence Negroponte,
who was previously in charge of the contra terror war against the
people of Nicaragua that murdered 35, 000 civilians; National Security
Advisor Hadley; his Deputy Elliot Abrams, who was also criminally
responsible for murdering 35,000 people in Nicaragua; former U.S.
Attorney General Gonzales, criminally responsible for the torture
campaign launched by the Bush Jr. administration; and the Pentagon's
Joint Chiefs of Staffs along with the appropriate Regional
Commanders-in-Chiefs, especially for Central Command (CENTCOM).

These U.S. government officials and their immediate subordinates are
responsible for the commission of crimes against peace, crimes against
humanity, and war crimes as specified by the Nuremberg Charter,
Judgment, and Principles as well as by U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 of
1956. Today in international legal terms, the Bush Jr. administration
itself should now be viewed as constituting an ongoing criminal
conspiracy under international criminal law in violation of the
Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg
Principles, because of its formulation and undertaking of serial wars
of aggression, crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and war
crimes that are legally akin to those perpetrated by the former Nazi
regime in Germany. As a consequence, American citizens possess the
basic right under international law and the United States domestic
law, including the U.S. Constitution, to engage in acts of civil
resistance designed to prevent, impede, thwart, or terminate ongoing
criminal activities perpetrated by Bush Jr. administration officials
in their conduct of foreign affairs policies and military operations
purported to relate to defense and counter-terrorism.

For that very reason, large numbers of American citizens have decided
to act on their own cognizance by means of civil resistance in order
to demand that the Bush Jr. administration adhere to basic principles
of international law, of U.S. domestic law, and of our own
Constitution in its conduct of foreign affairs and military
operations. Mistakenly, however, such actions have been defined to
constitute classic instances of "civil disobedience" as historically
practiced in the United States. And the conventional status quo
admonition by the U.S. power elite and its sycophantic news media for
those who knowingly engage in "civil disobedience" has always been
that they must meekly accept their punishment for having performed a
prima facie breach of the positive laws as a demonstration of their
good faith and moral commitment. Nothing could be further from the
truth! Today's civil resisters are the sheriffs! The Bush Jr.
administration officials are the outlaws!

Here I would like to suggest a different way of thinking about civil
resistance activities that are specifically designed to thwart,
prevent, or impede ongoing criminal activity by members of the Bush
Jr. administration under well﷓recognized principles of international
and U.S. domestic law. Such civil resistance activities represent the
last constitutional avenue open to the American people to preserve
their democratic form of government with its historical commitment to
the rule of law and human rights. Civil resistance is the last hope
America has to prevent the Bush Jr. administration from moving even
farther down the path of lawless violence in Southwest Asia, military
interventionism in Latin America and Africa, and nuclear confrontation
with Iran, North Korea, Russia, and China.

Such measures of "civil resistance" must not be confused with, and
indeed must be carefully distinguished from, acts of "civil
disobedience" as traditionally defined. In today's civil resistance
cases, what we witness are U.S. citizens attempting to prevent the
ongoing commission of international and domestic crimes under
well-recognized principles of international law and U.S. domestic law.
This is a phenomenon essentially different from the classic civil
disobedience cases of the 1950s and 1960s where incredibly courageous
African Americans and their supporters were conscientiously violating
domestic laws for the express purpose of changing them. By contrast,
today's civil resisters are acting for the express purpose of
upholding the rule of law, the U.S. Constitution, human rights, and
international law. Applying the term "civil disobedience" to such
civil resistors mistakenly presumes their guilt and thus perversely
exonerates the Bush Jr. administration criminals.

Civil resistors disobeyed nothing, but to the contrary obeyed
international law and the United States Constitution. By contrast,
Bush Jr. administration officials disobeyed fundamental principles of
international law as well as U.S. criminal law and thus committed
international crimes and U.S. domestic crimes as well as impeachable
violations of the United States Constitution. The civil resistors are
the sheriffs enforcing international law, U.S. criminal law and the
U.S. Constitution against the criminals working for the Bush Jr.

Today the American people must reaffirm our commitment to the
Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles by holding our government
officials fully accountable under international law and U.S. domestic
law for the commission of such grievous international and domestic
crimes. We must not permit any aspect of our foreign affairs and
defense policies to be conducted by acknowledged "war criminals"
according to the U.S. government's own official definition of that
term as set forth in U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956), the U.S. War
Crimes Act, and the Geneva Conventions. The American people must
insist upon the impeachment, dismissal, resignation, indictment,
conviction, and long-term incarceration of all U.S. government
officials guilty of such heinous international and domestic crimes.
That is precisely what American civil resisters are doing today!

This same right of civil resistance extends pari passu to all citizens
of the world community of states. Everyone around the world has both
the right and the duty under international law to resist ongoing
criminal activities perpetrated by the Bush Jr. administration and its
nefarious foreign accomplices in allied governments such as in
Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, Georgia, etc. If not so
restrained, the Bush Jr. administration could very well precipitate a
Third World War.
In this regard, during the course of an October 17, 2007 press
conference, President Bush Jr. terrorized the entire world with the
threat of World War III if he could not work his illegal will upon
Iran. Then Russian President Vladimir Putin responded in kind by
likewise terrorizing the entire world with the prospect of yet another
Cuban Missile Crisis if he did not get his way on the needlessly
provocative anti-ballistic missile systems that the Bush Jr.
administration plans to locate in Poland and the Czech Republic. The
publicly threatened U.S./Israeli attack upon Iran could readily set
off a chain of events that would culminate in World War III, and could
easily go nuclear. It is my opinion that the Bush Jr. administration
would welcome the outbreak of a Third World War, and in any event is
fully prepared to use tactical nuclear weapons against Muslim and Arab
states and peoples.

After September 11, 2001 the United States of America has vilified and
demonized Muslims and Arabs almost to the same extent that America
inflicted upon the Japanese and Japanese Americans after Pearl Harbor.
As the Nazis had previously demonstrated with respect to the Jews, a
government must first dehumanize and scapegoat a race of people before
its citizens will tolerate if not approve their elimination: Hiroshima
and Nagasaki. In post-9/11 America we are directly confronted with
the prospect of a nuclear war of extermination conducted by our White
Racist Judeo-Christian Power Elite against People of Color in the
Muslim and Arab worlds in order to steal their oil and gas. The
Crusades all over again. But this time nuclear Armageddon stares all
of humankind right in the face!

We American lawyers must be inspired by the stunning example set by
those heroic Pakistani lawyers now leading the struggle against the
brutal Bush-supported Musharraf military dictatorship. We American
lawyers must now lead the fight against the Bush Jr. dictatorship!

This is our Nuremberg Moment!

Thank you.

Thursday, November 22, 2007

National Lawyer's Guild impeachment resolution


Whereas George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney:

1. deliberately misled the nation and doctored intelligence, as
described in the Downing Street
minutes, about the threat
from Iraq in order to
justify a war of aggression and an occupation of Iraq, as further
described in House resolution H.

Res. 333
and as listed in House Resolution H. Res. 635

2. committed crimes against peace by initiating war against Iraq in
violation of the UN Charter;

3. committed crimes against humanity in their conduct of the
occupation of Iraq in which they
killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians and created millions of
refugees,,1892888,00.html and

4. killed over 3700 American soldiers and severely wounded nearly
30,000 more in the pursuit of
an illegal, immoral, and unjust occupation of Iraq. While Bush and
Cheney have stated no
truthful noble cause for the war, one of the central purposes appears
to be to take control of
immense oil reserves to financially benefit private corporate
interests. See Bush's benchmark
listing fact sheet released the same day Bush announced the "surge"
that expressly called on the
Iraq parliament to "enact hydrocarbons law to promote investment . . . "
3.html and;

5. committed further crimes against peace by threatening Iran in
violation of the UN Charter, as
described in House resolution H. Res. 333
bin/query/z?c110:H.RES.333: and;

6. detained thousands of prisoners without charges and without
providing the ability to confront
their accusers at a fair trial


7. condoned the torture of prisoners in violation of the Geneva
Conventions, the US anti-torture
statute of 1994, the US War Crimes Act of 1996, and the oath of
office and and
Bush's refusal to faithfully execute the laws prohibiting torture and
his declaration on February
2002 that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to prisoners in
Afghanistan and in Guantanamo
set the stage for torture there The Rumsfeld approved
Guantanamo torture techniques were then imported to Iraq in August
2003, where the
International Committee of the Red Cross found "systemic" mistreatment
of Iraqi prisoners in
several facilities and where the Schlesinger Report confirmed in
August 2004 that abuses were
"widespread" and "serious both in number and in effect," and that
there is both "institutional and

personal responsibility at higher levels;"

8. approved at least two different illegal electronic surveillance
programs of American citizens
without a warrant in violation of the fourth amendment and in
violation of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, and repeatedly lied to the
American people by stating that
no surveillance was taking place without a court order. The first
program includes intercepting
phone and email conversations without warrants and was exposed by the
NY Times on December
16, 2005
After that program
was exposed Bush said the program was carefully targeted to just
include international calls and
suspected members of Al Qaeda. Then, the second program was exposed by
USA Today on May
11, 2006. It provides a wholesale attack on the fourth amendment by
recording call identification
information of tens of millions of purely domestic calls as well as
international calls;

9. attacked basic human rights protections in the constitution
including habeas corpus, fifth
amendment freedom from loss of life, liberty and property without due
process of law, eighth
amendment freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, and fourth
amendment freedom from
unreasonable search and seizure;

10. attacked the separation of powers in an effort to consolidate
power in the executive;

11. attacked the messenger who revealed that Bush "twisted"
intelligence "to exaggerate the Iraqi
threat." Just as Nixon retaliated against former Pentagon analyst
Daniel Ellsberg, according to papers
filed in court by special
prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in April 2006, there was "concerted
action" by "multiple people in
the White House" to "discredit, punish or seek revenge against" former
Ambassador Joseph
Wilson for his July 6, 2003 NY Times op ed piece
dec0&ei=5007 that ripped the cover off of Bush's false assertions in
his 2003 state of the union
address that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Africa for building a
nuclear bomb. In
retaliation, and to silence other would-be critics, the White House
collected information about
Wilson and disclosed to reporters that his wife, Valerie Plame, was a
covert agent in the CIA
counterinsurgency division, putting her life, and the lives of her
contacts, at risk in violation
of a
US law protecting intelligence personnel (The Impeachment of George W.
Bush, by Elizabeth

12. as the sole person under the Federal Stafford Act with
responsibility and authority to issue
emergency orders to mobilize the military and any federal resources
needed to aid and assist in a
disaster (see Failure of Initiative, February 2006 report of the House
Select Bipartisan
Committee to investigate the Preparations for and the Response to
Hurricane Katrina, Bush failed to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed,
the public trust, and demonstrated reckless and inexcusable
indifference to human life before,
during and after Hurricane Katrina. Bush knew but did not act until
too late, and then he lied
about it on national TV. Footage and transcripts from briefings Aug.
25-31 demonstrate that
Bush was personally told well in advance of the "unprecedented
strength" of the hurricane, the
"devastating damage expected," and that "water shortages will make
human suffering
incredible," according to highly accurate predictions by the National
Weather Service. The
Associated Press reported that "in dramatic and sometimes agonizing
terms, federal disaster
officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before
Hurricane Katrina struck
that the storm could breach levees, put lives at risk in New Orleans'
Superdome and overwhelm
rescuers, according to confidential video footage,"
bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/47/18079. Yet Bush failed to muster resources
to evacuate residents in
advance and failed to assist New Orleans residents after Hurricane
Katrina hit. Then three days
later Bush told Good Morning America, "I don't think that anybody
anticipated a breach of the
dyn/content/article/2006/03/02/AR2006030202130.html In years before the storm
Bush demonstrated inexcusable criminal negligence and violated the
public trust by cutting the
budget for hurricane defense, though the high probability of the
breaching of the levees and the
enormous risk to human life from a major hurricane hitting New Orleans
were predicted and well
known for years before the hurricane hit;

13. failed to take care that the laws be faithfully executed by
issuing signing statements
that claim the authority to disobey laws based on the president's own
interpretation of their
constitutionality, and then by taking action in violation of these
laws, including the US law
making torture a crime, laws regarding Congressional oversight that
require providing
information to Congress, laws regarding domestic spying, laws
regarding civil liberties, and laws
strengthening whistle blower protection, thereby expanding the
president's own power by
stepping into the legislative and judicial functions at the expense of
Congress and the
courts, upsetting the balance among the three branches of government,
and moving us away from
the rule of law toward vastly increased executive
aws/ and;

14. converted the Justice Department into an arm of the Republican
Party by firing meritorious
federal prosecutors who refused to base decisions on whom to prosecute
on political
considerations--to help Republicans win election, an offense James
Madison discussed in a
speech to the Senate on June 17, 1789, in which Madison said, "The
danger then consists merely in
this, the president can displace from office a man whose merits
require that he should be
continued in it.
What will be the motives which the president can feel for such abuse
of his power, and the
restraints that
operate to prevent it? In the first place, he will be impeachable by
this house, before the
senate, for such
an act of mal-administration; for I contend that the wanton removal of
meritorious officers would
him to impeachment and removal from his own high

15. condoned criminal conduct and obstructed justice by commuting the
sentence of convicted
perjurer Scooter Libby to keep him silent and to demonstrate that Bush
and Cheney will not
allow high officials in the administration to be held accountable for
their criminal acts;

16. obstructed congressional investigations of these and other acts by
the administration by
defying subpoenas from Senate and House committees seeking documents
and testimony under
oath by administration officials and former administration officials; and

Whereas the constitution requires the president to take the following
oath of office: "I do
solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of the
President of the United States,
will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the
Constitution of the United

Whereas the constitution provides that the president "shall take Care
that the Laws be faithfully
executed;" and

Whereas the constitution mandates that "the President, Vice President
and all civil Officers of
the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for,
and Conviction of,
Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors;" and

Whereas impeachment was so important to our founding fathers that it
is mentioned six times in
five different sections of the constitution; and

Whereas George Mason, a primary author of the Constitution, said that
impeachment was the
single most important part of the entire document. "Shall any man be
above Justice? Above all
shall that man be above it who can commit the most extensive injustice?" July 20, 1787; and

Whereas "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" is a term of art that means a
serious abuse of power,
whether or not it is also a crime, that endangers our constitutional
system of government, or an
abuse of public trust. (See Constitutional Grounds for Presidential
Impeachment: Report of the
Judiciary Committee, 1974,
srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/watergatedoc_3.htm, articles by
Elizabeth Holzman who
served on the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment
hearings of Richard Nixon in
1974; and, and the book, The
Impeachment of George W. Bush, by Elizabeth Holtzman)

Whereas each of the above listed acts meets or exceeds that standard; and

Whereas impeachment is the only constitutional method to protect
Americans from a president
intent on abusing power, violating the constitution, violating the
laws, and breaching public

Whereas Bush and Cheney threaten further crimes, including launching a
war of aggression
against Iran, and whereas sufficient time remains in their term of
office for them to commit those

crimes so allowing either or both of them to remain in office for that
remaining time will
facilitate these crimes, and whereas pretexts for attacking Iran have
been issued, as described by

a former CIA Middle East field officer and current Time Magazine columnist,8816,1654188,00.html; and

Whereas failing to hold Bush and Cheney accountable not only condones
their crimes but
facilitates a future president committing similar or greater crimes; and

Whereas members of Congress swear an oath to "support and defend the
constitution of the
United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic," and no part
of this oath permits
exception for partisan advantage, the next election, political
expediency, whether it is
from other issues, or how much time they have left in office; and

Whereas failure by Congress to initiate the one
remedy--impeachment--provided by our
founding fathers to protect the constitution from such serious abuses
has put that constitution,
rule of law, civil liberties, our democratic form of government, the
separation of powers, the
lives of our men and women in uniform, and the lives of countless
civilians at severe risk; and

Whereas citizen pressure led the Vermont State Senate and 87 cities
and towns around the
nation to pass impeachment resolutions; and

Whereas a poll conducted by on
July 5, 2007 found that
54% of American adults want the US House of Representatives to begin impeachment
proceedings against Vice President Dick Cheney while only 40% oppose,
and whereas the poll
also found that 45% are in favor of the same thing for President
George W. Bush while 46%
oppose; and

Whereas in view Congress' ongoing complicity with the war, the
torture, the lies, the warrantless
wiretapping, and the imprisonment without trial, and its failure to
protect rights and civil
liberties, it is up to the people themselves to defend the
constitution and our civil liberties by

building larger grassroots movements, including a movement for impeachment;

Therefore be it resolved that the National Lawyers Guild calls upon
the U.S. House of
Representatives to immediately initiate impeachment proceedings, to
investigate the charges, and
if the investigation supports the charges, to vote to impeach George
W. Bush and Richard B.
Cheney as provided in the Constitution of the United States of America; and

Be it further resolved that the National Lawyers Guild will establish
an NLG Impeachment
Committee open to all members to coordinate action by the NLG in
support of impeachment, to
work with national and grassroots impeachment organizations, and to
provide legal assistance for
those efforts to strengthen the national campaign for impeachment; and

Be it further resolved that the NLG Impeachment Committee will help
organize and coordinate
events at the local, state, and national level to build public
participation in the campaign to
initiate impeachment investigation, impeachment, and removal of Bush
and Cheney from office
without further delay; and

Be it further resolved that the National Lawyers Guild calls on NLG
members to ask their
respective member of Congress to support H. Res. 333 to impeach Cheney
and to introduce or
support other impeachment resolutions; and

Be it further resolved that the National Lawyers Guild calls on all
other state and national bar
associations, state and local government bodies, community
organizations, labor unions, and all
other citizen associations to adopt similar resolutions and to use all
their resources to build
campaign demanding that Congress initiate impeachment investigation,
impeach, and remove
Bush and Cheney from office without further delay; and

Be it further resolved that the National Lawyers Guild will forward a
copy of this resolution to
the Speaker and the Clerk of the US House of Representatives, to
Representative John Conyers,
Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, to the various state and
federal bar associations, to
other peace and justice organizations, and to the news media.

Implementation: By the NLG Impeachment Committee established by this
resolution, by
interested local chapters, and by national officers.

Submitted by: James Marc Leas,

The resolution cosponsors are:
Audrey Bomse, Marjorie Cohn, Laura Safer Espinoza, John Wheat Gibson ,
Eileen Hansen,
Larry Hildes, Jim Klimaski, Jordan Kushner, Jim Lafferty, James Marc
Leas, Kerry McLean,
Bill Monning, Dorinda Moreno, Michael Ratner, Susan Scott, Jennifer
Van Bergen, Aaron
Varhola, Karen Weill

H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007

I'm forwarding two thanksgiving day messages from Bob Feuer on the
"Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism" bill, probably the
most superlative piece of meretricious mendacity the Administration
has so far managed to get through the House. I sent the bill itself
out to you about 3 weeks ago and you can also call it up from a url
below. We have to lobby the Senate.

This, of course, is a sardonic Thanksgiving message, so the next one
will be appropriate: the National Lawyer's Guild's resolution on
impeachment, which we can cheer and use.


1) Bob's message on it last night:
Do you have a clean orange jumpsuit to don for Thanksgiving?
> Amazingly, 404 of our elected representatives from both the Democrat
> and Republican parties voted in favor of this bill
> <>. There is
> little doubt that this bill is specifically targeting the growing
> patriot community that is demanding the restoration of the Constitution.
> /(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means the
> use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group
> or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within
> the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate
> or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the
> United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or
> social objectives./
> Section 899B of the bill goes over the findings of Congress as it
> pertains to homegrown terrorism. Particularly alarming is that the
> bill mentions the Internet as a main source for terrorist propaganda.
Oct 23, 2007: This bill *passed* in the *House of Representatives* by
roll call vote. The vote was held under a suspension of the rules to cut
debate short and pass the bill, needing a two-thirds majority. The
totals were 404 Ayes, 6 Nays, 22 Present/Not Voting:
> Center for Constitutional Rights take on it:
> Synopsis of House action:
> <>
> The voting record:
> House Passes Thought Crime Prevention Bill, Implications:
> Excerpt: Section 899B of the bill goes over the findings of Congress
> as it pertains to homegrown terrorism. Particularly alarming is that
> the bill mentions the Internet as a main source for terrorist
> propaganda. The bill even mentions streams in obvious reference to
> many of the patriot and pro-constitution Internet radio networks that
> have been formed. It also mentions that homegrown terrorists span all
> ages and races indicating that the Congress is stating that everyone
> is a potential terrorist. Even worse is that Congress states in their
> findings that they should look at draconian police states like Canada,
> Australia and the United Kingdom as models to defeat homegrown
> terrorists. Literally, these findings of Congress fall right in line
> with the growing patriot [activist] community.
> Amy Goodman Interview (read or listen):
> This has to be dead on arrival by the time it hits the Senate.
> Gianni
This is to suggest each of us send a note of thanks to these six
remaining public servants of the House who voted their Nays to 404
traitorous Yeas.
Nay HI-1 Abercrombie, Neil [D]
Nay IL-12 Costello, Jerry [D]
Nay TN-2 Duncan, John [R]
Nay AZ-6 Flake, Jeff [R]
Nay OH-10 Kucinich, Dennis [D]
Nay CA-46 Rohrabacher, Dana [R]

The we must turn all effort towards the US Senate, and throw our bodies
in front of this Bill's passage.

The links Gianni provided above, will bring each of you up to speed,
which is where all Americans need to be right now, before we are each
carted off in a disappearance North American style. With Mukasey, the
author of N.A. style disappearance, now the Senate confirmed head of
"Justice"; our federal government has every thing in place, short of the
Thought Crime Bill, to cut off our communications, and start removing
the most vociferous of us first, until there will never be any dissent
heard in the US, ever again.

You must contact your two Senators, and hold them to a pledge to defeat
this Bill.

Bob Feuer.

2) Bob's message about it today:

GovTrack: H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2007 (Vote On Passage)
House Vote #993 --- Oct 23, 2007 (404-6) Passed. The above link brings
you to the Vote Roll.

Ten out of ten Massachusetts U.S. House seats, all held by Democrats,
voted in favor of a Bill, without full debate, whose
unconstitutionality would raise the eyebrow of a lowly federal
district court judge, but only raise a gleeful sneer from our new
Attorney General Mukasey. On 14 November 2007, at 10am, the President
said, " I particularly want to thank the Chief Justice of the United
States, John Roberts, who is here to swear-in the General.". This is
what I call "buttering up" the judge who will sit his impeachment

Had to get that in before the Senate ratifies the Bill. I wouldn't be
surprised to see the senate add an ex poste facto measure. We have
come right up against, "Give me liberty, or give me death.

For one nation under God, indivisibly, with liberty and justice for
all. Together we stand, or divided we fall. Now is the time to make
your choice. To answer follow these thoughts:

1. What would you expect of federal leadership that would make you
more proud to be an American?

2. What are you willing to give of yourself, to go get that for
yourself, your progeny, your community, and beyond.

The time has come to recover our lands, our federal government has
gone haywire, and will not correct itself. There is no one else to
save us but ourselves, or our enemies of which we have made many.
Again a choice for you to make.

If you live by the shore, your remote will not save you from
drowning, put it down, now. If you live in the southern tier, your
remote will not fill your glass with water, put it down, and pay
attention. Either we unite and regain control by the rights vested in
us under our founding documents, or we continue to enforce our

Stockbridge, Massachusetts, in the Bay Colony, 1779-1785, immigrant
farmers, one generation removed from centuries of serfdom, united
against oppressive court judgments which took their farms in
foreclosure, and jailed them mercilessly under deficiency and as
debtors. Joined by iron workers from West Stockbridge and other
farmers from Sheffield, Lenox, and Lee; with two horses they rode, as
the rest marched to the Court of Common Pleas sitting to the South in
Great Barrington. They headed off the three magistrates as they
promenaded behind the High Sheriff to the Courthouse. They forced
without violence an agreement, signed by the three magistrates,
suspending the issuances of judgments, unless and until their
grievances could be heard before the General Court. They then marched
on the Jail, and again without violence, released their kith and kin
to bring them home to be nursed back to health.

Today, Stockbridge Lanesborough, and Great Barrington are six months
resolved for the impeachment of both Bush and Cheney. On 7 June 2007,
our Town Clerk had affixed her signature to the resolution and
forwarded it to the Clerks of our state and federal legislatures to be
read into the official records in every chamber. On 5 July our U.S.
Rep. refused to co-sign H. Res. 333. On 6 November, Congressman John
Olver voted to table an open debate of H. Res. 333, intending to kill
the measure forever. At the end of that same day, a majority vote of
the full House of Representatives, sent H. res. 333 to the House
Committee on the Judiciary. This is the classical, historical
commencement of impeachment investigations. Yet Chairman Conyers and
every member save Congressman Henry Wexler (D-FL), has balked at
undertaking this awesome responsibility. The latest is that they are
too busy with previously scheduled matters.

These folks need a little friendly persuasion. First, the
congratulatory remarks to the six who co-signed H. Res. 333. Then to
Rep. Wexler, who was not one of those six co-signers, major kudos.
Then to the 17 Republicans, who are obliged by the majority vote of
their party on the open floor on 6 November. Finally, to the gunga din
Democrats on the committee who did not sign onto H. Res. 333. I will
give you their contact information below.

Our state legislature and Governor have made not one mention of the
authorities mandated by over twenty towns and cities. In June 2007,
2,500 delegates at the Annual Convention, the state Democratic Party
so resolved by an overwhelming majority. Vermont's Senate is the only
state legislature to address and pass an impeachment resolution.

This month, the National Lawyers Guild at their Annual Convention in
Washington, DC, unanimously resolved for the impeachment of both Bush
and Cheney; and the national public hand wrote perhaps 10,000-100,000
letters to the Speaker, Nancy Pelosi. We are at the tipping point, but
it is not yet the time to either back off, slow down, ease up, or to
celebrate a victory.

As we gain strength and momentum, the measures of oppression
increase. Now as to become almost laughable, were they not so
blatantly sinister in nature. We must stand up together, and not allow
the erroneous, divisive, fear and war mongering to stay or even waver
our course. As heinous are the foreign hostile occupations, the
denigration of our Constitution and the rule of law, is a far more
serious matter. There can be no priority higher in this land. Shame
for any federal committee to place other matters before the
investigations of Vice President Cheney, and President Bush.
Especially after a majority of the Full House has so moved.

This is a national movement to ever expand our reach, to coalesce,
and to prevail. This is a much needed turning point in our history,
each of us needs to feel proud to become a part of the restoration of
the rule of law, to help guide us onto a path of healing and progress.

What to do now. Review questions 1. & 2., above. Answer #2., by
sitting down this week and writing to these legislators. Consider
"calling for investigations of criminality and demanding committee
hearings and investigations."

In your letter, answer #1, and make enough copies to send your letter
to each and every one. Here's a helpful resource URGENT: Contact the
U.S. House Judiciary Committee and Ask for Impeachment of Cheney and
Bush | Many fax numbers to save you the

And here's another,

The only time it will be too late for you to resolve yourself for
impeachment, is when you wake up in an orange jumpsuit. Put down the
remote before you lose control of your liberty. "The price good men
pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men."

Carpe diem, and a Happy Thanksgiving,

Bob Feuer.