Watching Democracy

Missing from the Debate on Torture

2009-04-24T15:04:00.000-07:00

Everyone is now talking about the torture policy of the Bush Administration. But there are a few points missing from the discussion that I think are important.

Justification: Cheney has tried to justify torture by saying it was necessary to prevent another 9/11. But America may have lost more lives as a result of torture than as a result of 9/11. It appears that many of these torture interrogations were focused, not on stopping attacks, but on justifying an invasion of Iraq. For example, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi was tortured by US and Egyptian agents in 2002. Al-Libi told his interrogators that Iraq was training Al Qaeda how to use explosives and chemical weapons. Bush used this "intelligence" as a major part of his evidence against Saddam Hussein. In 2004 Al-Libi said he had simply told interrogators what they wanted to hear in order to escape the pain of torture. So the "evidence" obtained by torture was used to mislead us into a war that resulted in the loss of over 4200 American lives.

High Value Targets: The investigations are focusing on the torture of a handful of Al Qaeda leaders. But hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people were tortured in prisons around the world, many of them in secret locations. Many of these prisoners had little or nothing to do with Al Qaeda. Maher Arar, for example, was kidnapped by the CIA and tortured for a year in Syria because he worked at a software company with someone whose brother was once associated with Al Qaeda. Khalid El-Masri was kidnapped and tortured for five months because his name is similar to Khalid Al-Masri, a known Al Qaeda operative. Oops. Remember the famous photo of the guy with the pointy hood and the electrical wires attached to his genitals. His name is Satar Jabar and he was accused of carjacking. Many innocent people were turned in by bounty hunters eager to collect the fortune offered by the US military. These folks ended up at Gitmo, Abu Graib and other prisons and were tortured along with the enemy combatants.

Safe and Sane Torture: The clinical language used in the torture memos make the techniques sound a bit tame. But the torture itself was not carried out by lawyers. It was carried out by strong men in dark prisons. These were violent acts. The ACLU has documented dozens of cases where prisoners died of blunt force trauma, strangulation and other injuries sustained while in custody. Many prisoners are simply missing.

So when you hear a discussion of Abu Zubaydah being waterboarded 83 times, remember that this is just the tip of the iceberg. Bush and Cheney presided over a nightmarish campaign of kidnapping and torture that is staggering in scope. We must investigate this matter fully then prosecute any high level officials that committed these crimes.

Bush Accuses Russia of "disproportionate response"

2008-08-11T08:42:00.000-07:00

Another reason that Bush should be impeached is that America has lost its moral authority. Consider the new war between Georgia and Russia.

The roots of this conflict go way back. But on Thursday August 7th Georgia attacked South Ossetia, a breakaway province in the north of Georgia, causing heavy civilian casualties. These were mostly Russian citizens with Russian passports. Russia then responded by invading Georgia with a major military force including tanks, artillery and bombers.

On Sunday Bush accused Russia of a "disproportionate response". It may have been. But American no longer has the moral authority to accuse anyone of a "disproportionate response".

We invaded Iraq and killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Iraq never even attacked us. We accused them of having the ability to attack us sometime in the future. But that turned out to be a deliberate lie. There is no possible way to consider our invasion of Iraq a "proportionate response" because there was nothing to respond to.

I wish that we could shame other countries into behaving better. But we have violated international law so badly that we can only hope other countries do not follow our example.

Q&A on the Judiciary Committee's Impeachment Powers

2008-07-30T15:04:00.000-07:00

Impeachment activists have been pushing John Conyers to move forward with impeachment in the Judiciary Committee. But it is not clear how much authority Conyers has. So I had a chat with someone in the House Office of the Parliamentarians. They are the ultimate authority on procedures in the House. I have tried to summarize their answers below. Any errors are my own.

Q1: What is the difference between a real impeachment hearing and the hearing on Friday 7/25?

A1: The difference is simply the question before the committee. The question Friday was "Executive Power and Its Constitutional Limitations". It would have been insulting and off-topic (out of order) to suddenly accuse President Bush of a specific crime in that Friday hearing. So the testimony was very circumspect. But if the question before the committee was "Did Bush commit impeachable offense X" then witnesses could simply say "Bush did X".

Conyers currently has the authority to convene a hearing on a specific question of impeachment.

Q2: Why did Conyers refer to needing approval from the House in order to conduct a real impeachment inquiry.

A2: Approval from the House would give the Committee special powers that they do not normally have. These include the power to conduct field investigation and depose witnesses in the field under oath. These transcripts could be submitted as evidence. They would also have a letter from Congress that would make it easier to interview witnesses in foreign countries. These powers would all be handy when impeaching a President and one would expect the Committee to seek those powers if they wanted to impeach. But Conyers has the authority to proceed without those powers. They can currently conduct hearings on impeachment and place witnesses under oath.

[Blogger's opinion: I see an analogy with going fishing. You can go fishing without a pole and I have caught a fish with my bare hands. But if you are serious about catching a fish then you will probably want to use a pole. To impeach Bush for lying about Iraq, or on torture or Plame-gate then Conyers will probably want to do deep investigations and would want the powers that come from House approval. But Conyers does not need special powers to impeach Bush for refusing to comply with subpoenas. In this case the fish are jumping into the boat.]

Q3: Does Conyers need any other approval before drafting Articles of Impeachment and submitting them to the House?

A3: No. The "committee has that authority".

Q4: How can the House vote on individual Articles of Impeachment if they are submitted as a single Resolution.

A4: The House can "divide the question" and vote on it in parts.

you say we want a revolution

2008-06-20T16:57:00.000-07:00

This is a letter I wrote to Dan Gainor at the "Business and Media Institute". They are an extremely well funded (mega$) think tank dedicated to countering "liberal bias" in the media.

Hello Dan,

I stumbled upon your article "Left-Wing Cry of 'Revolution' More than Same Old Song".

I know personally some of the people you mentioned in that article. I think you were partly correct in your analysis. But also partly wildly off the mark.

It is true that sometimes we "liberals" use the term "revolution". But we use it to mean a significant change in direction, not a violent act. Many liberals see America as heading down the road toward corporate sponsored dictatorship. We would like to reverse that direction and restore government by and for the people as created by our Founding Fathers.

You ended your article with "too many lefties really want a revolution to destroy pretty much everything America has always epitomized – freedom, individuality and traditional values". Nothing could be further than the truth. I don't know any liberal that feels that way. I think you are creating division where there is none.

I think both liberals and conservatives value freedom, security and other traditional values. We just disagree sometimes on how to achieve those goals. To say that we have different goals is unproductive and just makes conservatives hate liberals for no reason.

In many ways, liberals are seeking a "conservative" revolution. We want to preserve American freedoms as expressed in the Constitution. Some liberals want to return to the days when food was grown locally by small farmers and was uncontaminated by chemicals. We want to return to the days when the President was not above the law. These are traditional American values.

Let's put our heads together and figure out to reach these common goals together.

Cheney Begs to be Impeached

2008-04-29T16:29:00.001-07:00

Cheney is doing everything he can to resist oversight by Congress. John Conyers recently invited Cheney's Chief of Staff to appear at a hearing before the Judiciary Committee. Cheney's lawyers responded that the legislative power and inquiry powers are both limited. They said "For example, Congress lacks the constitutional power to regulate by a law what a Vice President communicates in the performance of the Vice President's official duties, or what a Vice President recommends that a President communicate in the President's performance of official duties, and therefore those matters are not within the Committee's power of inquiry."

But they are forgetting another power that Congress has: the power to impeach!

The only way that Conyers is going to get anything out of Cheney or his minions is if Conyers starts impeachment investigations. And if Cheney resists then he can be impeached for interposing "the powers of the Presidency against the the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, thereby assuming to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives." That charge was from the 3rd Article of Impeachment against Nixon.

You can read Cheney's letter here.

Letter in Support of NH HR24

2008-02-28T10:21:00.001-08:00

The New Hampshire legislature is considering a resolution that urges Congress to impeach Bush and Cheney. More info here:

http://www.impeachbush.tv/impeach/state_nh.html

Here is a letter I wrote in support of this action:

Please support HR24, which urges Congress to impeach Bushy and Cheney.

The President and every elected American official takes an oath to protect and defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic.

When there is strong evidence that the President has failed in his oath of office then Congress has the power to impeach. With that power comes a responsibility to use that power when necessary.

When Congress fails to fulfill their oath of office by not impeaching then it is the responsibility of every elected official to defend the Constitution by petitioning Congress to impeach.

When almost every elected official seems to ignore their oath, with the exception of NH Representative Betty Hall and other patriots, then it is the responsibility of every American citizen to raise their voices and call for impeachment. That is why I am writing this letter.

Congress a Bigger Threat to Constitution than Bush

2007-09-16T16:45:00.000-07:00

I'm not so worried about Bush. Sure he is a corrupt President who has killed thousands of people and nearly destroyed America. And yes, he has violated many parts of the Constitution. But he does not threaten the integrity of the Constitution itself. That is because the authors of the Constitution were very smart. They knew there would be corrupt Presidents and provided a remedy just in case. That remedy is impeachment. When a President commits "high crimes and misdemeanors" the Constitution gives Congress the power to impeach, hold a trial, convict and remove from office the wayward miscreant.

This is not unlike the laws against robbing banks. People rob banks all the time. But people are not worried about the law itself being undermined. That is because the police and the courts catch most banks robbers, try them and send them to jail. The law works well in this case.

But imagine if the police said they weren't going to bother with catching bank robbers because it was a distraction. And suppose the courts said they were not going to try bank robbers because it would tie up the courts. Or even worse, imagine if the sheriff wanted to use the high crime rate to help win the next election, so he let the bank robbers go. If that happened then the laws against robbing banks would become meaningless. Banks would become obsolete. This behavior by the police would threaten the rule of law far more than the actual robbing of the banks.

Well this is exactly what happened when Pelosi said "Impeachment is off the table." The inaction of the Democrats in the face of these obvious crimes is doing more to undermine the Constitution than Bush's original crimes. Bush is just a crook. But Congress is far worse. They are the crooked cops who look the other way.

Every member of Congress takes an oath of office to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". They don't take an oath to bring home the pork or to get reelected. It is time for Congress to do their most important job and to impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney.

There are a few members of Congress who take their Oath of Office seriously. Dennis Kucinich has introduced HRes 333 to impeach Dick Cheney. He now has over 20 cosponsors. But the central leadership of the Democratic party continues to be complicit in Bush's crimes. If Congress does not impeach then history may judge them more harshly then it judges Bush and Cheney.

Bush Freezes War Funds for Iraq

2007-07-18T16:28:00.000-07:00

July 17, 2007 - In a surprise move, President Bush issued an Executive Order that has the effect of freezing all funding for his war in Iraq. His message to Congress blocks any funds which are used to commit any violence in Iraq that threatens the "peace or stability of Iraq" or that undermine "efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people".

He probably meant for this to apply to "the insurgents" but I cannot think of anyone who has done more to threaten the "peace or stability" of Iraq than George Bush himself. Over half a million Iraqis have been killed and over 4 million have fled the country since he invaded Iraq in 2003.

Saddam was a bad leader who condoned the torture of prisoners and killed many Iraqis. But one could walk down the street back then without fearing for one's life. Since Bush took over, foreigners have to hide in the "Green Zones" and the role of torturer has been taken over by our own military.

Bush is now in the difficult position of having to violate his own order if he continues the occupation of Iraq. Oh well. It is just one more law to break and he is above the law so I doubt this will slow him down.

You can read the text of the resolution here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html

It is becoming increasingly clear that the only way to end this occupation of Iraq is to impeach the man who misled us into it.

More at: http://www.impeachbush.tv/

Pelosi: Do Nothing, Get Elected

2007-07-06T13:07:00.001-07:00

Did you ever wonder why House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said "Impeachment is off the table". Now we know.

In an interview with bloggers on June 28, 2007, Pelosi revealed the true motives of the Democratic leadership. It is not about protecting and defending the Constitution. It is not about restoring the delicate checks and balances that keep America from turning into a dictatorship. It is all about getting elected in 2008. Apparently their strategy is to investigate and catalog all of the crimes by Bush and Cheney and then do absolutely nothing about them. Then in 2008 they can say "Look how bad they are. Vote for us!".

In the interview, Pelosi spoke about the many impeachable offenses that Bush has committed and said "The American people really don’t even know the half of it..." She described assaults by Bush on judicial review and habeas corpus. But rather than following the Constitutional remedy of impeachment Pelosi summed up their strategy as follows: "So again, build the record, make it known to the public, understand that this flies in the face of everything our country stands for, and use it in the campaign and then do it right when we are in power, which I am absolutely certain we will be – I’m certain we will win the White House." [Pelosi 6/28/07]

Franky, I don't care if they win the White House. If the Democrats simply use these crimes to get elected then they are no better than the Republicans who use these crimes to promote their own agenda. If the Democrats do not defend the Constitution by impeaching Bush or Cheney then they do not deserve to win. I will vote for a third party if the Democrats cannot fulfill their oath of office.

Pelosi needs to be careful. Her plan could backfire. A third party candidate can use the Democrats list of crimes against both major parties. They can simply say "Look at what the Republicans did. Look at what the Democrats knew and did absolutely nothing about!"

Politicians may care about getting reelected. But as a citizen, I care more about what they do when they are in office. The Democrats have a sworn duty to defend the Constitution. I expect them to honor their oath and impeach Bush and Cheney.

Impeachment is for Wimps

2007-06-04T08:29:00.000-07:00

I am puzzled when I hear Democrats saying that impeachment of Bush or Cheney is too extreme. Anyone who follows the news will admit that serious crimes have been committed. But those same people are unwilling to pursue impeachment. They act as if impeachment were some kind of lynching or revolutionary act. But impeachment is simply a process by which a President can lose their job. That's it. They just get fired. There is no prison or tar and feathering involved. Impeachment is pretty wimpy when you think about it.

Imagine you are the boss of a company and one of your managers lies to the other managers and leads you on a fools errand that results in the deaths of 3400 employees and half a million customers. Oops. He also spied on other employees, kidnapped thousands of customers and is holding them in secret dungeons where they are routinely tortured. Egad. This employee has also had years of poor performance reviews and is showing no sign of improvement. He claims that he is trying to help the company but the company is suffering and his buddies are getting rich from shady deals that he has made over the years. So what do you do?

It goes without saying that this guy loses his job. It would be ridiculous and dangerous to let him stay. After that it is up to the police or the FBI.

Now you might think that this situation does not apply to President Bush because he is the boss of the USA. But you would be wrong. We are the boss, the American people. We elect the President and Vice President and our Constitution, Article II Section 4, says we can fire them if they commit "Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". Our Representatives in Congress have sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and that includes impeaching the President and Vice President if necessary. They work for us too and we expect them to do their job.

Some Democrats have argued that Bush's crimes are not serious enough to warrant impeachment. But people get fired for stealing office supplies or showing up late for work. Lying and killing thousands of people is arguably worse. So let's go Congress. Do the wimpiest, most minimal, thing that these crimes deserve. Fire Bush and Cheney by voting yes for Articles of Impeachment.

Read more at http://www.impeachbush.tv/

A Solution in Iraq Requires Impeachment

2006-06-15T22:44:00.000-07:00

Impeach Bush

Imagine the police breaking into a house and catching some lunatic doing amateur surgery on his neighbor. The poor neighbor's liver is in a bucket and their intestines are wrapped around the chandelier. Should the police tell the lunatic to "fix this mess" and then stand by while he stuffs the organs back in place? Clearly not. The only way to save the patient is to handcuff the amateur and bring in a team of trained surgeons. They may not be able to repair the damage that has been done. But at least they won't be making the situation any worse.

We have the same situation now in Iraq. People are debating whether Bush should withdraw troops, and how many, and when. But the key thing to realize is that Bush is not the right person to be doing this. Bush is the one who lied about Iraq's WMD and misled us into this war. Iraq was not much of a threat before the war but now it is in chaos and provides a haven and a training ground for more terrorists. Bush is the one who thought the war was over long ago, "mission accomplished", and that there would be minimal resistance from Iraqi's. Clearly Bush did not understand what he was leading us into and he is not qualified to lead us out.

Bush should be impeached for the many crimes that he has committed. Once he is out of office then we can put together a bipartisan, international group of experts on the Middle East. This new team will then be able to work with the new Iraqi government to chart a new course and hopefully solve some of the complex problems we face.

Impeach Bush now before he does any more damage.

HRes635 - A Step Towards Impeachment

2005-12-30T10:56:00.000-08:00

There is hope for impeachment in the New Year. Representative John Conyers has submitted three new bills. H.Res.635 calls for a Select Committee to investigate Bush crimes and decide whether there is sufficient evidence for Impeachment. H.Res.636 and 637 call for Censuring Bush and Cheney.

It is possible that these bills will just sit in the House Rules Committee for the whole year of 2006. But if we pressure the committee members then we may be able to move them to the floor for a vote.

More info here:
http://www.impeachbush.tv/news/hres635.html

Impeachment Necessary

2005-05-07T22:43:00.000-07:00

I have to strike a balance in my life between short term and long term goals. I must work to make money but what good is it if George Bush destroys the world as we know it. I do not want to end up living in a cave, remembering the good old days when we had electricity and the Internet.

When I think about what we need for long term survival, Bush is doing the opposite on almost every issue. He is making enemies when we need more friends. He is raping the planet while we need solutions to global warming and dwindling fossil fuels. He is lying to the American people when we need an honest government that faces our problems directly and leads us in the right direction. We can't wait for him to steal the next election.

We need to Impeach George Bush now.

More information here: http://www.impeachbush.tv/