Letters to the Editor
-
Impeachment is a political act.
Mr. Everet misunderstands what impeachment is. It is a political act couched in judicial form for which the only punishment is removal from office. Any crimes committed would be dealt with later by the courts. Ironically, the courts would extend to the perpetrators the very protections they (the perpetrators) deny to others. When Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon it freed Nixon from the possibility of a trial. As a footnote, the reality is that the "high crimes and misdeameanors" is pretty much anything that Congress says it is.
-
Confess?
In the case of the Bush administration, it is the documents themselves that seem to want to confess, that are bursting with the desire to talk, to tell the story of these last years of illegality. Americans, and the Congress they have just elected, should take heed.
"Confess"? No. They're boasting about what they've done. These people honestly believe that the American people will love and reward them for committing torture, particularly if they're mostly torturing foreigners.
And given what I've heard from a lot of average American voters, I have a terrible fear that Bush et alia really understand the public mood correctly; that as a people we are not only willing to accept torture and the loss of all our civil and human rights, but that we'd be actually glad to lose them, if a smooth-talker convinced us that the primary victims would be people that look, sound, or believe differently from ourselves.
Can it be that the Republicans lost the recent elections not because they violated every human right and standard of decency imaginable, but simply because they mismanaged the economy and the Iraq war?
-
Impeachable Grammar
Courts have to be incredibly naive to accept these grammatical distortions. As in legal contracts, the court considers the action of the parties to clarify intent. It's clear the intent here is to absolve Bush people from war crimes. It's also clear that Iraqis are resisting those who invade their homeland. That makes them terrorists? Sure, there are those who want us there, but those folks have been bought and paid for. As Karen Greenberg writes, 102 countries have subscribed to this lunacy. Who said, "Money can't buy everything?"
-
Executive activism
For now lets not get split over what to do about crazy Georgie and his odd savage blow jobs in the Oval Office. First the impermissability of torture must be set back into American law and enforced. Congress must act. Until then, punishment of these sick sad dangerous people is a distraction.
Monty Johnston
Free read: google "Rabid Fanatic" +"Monty Johnston"
-
Paper trail? Get real
Are there any other "papers" of interest from the Office of President or Vice President? How are they to be accessed? Search "Executive Order 13233" or possibly "Executive Order Presidential Papers". EO 13233 became effective on November 1, 2001. It's date is probably coincidental with the events of 911, however, it truly is intersting. Perhaps the 110th Congress can provide clarification to the American public.
-
Impeachment first, then a real trial becomes possible, maybe
Once GW Bush has been impeached - and he and his criminal Gang have been removed from power - then it may become possible for all of them to be tried before a World Court set up for the purpose.
GSC
-
It's "Illegal" Only If Somone Can Prosecute
No doubt that Bush and his cronies' behavior is unethical and reprehensible. Is it illegal? That depends, in my opinion, on whether there is any legal recource to address the behavior. Will we see impeachment, prosecution, civil suits, etc. against the prez, Rummy, and others? I doubt it. As a country we do not have the gumption (or concensus) to pursue action in these areas. So, is it "illegal"? It depends on your interpertation of illegality. But it seems clear that these opinions on legality will never be tested in court.
-
some are insane, but they're in charge
I've always wondered about the psychology of people like Bush etc.: do they know, on any level, that they're pure evil, or do they really believe their infantile rhetoric about bringing the fire of freedom to the world and all the rest of it? I have a hunch that Cheney at least is a pure cynic. Bush, on the other hand, has probably lost whatever tenuous grasp on reality he ever had. But then, why would he purchase all that land in Paraguay if he didn't know that his ass would be on a WANTED poster if there were any justice in the world?
-
John Yoo & War Crimes Prosecution
in my professional responsibility class, we spent a whole 1.5 hours talking about how John Yoo's and Gonzalez' actions were in violation of professional responsiblity standards.
As for war crimes, I am not very familiar with that law. However, I know that the US, through the Alien Tort Claims Act fo 1789, allows non-US-nationals to file civil suit against non-US-nationals for violations of "the law of nations," which includes only 3 things for sure: (1) piracy, (2) violation of safe conducts, and (3) torture. The law has been used in modern times by Paraguayan natioanls to sue other Paraguayans acting under legal authority in Paraguay for torturing someone to death.
Now, it be truly bizarre, hypocritical and incredibly shameful if the US didn't allow the same kind of civil lawsuit against US nationals acting under color of law, like Donald Rumsfeld, John Yoo, Gonzalez, Cheney and Bush.
-
An Answer and A Question
A: The new US Torture and Dungeons Law gives immunity for anyone who tortures an Alien Unlawful Combatant.
(But I hope we still can get them for torturing the people who turn out not to be Combatants, the taxi drivers, goat herders, and shoeshine boys they took to Guantanamo.)
Q: Did G.W. Bush really buy land in Paraguay?
-
timbuktom
Yes, apparently Bush purchased nearly 100,000 acres in Paraguay. Google "Bush Paraguay Land Purchase" for more.
-
A Mirror Darkly
It says more about us and the pundit class that the Bushistas have been so overt on their criminal conduct and there has been so little outrage. No one can argue that their meaning was not plain nor their efforts at concealment so devious. History will judge us harshly for our apparent unconcern for the rights and welfare of others and we will deserve every ounce of that contempt.
-
I agree but I don't see it happening...
I'd love to see several people rotting in a dank dungeon cell full of spiders and rats where they were waterboarded daily until they confessed that they knew all along that what they did was illegal, immoral, and reprehensible. This and other information would then be used against them in trials where they would neither be allowed to see nor challenge the evidence presented.
I just don't see the American government as having the moral fiber required to do something like that. Taking legal action against Bush et al would require the American government to admit to war crimes and worse. And if, against all probability, there is a move to bring these perpetrators to justice, all the legal challenges that would be pressed against any effort to obtain justice in American courts would spin any final decision out to the point where the guilty parties would be dead or enfeebled.
It's a sad comment but I think Shrub and Co will get away with some pretty vile behaviour.