“We see, then, how vain the faith and promises of men who are exiles
from their own country. As to their faith, we have to bear in mind that,
whenever they can return to their own country by other means than your
assistance, they will abandon you and look to the other means,
regardless of their promises to you. And as to their vain hopes and
promises, such is their extreme desire to return to their homes that
they naturally believe many things that are not true, and add many
others on purpose; so that, with what they really believe and what they
say they believe, they will fill you with hopes to that degree that if
you attempt to act upon them you will incur a fruitless expense, or
engage in an undertaking that will involve you in ruin….A prince
therefore should be slow in undertaking any enterprise upon the
representations of exiles, for he will generally gain nothing by it but
shame and serious injury.”

— Machiavelli, The Discourses (1531), chapter 32

Some people never learn, and we all pay the cost of their ignorance.

Thanks to the REPUGnican controlled so called “liberal media” here in the USA, we don’t hear the REAL NEWS AND FACTS.

Thanks be to FSTV! and the internet!

Hell, if Hitler had KKKarl Rove on his side, the Holocaust would not have made Faux news!!!!!!

PULL THE PULG ON FAUX NEWS!

Fair and balanced, my AZZ!

“WE DISTORT, you decide”

“Yes, I could get my Sleepytime Herbal Green Tea Infuser at Amazon, but until that Sharper Image dweeb or I invent a Star Trek transporter, there’s only so much you can get over the net, legally. Recently I discovered the concept of a strip mall. Now before you get all bent out of shape, it isn’t what I first thought. Damn. So this strip mall around the corner has a nail salon that I go to for my pedicures (Tuesday’s special $5 off!). Today I just noticed that they also wax and shave! Who needs Tipper to shave my back hair! :) I’m freeee! Wheee! No more breakfast in bed for her! Get your own grape nuts, woman! Bwahaha!”

— President Al Gore
http://www.AlGoreLabs.com

Brace yourself for the truth, Bushie lied and more soldiers died today.

2. The attack that is happening at this very moment on the Syrian border is comparable to the Fallujua operation.

3. Our troops are in Syria now and we haven’t declared war because Bushie now understands that war would be illegal.

I support your findings #43 and agree. I also support Ramsey Clarks findings at votetoimpeach.org

Bushie has been caught red handed and its nice to know that the legal community supports impeachment.

Good catch, I thought the name meant Scooter Libby aka al-liby.

CONTACT EACH AND EVERY REPRESENTATIVE AND SENATOR IN YOUR STATE…TELL THEM IF THEY DO NOT BEGIN IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS THEY WILL NOT HAVE YOUR VOTE IN 2006 OR IN 2008.

Its the only way.

Comment by Do not forget September 11th. — November 6, 2005 @ 2:08 am

Why do all the Tin Foil Hatties hang out here? It’s a GOPstapo misinformation con and a hustle.

:::Cue Twilight Zone Theme music:::

Who is Karl Schwarz?

Karl Schwarz

Am I the only one who thinks the Repugs are like crack addicts in denial? Do they really think we are going to believe their Spun BS any longer?

There has been an undercurrent of unrest over the call for the impeachment of President Bush that is now bubbling to the surface. Several recent polls are showing a shift in public opinion towards impeachment of the president while a number of organizations are campaigning to convince the House of Representatives to lay charges. There are many impediments towards impeachment not the least of which is the fact that the House is Republican. Nevertheless, it is a healthy step forward that the American people may be finally realizing that the President is devious and lacks integrity.

On June 30/05 a Zogby Poll reported that “(42%) say they would favor impeachment proceedings if it is found the President misled the nation about his reasons for going to war with Iraq.” More recently an Ipso Public Affairs conducted between October 6/05 to October 9/05 found that 50% of Americans agreed with the statement “If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war against Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him.” The Santa Cruz City Council voted 6-1 “…to send a letter to members of the House Judiciary Committee asking the panel to investigate…” impeachment if “President Bush …deceived the American public about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.” Veterans for Peace have called for the impeachment of the President on a number of charges none of which refer to international law.

Calls for impeachment of President Bush based on his lies about weapons of mass destruction are misguided and misplaced. While lying about weapons of mass destruction to persuade Congress to grant approval for a war against Iraq is a serious offense, it is overshadowed by President Bush’s actions following the approval. President Bush and his administration have perpetrated major war crimes in Iraq and should be held accountable for violating the War Crimes Act.

The U.S. constitution states that “The President…shall be removed from office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” (Article II, Section4) Constitutional scholars agree that a serious criminal act constitutes grounds for impeachment. If President Bush has violated the Geneva Conventions, he should be charged under the War Crimes Act.

The War Crimes Act states that “Whoever…commits a war crime…defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party” will be “fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.” According to the Nuremberg Principles, if war crimes have been committed under this act, President Bush, as head of state, should be held responsible.

President Bush began violating international law the moment the U.S. started bombing Iraq. According to international law, there are only two criteria for a legal war: self-defense as defined in the United Nations Charter, Chapter VII, Article 51 and authorization of the Security Council. There is no specific UN resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq in 2003 and none of the former resolutions pertaining to Iraq authorize the use of force.

The Bush Administration cannot justify the war under the spurious defence of a preemptive strike because no such term exists in international law. International law states that an act of war only qualifies as self-defense if there is an actual or imminent threat. Administration legal spinners can’t legitimately demonstrate that Iraq posed such a threat. The UN charter also states that “Measures taken by members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.” (Chapter VII, Article 51) By completely bypassing the Security Council, the Bush Administration has forgone any opportunity to claim that the war was legitimate.

President Bush has also violated a number of clauses in the fourth Geneva Convention which states that “In the case of armed conflict…Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of the armed forces who have laid down their arms…shall in all circumstances be treated humanely…[and] the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and at any place: a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds; mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; b) Taking of hostages; c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.” (Part 1, Article 3) It also states that “The present Convention shall apply from the outset of any conflict or occupation.” (Article 6)

As well, he has violated clauses in the first Protocol of the Geneva Conventions including “The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy protections against dangers arising from military operations” (Chapter II, Article 51) and “Civilian objects shall not be the object of attack or of reprisals.” (Chapter III, Article 52)

Fallujah is a typical example of American forces ignoring the rights of civilians and the protection of non-military targets. The objective of the November 8/05 assault on Fallujah was to kill all the insurgents who were in the city and to instill fear as a deterrent from further action on the part of all insurgents throughout Iraq.

Preceding the attack on Fallujah, American warplanes conducted nightly air strikes on residential buildings, restaurants and mosques. Before the actual assault began, U.S. warplanes reduced the Nazzal Emergency Hospital in the center of Fallujah to rubble. American forces then encircled the city with a cordon of more than 10,000 armed troops and were supported by all the American warplanes in the area. According to a CounterPunch Newsletter, November 17/04, “Women and children were allowed to leave the doomed city, but all males ‘of fighting age’ were turned back if they tried to leave…They were turned back to face the coming attack.” U.S. marines set up blockades so that ambulances and other vehicles transporting dead or injured residents could not reach a hospital. (Doug Lorimer, Scoop Independent News, November 18/04) Fallujah General Hospital was taken over by American marines and “Patients and hospital employees were rushed out of rooms by armed soldiers and ordered to sit or lie on the floor while troops tied their hands behind their backs.” (New York Times embedded reporter, ZNet, False Dawn, November 8, 2004)

After blasting Fallujah with tanks, U.S. marines traveled from house to house and threw hand grenades into each room before determining whether persons were there. A quarter of its homes were completely destroyed and most of the remaining homes were severely damaged. (Michael Schwartz, ZNet, January 14/05) Erik Eckolm of the New York Times described the city as “a desolate world of skeletal buildings, tank-blasted homes, weeping power lines and severed palm trees.” (Michael Schwartz, ZNet, January 14, 2005)

According to Michael Schwartz, “When the first medical teams arrived in January they collected more than 700 unburied and rotting bodies (reputedly including those of 550 women and children) in only one-third of the city; and these obviously didn’t include the dead already buried during the battle or hidden under the debris.”

Many of the 200,000 refugees who were forced to abandon their homes brought nothing with them and ended up in refugee camps without any facilities or help from the American or the Interim Iraqi Government.

Even one death in an illegal war would have constituted a war crime. In Fallujah, innocent people were killed, buildings were destroyed, and refugees ignored, all of which violate the clauses of the Geneva Conventions stated above.

Alberto Gonzales, former White House Counsel, declared that provisions of the Geneva Conventions are obsolete and therefore, the U.S. can opt out of them. International law was not created as a set of guidelines under which nations could pick and choose which laws they will honor. If the United States Government believes that certain clauses in the Geneva Conventions should no longer be operative, the legitimate course of action would be to convince the signatories to the Conventions to discuss changes in the proper forum. As well, the White House lawyers should read Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution which declares that “All treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” In other words, the UN Charter and Geneva Conventions are a part of American law and violating either of them is tantamount to violating American law.

To impeach President Bush on the grounds that he lied about WMD will further weaken the United Nations and the international regime of laws which criminalize wars of aggression and civilize war to the furthest extent possible. By only charging Bush with lying implies that the war would have been legitimate had the Americans found any WMD. The mere presence of WMD in Iraq does not qualify as an actual or imminent threat. One of the most basic issues in a claim of self-defense is whether Iraq had the delivery capability for its WMD to reach American soil. The inspection teams, UNSCOM and UNMOVIC, and the International Atomic Energy Agency had found no evidence of WMD and no delivery capability. According to Hans Blix, Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC “Iraq on the whole has cooperated…access has been provided to all sites.”

Ignoring the war crimes of the President also diminishes the role of the United Nations as the only instrument for resolving disputes and authorizing war. Congressional approval for a war does not override the United Nations Charter which has become part of American law. If nations decide not to relinquish some of their sovereignty over foreign and defense policy to a world body such as the UN, the world would be reduced to a state of war and disorder.

President Bush is guilty of lying to the American people and violating international law. Both are serious offenses but to ignore the latter is a disservice to the United Nations and to the people of Iraq who have died or suffered at the hands of this war criminal.

Author of “Lying for Empire: How to Commit War Crimes with a Straight Face”