DON'T IMPEACH BUSH & CHENEY; PINOCHET THEM

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Originally published here last December

SAM SMITH - A number of progressive voices have been calling for the
impeachment of George Bush. It won't happen, trying would just waste
valuable congressional time developing a case for the 2008 elections,
and at best Bush's term would only be cut a year or less. Besides, there
is far more effective and satisfying retribution waiting in the wings,
one that could be pressed for years, and for which the criminals - not
just Bush but his top aides - would have to pay the rest of their lives.

The alternative is criminal indictment of Bush and his capos, either
under war crimes acts or under various domestic laws. Even if some or
all of these cases are not resolved, they could create a permanent cloud
over the heads of the perps, restrict their travel and discredit their
views, witness the effect on Pinochet and Kissinger.

Since we have never charged an ex-president with domestic criminal acts
it might take some creative work by lawyers ad law schools to come up
with the best procedures. But the more ideas the better. The more
indictments the better. And the more perp walks the better.

For starters here is a sample war crime indictment from the First Gulf
War.

http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrim2.htm

THE CON TO AVOID PROSECUTION

MICHAEL ISIKOFF, NEWSWEEK, MAY 19, 2004 - The White House's top lawyer
warned more than two years ago that U.S. officials could be prosecuted
for "war crimes" as a result of new and unorthodox measures used by the
Bush administration in the war on terrorism, according to an internal
White House memo and interviews with participants in the debate over the
issue.

The concern about possible future prosecution for war crimes - and that
it might even apply to Bush administration officials themselves - is
contained in a crucial portion of an internal January 25, 2002, memo by
White House counsel Alberto Gonzales obtained by Newsweek. . .

In the memo, the White House lawyer focused on a little known 1996 law
passed by Congress, known as the War Crimes Act, that banned any
Americans from committing war crimesââ‚â€�defined in part as "grave
breaches" of the Geneva Conventions. Noting that the law applies to
"U.S. officials" and that punishments for violators "include the death
penalty," Gonzales told Bush that "it was difficult to predict with
confidence" how Justice Department prosecutors might apply the law in
the future. This was especially the case given that some of the language
in the Geneva Conventionsââ‚â€�such as that outlawing "outrages upon
personal dignity" and "inhuman treatment" of prisonersââ‚â€�was
"undefined." . . .

One lawyer involved in the interagency debates over the Geneva
Conventions issue recalled a meeting in early 2002 in which participants
challenged [John] Yoo, a primary architect of the administration's legal
strategy, when he raised the possibility of Justice Department war
crimes prosecutions unless there was a clear presidential direction
proclaiming the Geneva Conventions did not apply to the war in
Afghanistan. The concern seemed misplaced, Yoo was told, given that
loyal Bush appointees were in charge of the Justice Department.

"Well, the political climate could change," Yoo replied, according to
the lawyer who attended the meeting. "The implication was that a new
president would come into office and start potential prosecutions of a
bunch of ex-Bush officials," the lawyer said. (Yoo declined comment.)

This appears to be precisely the concern in Gonzales's memo dated
January 25, 2002, in which he strongly urges Bush to stick to his
decision to exempt the treatment of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters from
the provisons of the Geneva Conventions. . .

One reason to do so, Gonzales wrote, is that it "substantially reduces
the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act."
He added that "it is difficult to predict with confidence what actions
might be deemed to constitute violations" of the War Crimes Act just as
it was "difficult to predict the needs and circumstances that could
arise in the course of the war on terrorism." . . .

In the end, after strong protests from Powell, the White House retreated
slightly. In February 2002, it proclaimed that, while the United States
would adhere to the Geneva Conventions in the conduct of the war in
Afghanistan, captured Taliban and Qaeda fighters would not be given
prisoner of war status under the conventions. It is a rendering that
Administration lawyers believed would protect U.S. interrogators or
their superiors in Washington from being subjected to prosecutions under
the War Crimes Act based on their treatment of the prisoners.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4999734/

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||