Democracy Now: "Warrior-King: The Case For Impeaching George W. Bush."

[G_j]

Should President Bush Be Impeached? *

Attorney John Bonifaz argues the president has commited high crimes by lying to the American public and Congress about Iraq in the lead-up to the invasion. He makes his case in the new book "Warrior-King: The Case For Impeaching George W. Bush."

Listen/Watch/Read
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/16/151222

AMY GOODMAN: Lay out your case.

JOHN BONIFAZ: This President has taken this nation to an illegal and unconstitutional war . President is not a king who does not have the power to take the nation to war without congress first authorizing it, first either declaring war or taking equivalent action. Congress never authorized this war, despite the myth of what congress did in October 2002 and the president never had the authority, therefore, to launch this first strike invasion against Iraq. Furthermore, beyond that trampling of the constitution, in taking this nation to illegal war, causing thousands of deaths, we now know that the president lied to the united states congress and to the American people about the reasons for taking a nation to war. Weapons of Mass Destruction, none of which have been found, alleged links to al- Qaeda, none of which have been proven true. This President and his senior advisers who took this nation into a serial war should be now be held accountable for these impeachment offenses. These are the highest of all crimes that could possibly be considered as an impeachable offense and the charge should be made. There is no immunity even in an election year to presidents being charged with impeachable offenses if they have committed them. This president should be charged with having taken this nation to illegal war and having violated the oath of office in the constitution and deserving impeachment.

AMY GOODMAN: Who is Ellridge Jerry?

JOHN BONIFAZ: Ellridge Jerry is a delegate from Massachusetts to the Constitutional Convention back in 1787 who rose to object when it was suggested that the president would have the sole power for taking a nation into war. And his objection carried the day. He was proven right. The delegates at the constitutional convention offered the war powers clause of the U.S. Constitution, article I, section eight, clause 11, which states very clearly that congress and only congress has the power to start a war against another nation, to declare a war. And this is not a power that can be transferred to the President of the United States. And yet that's essentially what Congress did in October 2002. It said to the president, you decide whether or not to take this nation to war. We're not going to decide. We'll hand that decision-making authority over to you. They didn't have the ability to handle that decision-make authority over to the president under the Constitution and the President didn't have the ability to seize it. He seized the powers of the king and taking this nation into an illegal war and now more than ever, we've got to stand up for the constitution. We've got to stand up for democracy and demand accountability of the high crime this is president has committed.

AMY GOODMAN: You've sued President Bush on what grounds?

JOHN BONIFAZ: We represented a coalition of United States soldiers, parents of soldiers and members of Congress whereby Congressman John Conyers Jr. and Dennis Kucinich who charged the President did not have the authority to launch this first strike invasion of Iraq. We filed the suit in February 2003 on the eve of the Iraq War. We retreated on the expedited basis up to the federal appeals court. The Federal Appeals Court treated it seriously and had tough questions for both sides, including the justice department which came out in full force on behalf of the President. But in the end, these judges did not have the courage to stand up to this President and not have the courage to do their duty under the Constitution in which they're to uphold and protect it and they let this President take the nation into an illegal war. So, the remaining remedy is with we the people. We the people have the power to demand the removal from office of anyone who commits impeachable offenses, who commits high crimes. That's why the founders put this article into the Constitution. This is an indictment that ought to be made of the President of the United States. He ought to be charged of having committed these crimes and in the halls of congress and around this nation, as to whether or not the President can take the nation into an illegal war resulting in thousands of deaths and not be held accountable. We need to demand accountability of this president and of his senior advisers for doing this.

..more..

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Awesome!

[in_cog_ni_to]

2. Pleeease, please, please let this happen! n/t

[enough]

3. the resolution

snip>

We had no appropriations for this invasion. We had no mandatory draft. All we had was the October resolution, which Senator Robert Byrd, who has commanded United States history, called "...a rag of a resolution, a piece of cowardice". It did not authorize war, it simply transferred to the president the decision-making power of whether or not to take this nation to war and the president embraced it. He went around the country saying I'll decide whether or not we go to war against Iraq. I'll let you know. And the world waited for this one individual with this awesome power to take this nation to war. This is the power of Kings and Queens of European Monarchies of the past and this is not the power of a presidency of democracy.

snip>

If this is an accurate description of the resolution, it looks as if every legislator who voted for it should be impeached right along with Bush.

[indepat]

8. I wholly agree that every Congressman who voted for this resolution

wrongfully and shamefully abrogated their collective authority to one man who obviously had an agenda, a PNAC agenda of his own. I e-mailed my Congressman that he had lost my vote in perpetuity: there was no need to have contacted my two Rethug Senators who vote for the King's every whim in fawning lockstep.

[leftchick]

4. "warrior-king*"!

LOL! doncha love it? Quick mopaul, we need a graphic for this one!

[library_max]

5. If we learned nothing else from the Clinton years,

we should at least have learned that impeachment is a political process, not a legal process. It doesn't matter two hoots in hell what the President has or hasn't done that's against the law. It doesn't matter whether or not he's guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors." It only matters whether the opposition party can get a simple majority in the House and two-thirds in the Senate. As both are presently controlled by Republicans, I think it's case closed.

[G_j]

6. even so

would it be ethical for example, to not demand that a murderer be brought to justice, even if it was known that that person, because of their connections would be let off the hook? I don't think so.

[library_max]

7. The situation is more as if murder was not actually against the law,

and no legal mechanism existed for punishing it. The Clinton experience demonstrated that the language describing grounds for impeachment actually means nothing at all. And demanding an action that is doomed to fail tends to make us look petulant and ineffectual.

[G_j]

9. I still question this reasoning

Bush SHOULD be impeached. Most of us, here at least, are aware that high crimes have been committed. So that is not the question.
I believe in calling out the truth, regardless of success or failure.
But I respect your viewpoint. Some also think it would be a distraction and actually gain sympathy for Bush.

Because the evidence is there and serious crimes have been committed, its worth discussing anyway.

[Mechatanketra]

10. Hurm.

I think Bonifaz is just wrong here, in the specific. The Constitution gives Congress the power to make rules regarding military conflict, and doesn't restrict them from issuing conditional declarations of war (like Britain's own declaration against Germany in WWII, which was contingent upon Germany's not retreating from Poland).

That's exactly what the Iraq War Resolution was: a conditional declaration of war. "We're declaring war against Iraq if President Bush concludes they're going to attack us (directly or indirectly)." The Iraq War Resolution was morally and ethically reprehensible (all the more so for the yellowbrick Dems who voted with it), certainly -- but it wasn't unconstitutional. Congress is empowered to pass legislation to carry out its duties, which means not only does it have the ability to delegate its powers, effectively all it does is delegate powers that the executive branch then uses.

However, this still doesn't mean that Bush's war is a legal one, because the very conclusion he sent to Congress to activate his war powers was a lie. Iraq wasn't a threat, and it can be proven that Bush was aware of this (or willfully unaware of it -- holding your hands over your ears and yelling "na na na" is not the same as hearing nothing). It's against the law to lie to Congress.

[G_j]

11. a valid point

the most blatant abuse here originates before the resolution, when Bush lied to Congress and the American people. Also Bush's defenders will bring up the many other cases of America engaging in wars not declared by Congress.

Deliberately misleading and deceiving Congress and the country into a major aggressive war is a very serious abuse of power.

[indigobusiness]

12. It is amazing, the positive response to 2 simple words...

-IMPEACH BUSH- Caps tshirts etc. have power. Get one, here or elsewhere, and wear it. Quiet patriotism is gaining momentum.



http://www.cafeshops.com/indigobusiness