July 17, 2003
-
first things first....
Sorry I suck so bad. I know you're all ""*dying* for an update. Sure. OK, I amuse myself.
Rose is Two
Rose is two! Her birthday was successfully celebrated at home, in LA and the Mama Gathering and at Auntie Susan and Uncle Iwi's house, and the kids party is this weekend... She thinks all boxes are presents for her... Photos coming soon.
Give George a Pink Slip!
HELP GIVE "W" A PINK SLIP!! - please share extensively!!!!!
On Tuesday, July 22nd, at 7PM, a coalition of Santa Cruz peace and social justice groups will petition the Santa Cruz City Council to adopt resolutions calling for the impeachment of George Bush and Richard Cheney, the removal of all their top cabinet officials, and to oppose any extension or local enforcement of the Patriot Act(s). (Hope to see you all there!
Read on, this is a long but worthwhile article...)
Eight local groups have endorsed this action.
At 7PM, at "oral communications", a time when citizens can present to the Council anything they are concerned about, representatives of each group will speak to the Council and ask them to agendize these resolutions. The Council meets at City Hall, across from the Civic, at 809 Center Street,in downtown Santa Cruz.
Please join us and show your support. At some point, we will ask that everyone there to support this effort either stand, or wave, and give the peace symbol. Your presence WILL make adifference!!! Numbers do send a message!!
At 6PM, in the courtyard, we will hold a press conference - join us for this as well to show your solidarity to the world!! The international press will be there, no doubt!
Please note,this is a "PINK SLIP" action.In Los Angeles, when George Bush made a campaign fundraising appearance, Code Pink LA, a feminist peace activist group, unfurled a 45 foot "pink slip" along his motorcade route inscribed with "You lied. You're fired!" Inspired, many of us will be wearing "pink slips." Please feel free to do so as well, if you so choose, and we will have extras available for folks to borrow!!
If you cannot come, or even if you are coming, contact the council NOW and ask them to agendize these actions ASAP!! Phone number to reach all council members is: 420-5017. E-mail address is:
citycouncil@ci.santa-cruz.ca.us
We hope that Santa Cruz will be the first city in the nation to publicly take this action. We have planted so many seeds in the past - this is another that needs to be planted NOW!! As citizens of the Earth, as well as of the United States, we believe it is our responsibility to call for the immediate removal of this administration and the threat they pose to life and well being everywhere.
All council members have received extensive packets of information. In addition, the County Board of Supervisors has been asked to take the same actions, John Laird and Bruce McPherson have been asked to do the same in the California State Legislature, and Sam Farr has been asked to introduce Articles of Impeachment in Congress, with requests for support from Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein as well.
BE THERE OR BE SQUARE!!
WEAR A SLIP OR BE A DRIP!! (just kidding!!)
for peace and justice, Sherry Conable, Louis LaFortune on behalf of SC Peace Coaltion, SC Peacemakers, Santa Cruz Action Network, Peace and Freedom Party, Code Pink Santa Cruz, and the Greens - also supported by WomenRise for Global Peace and the Bill of Rights Defense Committee for more info and inspiration:
www.codepink4peace.org
www.votetoimpeach.org
Who can be impeached?
The president, vice-president and any civil officer. This would include any cabinet member such as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft, judges etc.
How does the impeachment process work?
It starts from the House Judiciary Committee, then the House Of
Representatives votes to impeach(indict), the trial is held in the Senate
and is overseen by the Chief Justice. A 2/3-majority vote in the Senate is
needed for a conviction. The most severe punishment that can be given is
removal from office.
Where in our constitution does it talk about impeachment?
Article I, sections 2 and 3; Article II, sections 2 and 4
ARTICLE 1
"The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers;
and shall have the sole power of impeachment."
"The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When
sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the
President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside:
And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds
of the members present.
Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal
from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor,
trust or
profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless
be
liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according
to law."
ARTICLE 2
"The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the
United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into
the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing,
of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any
subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall
have
power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States,
except in cases of impeachment."
"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason,
bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." (This is the biggest focus
of our attention)
What are high crimes and misdemeanors?
There's debate over what constitutes a high crime but
According to Grolier:
"The conclusion reached by most scholars is that clear criminal law
violations
represent impeachable offenses, whereas misconduct that is not necessarily
criminal but that undermines the integrity of the office (such as disregard
of constitutional responsibilities) may rise to the level of an impeachable
offense.
(Both of which apply to President Bush)
http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/ea/side/impeach.html
What 'high crimes' has President Bush violated?
There is much debate about violations of oath of office. However, The
constitution states quite clearly that international
treaties, once entered into, become the supreme law of the land:
Article 6:
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in
pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;"
Several international treaties have been violated by the invasion of Iraq.
The U.N. Charter, The Nuremburg Principles, and the International
Covenant On Human Rights.
Can the Invasion of Iraq Be Considered A 'Just' War?
The just war doctrine has three possiblejustifications:
1. Self-Defense.
2. Helping another sovereign nation that has been invaded.
3. Extreme necessity.
It's important to understand that even if one were to ascribe to that doctrine, the invasion of Iraq would not fall under any of the three conditions that
warrant it. I've found the most articulate argument in that regard made by right-wing legal analyst and columnist David Pyne. He wrote several articles before the invasion in an attempt to dissuade the administration from invading Iraq. I've written to him to see if his opinion has changed.
Pyne states: "Pre-emptive and unprovoked attacks are presumptively illegal under
international law and with very few exceptions cannot be justified."
"Applying the principles of America's just war tradition to the planned unprovoked war against Iraq then, it is clear that a new US invasion of Iraq would not meet any of the requirements for being a just war. An invasion of
Iraq would not be in our national self-defense, as Iraq has never attacked
our country. It would not be waged in defense of another, as was Operation Desert Storm, as Iraq as not invaded any of its neighbors since 1990. It would not
be conducted in response to any extreme necessity or danger to the US, let
alone any necessity since Iraq lacks either or both the will and the capability to attack US territory and kill US civilians by any means. Iraq possesses neither nuclear weapons nor the long-range missiles needed to deliver them against the US. It has possessed Chemical Biological Radiological (CBR) weapons for two decades, but has never even threatened to use them against the US. In addition, President Bush has all but admitted that Iraq has not sponsored any terrorist attacks against the US by failing to cite any in his speech to the UN so a US invasion would not be in response to any Iraqi terrorist attack."
The invasion of Iraq was clearly not a 'just' war, thus there is no way that
it can be considered anything other than a violation of the 'supreme law of the land' and thus a high crime.
There's a whole slew of other impeachable offenses, Ramsey Clark has written 17 articles of impeachment, from illegal detentions, the deprival of constitutional rights through the Patriot Acts, condoning
assassinations, media manipulations, falsification of data etc. I've chosen to focus on just the invasion of Iraq for the purposes of this discussion because it's egregious enough in itself to warrant impeachment, and the evidence is clear and undeniable.
Did H.J. Res. 114 authorize the invasion of Iraq?
From U.N. Res. 1441 :
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Force
of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate
in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations S regarding Iraq. Section 3(c)(2): Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
From the War Powers Resolution Act:
(d) Nothing in this joint resolution--
1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provision of existing
treaties
Bottom Line: H.J.Res 114 authorizes force only if existing treaties are upheld. This means that the U.N. Charter, The Nuremburg Principles, The International Covenant On Human Rights, The Pact Of Paris can't legally be tossed aside.
Why bother wasting our energy on impeachment?
We owe it to the thousands of innocents killed, and to their families to call for the cathartic process of impeachment. Our country had no legal right to invade and occupy Iraq, to take the law
into our own hands, to become vigilantes. It's too important to the future of our country to let this go unchallenged. We wouldn't let a lynch mob kill innocent people to get at a despicable murderer in our own country. We owe it to ourselves and to the honor and integrity of our country to call for impeachment. Voting in a new political party or voting out one we don't like is no substitute for justice; it would only hide this deed under the rug. We can show the world and ourselves that ours is a solid form of government, a government containing checks and balances, with a viable mechanism for dealing with leaders who abuse their powers.
If we want to live in a just world, we must make our decisions and act as if
we already lived in one. The result of our actions may or may not lead to impeachment. Our success won't be defined by the results of our actions
but by the actions themselves. If we live and act by our words and our beliefs, without being attached to the results, the results will take care of themselves.
Recent Comments