Removed for Updating - Apologies

[theFrankFactor]

Run time: 03:24 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF53Dcc1Ook   Posted on YouTube: June 17, 2008 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: June 17, 2008 By DU Member: theFrankFactor Views on DU: 1180

 
Dennis Kucinich, one of the few brave Liberal Democrats and American patriots, delivers thirty-five articles of impeachment against George W. Bush in meticulous legal fashion and Nancy Pelosi made clear in 2006 that she considers it nothing more than an attempt to "get even".

Will Democrats once again wrest defeat from the jaws of victory on '09 if the candidate of hope and change manages to overcome the gamed system? With witless, invertebrates like Nancy Pelosi on the team, failure could come easy.

Maybe someday the party will rise to the bar set by Kucinich, Feingold, Wexler, Conyers et al.

[JDPriestly]

1. Is there a link to Nancy Pelosi calling impeachment a stunt?

I tried to google for that and could not find it. A lot of Republicans have referred to impeachment as a stunt, but then who are they to talk?

I don't find a link that states that Pelosi called it a stunt. I would like to find out what she said, if anything, in response to Kucinich's reading of the impeachment resolution.

[OKIsItJustMe]

11. Why Pelosi Opposes Impeachment - The Nation - 07/31/2007

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=218930

Why Pelosi Opposes Impeachment

posted by Ari Berman on 07/31/2007 @ 11:42am

If she were not in the House--and not Speaker of the House--Nancy Pelosi says she "would probably advocate" impeaching President Bush.

But given her current role as party leader, at a breakfast with progressive journalists today (named after our great friend Maria Leavey) Pelosi sketched her case against impeachment.

"The question of impeachment is something that would divide the country," Pelosi said this morning during a wide-ranging discussion in the ornate Speaker's office. Her top priorities are ending the war in Iraq, expanding health care, creating jobs and preserving the environment. "I know what our success can be on those issues. I don't know what our success can be on impeaching the president."

Democratic Party leaders do not have the votes to pass an impeachment resolution. And Democrats could be judged harshly for partisan gridlock, just as the American people turned on Congressional Republicans in the 90s for pursuing the impeachment of President Clinton.

...

[theFrankFactor]

16. Well...

I can see her point but... to have allowed this behavior to go unpunished sets, what I believe to be, a very dangerous precedent. These are criminal actions that cost lives. Contrary to her comparison to the Clinton impeachment, I believe Impeachment in this case would certainly be traumatic but avoiding trauma and allowing crimes to go unpunished is a worse outcome.

That's just my opinion.

[JDPriestly]

27. And what does she Democrats are going to achieve

on ending the war in Iraq, expanding health care, creating jobs and preserving the environment?

Nancy Pelosi is not at all realistic about what is going on.

She is living in Never, Never Land, not in reality.

As for the division of the country, the Supreme Court divided us in 2000, and Bush and his friends have done everything possible to further divide us since that time.

That's how the Republicans win elections -- by dividing the country. Democrats had better face the bitter truth that the more Democrats try to appease Bush and bring unity, the more the Republicans will appear strong because they don't flinch and don't run from a fight and --- Republicans will win, and Democrats will lose.

Edwards told the story about his experience when he was a boy. His father told him that you never start a fight, but you never run from one either.

When your political opponent abuses his power and divides the country, commits crimes and then thumbs his nose at you, he is picking a fight -- big time picking a fight. You don't have to get violent, but you don't run from the fight either.

Nancy Pelosi is running from the fight. The Democrats in Congress are running from the fight. Big mistake. It won't heal the country. You don't make friends with bullies by cowering. It just doesn't work. You have to fight back. Even if you don't win, the bully probably won't be so quick to pick a fight with you the next time.

[ihavenobias]

2. K & R for the marital infidelity line

I can't get past the idea of impeachment hearings being relevant for a BJ but somehow irrelevant for what Bush & Co have done.

[mopinko]

3. imho, very ho, this is the best button i have ever made

[ihavenobias]

4. Why isn't someone selling t-shirts with that on it? n/t

[mopinko]

21. because i am a crappy business woman.

i think these things up and put them out there, but i am too busy with the next idea to sell the last one.
if you really wanted one, i could do you a one of a kind iron on.

[ihavenobias]

26. I'm broke

Very broke :(

[mopinko]

28. well, that's the other half of that problem.

all the people i know are lefties. they are all broke, too.

[theFrankFactor]

5. RE; Stunt

PELOSI: Pelosi also said Democrats, despite complaining about years of unfair treatment by the majority GOP, “are not about getting even” with Republicans.

Stunt is my word. To my thinking, for Pelosi to be so stupid as to equate Impeachment with "getting even" is tantamount to calling it a stunt. You don't impeach a President to "get even". For her to even suggest as much is beyond the pale.

ARTICLE LINK IN NEW YOUR TIMES HERE:
http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2006/11/08/cq_1916.html

[seemslikeadream]

6. Two points Frank

Vincent Bugliosi says he can not be tried at the Hague because the U. S. was not a signatory to the 2002 Treaty

Listen to this interview
http://www.stephaniemiller.com/bits/2008_0609_bugliosi.mp3



Second Pelosi was briefed on torture and that's why she doesn't want impeachment but she actually has no authority to stop impeachment

[theFrankFactor]

7. Thanks, I will pull the video.

I appreciate the insight.

Thanks,
-=Frank

[seemslikeadream]

12. No don't pull the vid

Keep it up we need to talk about this

Thanks for posting

:hi:

[Jack Rabbit]

8. I disagree that Bush can't be tried in The Hague

The fathers of the Rome Statutes knew that petty tyrants wouldn't be signatories, but they left ways for them to be indicted since they were the ones thought most likely to commit crimes.

Of course, the whole point can be rendered moot by convening a special tribunal for war crimes in Iraq and crimes against humanity arising out of the so-called war on terror.

[seemslikeadream]

13. Sure we need to figure this out

I was only going by what Bugliosi said

[Jack Rabbit]

18. I present my own evidence: Why Bush and his neocon co-cospirators may be tried in The Hague

From the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court (see part 2):

• Article 12: Preconditions to the exercise of jurisdiction
1. A State which becomes a Party to this Statute thereby accepts the jurisdiction of the Court with respect to the crimes referred to in article 5.
2. In the case of article 13, paragraph (a) or (c), the Court may exercise its jurisdiction if one or more of the following States are Parties to this Statute or have accepted the jurisdiction of the Court in accordance with paragraph 3:
1. The State on the territory of which the conduct in question occurred or, if the crime was committed on board a vessel or aircraft, the State of registration of that vessel or aircraft;
2. The State of which the person accused of the crime is a national.
3. If the acceptance of a State which is not a Party to this Statute is required under paragraph 2, that State may, by declaration lodged with the Registrar, accept the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court with respect to the crime in question. The accepting State shall cooperate with the Court without any delay or exception in accordance with Part 9.


• Article 13: Exercise of jurisdiction
• The Court may exercise its jurisdiction with respect to a crime referred to in article 5 in accordance with the provisions of this Statute if:
1. A situation in which one or more of such crimes appears to have been committed is referred to the Prosecutor by a State Party in accordance with article 14;
2. A situation in which one or more of such crimes appears to have been committed is referred to the Prosecutor by the Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations; or
3. The Prosecutor has initiated an investigation in respect of such a crime in accordance with article 15.


• Article 14: Referral of a situation by a State Party
1. A State Party may refer to the Prosecutor a situation in which one or more crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court appear to have been committed requesting the Prosecutor to investigate the situation for the purpose of determining whether one or more specific persons should be charged with the commission of such crimes.
2. As far as possible, a referral shall specify the relevant circumstances and be accompanied by such supporting documentation as is available to the State referring the situation.


• Article 15: Prosecutor
1. The Prosecutor may initiate investigations proprio motu on the basis of information on crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court.
2. The Prosecutor shall analyse the seriousness of the information received. For this purpose, he or she may seek additional information from States, organs of the United Nations, intergovernmental or non-governmental organizations, or other reliable sources that he or she deems appropriate, and may receive written or oral testimony at the seat of the Court.
3. If the Prosecutor concludes that there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation, he or she shall submit to the Pre-Trial Chamber a request for authorization of an investigation, together with any supporting material collected. Victims may make representations to the Pre-Trial Chamber, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
4. If the Pre-Trial Chamber, upon examination of the request and the supporting material, considers that there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation, and that the case appears to fall within the jurisdiction of the Court, it shall authorize the commencement of the investigation, without prejudice to subsequent determinations by the Court with regard to the jurisdiction and admissibility of a case.
5. The refusal of the Pre-Trial Chamber to authorize the investigation shall not preclude the presentation of a subsequent request by the Prosecutor based on new facts or evidence regarding the same situation.
6. If, after the preliminary examination referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, the Prosecutor concludes that the information provided does not constitute a reasonable basis for an investigation, he or she shall inform those who provided the information. This shall not preclude the Prosecutor from considering further information submitted to him or her regarding the same situation in the light of new facts or evidence.

Again, if it's going to be too much trouble to try Bush & Company for war crimes before the ICC, then the UN still has the option to establish a special tribunal for the purpose, such as the one that tried war crimes in the Balkans and the Genocide in Rwanda.

[theFrankFactor]

19. This is very helpful - thanks! (eom)

[theFrankFactor]

9. In light of the info regarding the Hague option...

I have pulled this video in light of the info regarding the Hague option.

Apologies,
-=Frank

[theFrankFactor]

10. I Don't Want to Be Misleading. (eom)

[seemslikeadream]

14. Please put it back up Frank

I didn't want you to take it down we need all the info we can get! Thanks for posting it

[april]

22. just click on the red ...the frank factor ..you can view

[theFrankFactor]

15. I Appreicate Your Input Very Much and...

I am editing out the Hague and Pelosi commentary. The Hague seems to be in question and I think my wording was misleading regarding Nancy Pelosi's comments about Impeachment. I will re post it in the edited version.

I really want to be accurate and as clear as possible. I value Bugliosi's opinions regarding the prosecution of Bush for murder and his understanding of the Impeachment process. Since the Hague may be in question, until I have more information I'd rather not include it.

We all already know most of this but in light of Dennis Kucinich's tireless work on this matter I wanted to give it a kick.

Thanks again,
-=Frank

[seemslikeadream]

20. Have you seen what Philippe Sands has said?

more:http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/17/guantanamo.usa


The sanctioning of torture at Guantanamo is a story not only of abuse and crime but also of a cover-up by the US administration
All comments (2) Philippe Sands guardian.co.uk, Tuesday June 17 2008 Article historyThis is an abridged version of testimony given by Philippe Sands to the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary. The full text can be read on the committee's website.

A few weeks ago I published an article in Vanity Fair, The Green Light, and my new book Torture Team: the Rumsfeld Memo and the Betrayal of American Values. These tell an unhappy story: the circumstances in which the US military was allowed to abandon President Lincoln's famous disposition of 1863, that "military necessity does not admit of cruelty". This committee will be familiar with those events: it was a focus of the judicial confirmation hearings for William J Haynes II in July 2006. You will recall that on December 2, 2002, on the recommendation of Mr Haynes, Secretary Rumsfeld authorised the use of new, aggressive techniques of interrogation on Guantanamo Detainee 063. It is now a famous memo, the one in which he wrote: "I stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to 4 hours?"

My book tells the story of that memo. The circumstances in which it came to be written, relied on and rescinded, and how the techniques migrated. It is a snapshot of the subject of this hearing. To write the book I journeyed around America, meeting with many of the people who were directly involved. I met a great number, and was treated with a respect and hospitality for which I remain very grateful. Over hundreds of hours I conversed or debated with, amongst others, the combatant commander and his lawyer at Guantanamo. From these and many other exchanges I pieced together what I believe to be a truer account than that which has been presented by the administration. In particular, I learned that in the case on which I focused – a snapshot – the aggressive techniques of interrogation selected for use on Detainee 063 came from the top down, not from the bottom up; that they did not produce reliable information, or indeed any meaningful intelligence; and that they were opposed by the FBI.

My account is that of the report recently published by the Inspector General at the Department of Justice (DOJ), although I go further on some points of detail. I learnt that the concerns of FBI personnel at Guantanamo were communicated directly to Mr Haynes' office, in telephone conversations in November and December 2002 between Mr Bowman and, first, Mr Bob Dietz; second, Mr Dan Dell'Orto (who was then Mr Haynes' deputy and is now his acting successor); and third, Mr Haynes himself. Mr Bowman told me it was "a very short conversation , he did not want to talk about it all, he just stiff-armed me". My conclusion, taking into account my conversations with Mr Haynes, is that he was able to adopt that approach because by then – contrary to the impression he sought to create when he appeared before this committee – he had knowledge of the contents of the DOJ legal memos written by Jay Bybee and John Yoo on 1 August 2002.

On the basis of these conversations I believe that the administration has spun a false narrative. It claims that the impetus for the new interrogation techniques came from the bottom-up. That is not true: the abuse was a result of pressures driven from the highest levels of government. It claims the so-called Torture Memo of August 1, 2002 had no connection with policies adopted by the administration: that too is false, as the memo provided cover for Mr Haynes. It claims that in its actions it simply followed the law. To the contrary, the administration consciously sought legal advice to set aside international constraints on detainee interrogations, without apparently turning its mind to the consequences of its actions. In this regard, the position adopted by the Pentagon's head of policy at the time, Feith, appears most striking.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080617/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/detainees_treatment


Military lawyers objected to harsher interrogation


Military lawyers warned against the harsh detainee interrogation techniques approved by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in 2002, contending in separate memos weeks before Rumsfeld's endorsement that they could be illegal, a Senate panel has found.

The investigation by the Senate Armed Services Committee also has confirmed that senior administration officials, including the Pentagon's then-general counsel William "Jim" Haynes, sought information on a program involving military psychologists early on to devise the more aggressive methods — which included the use of dogs, making a detainee stand for long periods of time and forced nudity, according to officials familiar with the findings.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the information has not been formally released. Details, including the names of the service lawyers who objected to the interrogation techniques, were to be discussed at an open committee hearing Tuesday.

Rumsfeld's December 2002 approval of the aggressive interrogation techniques and later objections by military lawyers have been widely reported. But the November protests by service lawyers had not, and the interest by Pentagon civilians in military psychologists has surfaced only piecemeal.









This is what Philippe Sands was talking about at the hearing

There seems to be a direct connection between torture at Guantanamo and the beginning of 24

Individuals were watching and influenced by the TV program 24

TV show had many friends at Guantanamo.

Three weeks after the beginning of 2nd season of 24 the torture began.


Philippe Sands

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUICm1VH-rQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j38GxxE2CBY


The Green Light: Attorney Philippe Sands Follows the Bush Administration Torture Trail

A new exposé in Vanity Fair by British attorney Philippe Sands reveals new details about how attorney John Yoo and other high-ranking administration lawyers helped design and implement the interrogation policies seen at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and secret CIA prisons. According to Vanity Fair, then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and other top officials personally visited Guantanamo in 2002, discussed interrogation techniques and witnessed interrogations. Sands joins us in our firehouse studio.



Philippe Sands: Guantanamo Bay and Interrogation Rules
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPAGNNsrwUw



Jimmy Carter: Talks George Bush & war crimes at Hay Festival
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrWBY2hO6vA

When pressed by Philippe Sands...on Bush's recent admission that he had authorized interrogation procedures widely seen as amounting to torture, Carter replied that he was sure Bush would be able to live a peaceful, 'productive life - in our country'" after he leaves the White House. Sands later said that he had "understood that to be 'clear confirmation' that, while Bush would face no challenge in his own country, 'what happened outside the country was another matter entirely.'


Phillipe Sands Discusses Torture and U.S. Policy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0S6IU755uFM

On Bill Moyers Journal, human rights lawyer Phillipe Sands discusses his new book on how the U.S. came to abandon the Geneva Convention and accept torture. Sands says Bush administration officials are unwilling to accept responsibility for their actions.



Rep. Mike Pence: Guantanamo Bay and Interrogation Rules
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTla3-JZhnM

Philippe Sands attempts to enlighten Rep. Pence as to why torture is wrong during his appearance before the House Judiciary Constitution, Civil Rights & Civil Liberties Subcmte. hearing on Guantanamo Bay and Interrogation Rules


Rep.John Conyers: Guantanamo Bay and Interrogation Rules
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFLCNypjK6k

Philippe Sands responds to Rep. Conyers question as to what avenues of inquiry the committee should undertake and expounds upon his testimony before the House Judiciary Constitution, Civil Rights & Civil Liberties Subcmte. hearing on Guantanamo Bay and Interrogation Rules.



Addington was the leader of the pack, went to Guantanamo himself




Rep.Artur Davis: Guantanamo Bay and Interrogation Rules
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sst5vMpOFx4

David Rivkin tries to claim that the IRA was a different threat but Rep.Davis throws his flawed logic back in his face. Philippe Sands also pointedly rebukes Rivkin assertions. Discussion of Presidental pardons to exonerate torture policies employed is hypothetically touched on. From hearing by House Judiciary Constitution, Civil Rights & Civil Liberties Subcmte. on Guantanamo Bay and Interrogation Rules.



Rep.Issa & Rep.Ellison: Guantanamo Bay Interrogation Rules
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQKZ5WaTWdA

Philippe Sands responds to the slick and sly Rep.Issa and details his thoughts further upon question by Rep. Ellison during hearing by House Judiciary Constitution, Civil Rights & Civil Liberties Subcmte. on Guantanamo Bay and Interrogation Rules.

[seemslikeadream]

23. LAW SCHOOL TO ORGANIZE BUSH WAR CRIMES TRIAL

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/34171


By Sherwood Ross

A conference to plan the prosecution of President Bush and other high administration officials for war crimes will be held September 13-14 at the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover .

"This is not intended to be a mere discussion of violations of law that have occurred," said convener Lawrence Velvel, dean and cofounder of the school. "It is, rather, intended to be a planning conference at which plans will be laid and necessary organizational structures set up, to pursue the guilty as long as necessary and, if need be, to the ends of the Earth."

[theFrankFactor]

17. Darn! Ten Recs and I Had to Pull it!

I hope there will be as much support when I repost. Oh well, thanks all.
-=Frank

[Pastiche423]

24. Well, hurry up and repost it!

Please.

I missed it.

[theFrankFactor]

25. Reposted With Edits

I am editing out the Hague and Pelosi commentary. The Hague seems to be in question and I think my wording was misleading regarding Nancy Pelosi's comments about Impeachment. I will re post it in the edited version.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x148694

Kind of boring without the scathing Pelosi stuff but I think it was misleading.