President Pelosi in 2007
by taraka das, Wed Dec 06, 2006 at 12:36:05 AM EST
I don't think that Hillary Clinton is going to be the first woman president. I don't think she will be the front runner in 2008. I think both of those slots will be filled next year.
By Nancy Pelosi.
It's not that I'm a big Nancy fan. It's not that I think she has a burning desire to be the president. And I actually do think that part of the reason that she has said "impeachment is off of the table," is because everyone knows that Bush and Cheney are toast, and she doesn't want to appear to be power hungry.
And I like that. She probably doesn't want the job. But follow me over the jump, and I'll tell you why the stars are aligned.
We know that Bush and Cheney lied to Congress to extort an authorization to start a war in Iraq. We know how they did it, and we know why they did it.
We know that there is a long train of abuses by Bush and Cheney, and that any ONE of them is enough to toss them out of office and into jail.
We know that the president and vice president have mounted a full scale assualt on the constitution on many fronts.
We know that, besides defrauding Congress to commit a crime against peace, that the president and vice president think that contempt for the Supreme Court, even attempting to defraud the Court, on the issue of war crimes, is one of their constitutional powers.
We know that for years they have overeached and abused their authority.
But what many people still do not know, or fully understand, is that the Bush Administration may have finally overeached themselves so far, that they have set the stage for their downfall. And if we still had a Republican Congress, it might not matter.
But there is now a Democratic Congress, and it does matter. The Military Commissions Act matters. It matters because that sly provision to shield Bush and his administration from war crimes prosecution means that his government has has attempted to subvert the Justice system in America to such an extraordinary degree that the only avenue to pursue prosecutions for war crimes rests with the concept of universal jurisdiction under the Geneva Conventions.
Two weeks ago, lawyers from all over the world, joined by human rights organizations and two Nobel Peace Prize winners, have joined a suit brought by 12 plaintiffs alleging war crimes by the Bush Administration. The lead organization is the same organization that handled the Pinochet case, The Center for Constitutional Rights.
The suit is being brought in Germany under universal jurisdiction, as Germany is a High Contracting Party to The Geneva Conventions, and has adopted law to implement cases under universal jurisdiction. The crimes alleged are TORTURE, and along with the living plaintiffs, the lawyers have brought evidence of 100 people who were tortured to death.
Their star witness is Brig Gen Janis Karpinsky, who was commander of the prisons in Iraq.
Some people have dismissed this case as being unlikely and the White House has characterized it as "frivolous." Some commentators have joked about the unlikely event of a case being brought before the international court in the Hague.
This case would not be in The Hague. It would not be before the international court, which has to have a referral from the UN, where the perpetrators have veto power. It would come before a federal court in Germany.
Right now, it is before the Federal Prosecutor, Monika Harms, in Germany. A decision on whether to go forward with prosecution will come sometime after the New Year. The plaintiffs are prepared to bring the suit in other countries (France is next) if this one fails. I don't think it will fail.
Go to The Center for Constitutional Rights' website and read the pdf files on this case there, and see if you agree.
And now we come to the current objections to impeachment and removal of Bush and Cheney. "We don't have the votes!" they say. Will we have the votes if the Attorney General is indicted for WAR CRIMES?
Can we sit still and defend with our inaction, this president, while evidence is being presented to the world that he is a war criminal? Can we hail him as our leader, our representative to the world under those conditions, and ignore the constitution?
And will we ignore the majority of the people, too? A majority of the people favor impeachment and removal NOW, and most of them aren't aware of this case in Germany. And will we ignore the media, who won't be able to resist this story?
I don't think so. And I don't think that the reaction by Congress will be slow, tedious and painstaking examination, investigations and hearings over months and years, concerning evidence that is already public knowledge.
And as long as war crimes are being considered for impeachment, why not OTHER crimes and abuses of power, the evidence of which is already publicly available?
My argument is this: Once a war crimes indictment is a reality, events will take on a life of their own, and it won't matter one bit if the Democrats decided not to pursue impeachment. The issue will pursue them.
And the faster that events begin to unfold, the more urgent will become the need to remove these dangerous criminals from office before further, perhaps more destructive, crimes are committed.
The happier alternative, is President Pelosi.