OF WAR CRIMINALS
GWBUSH AND CONGRESS
Constitutionalists and a scant few Democrats have awakened to the Presidential tyranny in
our midst and are seeking the best course for the impeachment and removal of GWBush. The
Supreme Court ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld has placed the President, many in his
administration and members of the US Armed Forces and Intelligence Community at the direct risk of felony
prosecution for war crimes.
The recent ruling by Judge Anna Diggs
Taylor upholding the Constitution and declaring the illegality of the warrant less NSA
domestic wire-tapping only cements the lawless character of the GWBush Administration. The
below excerpts are from section XI Conclusion of her ruling:
For all of the reasons outlined
above, this court is constrained to grant to Plaintiffs the Partial Summary Judgment
requested, and holds that the TSP (The Secret Program of domestic wiretapping by the
NSA) violates the APA (Administration Procedures Act); the Separation of Powers
doctrine; the First and Fourth Amendments of the United States Constitution; and the
statutory law. Defendants Motion to Dismiss the final claim of data-mining is
granted, because litigation of that claim would require violation of Defendants
state secrets privilege.
The Permanent Injunction of the TSP requested by Plaintiffs is
granted inasmuch as each of the factors required to be met to sustain such an injunction
have undisputedly been met. The irreparable injury necessary to warrant injunctive relief
is clear, as the First and Fourth Amendment rights of Plaintiffs are violated by the TSP.
See Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479 (1965). The irreparable injury conversely sustained
by Defendants under this injunction may be rectified by compliance with our Constitution
and/or statutory law, as amended if necessary. Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public
interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution.
As Justice Warren wrote in U.S. v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258
in the term national defense is the notion of defending those values and ideas
which set this Nation apart. . . . It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national
defense, we would sanction the subversion of . . . those liberties . . . which makes the
defense of the Nation worthwhile. Id. at 264.
One can simply ignore as propaganda
the Neo-Con/GOP/MainStreamMedia fear mongering attending this ruling as a threat to the
war on terror. If wire-tapping was needed in the interest of national
security, the existing law allowed for BushCo to act immediately and soon thereafter get
approval from the FISA Court, a required course of action that was intentionally not done. Please
note that Judge Diggs Taylor specifically mentions that a remedy for the
Defendant, the Bush Administration, would be for them to comply with the
Constitution and statutes and/or amend them.
The litany of unconstitutional and
criminal actions of GWBush was well covered in the recent commentary Bush Seeks Retroactive Laws To
Protect Himself From War Crimes Prosecution from Paul Craig Roberts, as
found in the Baltimore Chronicle, NewsMax, Lew Rockwell and other publishers. For those unaware of
Mr. Roberts, his conservative pedigree is impeccable.
Paul Craig Roberts was
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor
of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He
is coauthor of The
Tyranny of Good Intentions. He can be reached at: email@example.com.
Excerpts from his commentary of 08/31/06:
Bush has other war crime
problems. Benjamin Ferenccz, a chief prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg,
recently said that President Bush should be tried as a war criminal side by side with
Saddam Hussein for starting aggressive wars, Hussein for his 1990 invasion of
Kuwait and Bush for his 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Under the Nuremberg
standard, Bush is definitely a war criminal. The US Supreme Court also exposed
Bush to war crime charges under both the US War Crimes Act of 1996 and the Geneva
Conventions when the Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld against the Bush
administrations military tribunals and inhumane treatment of detainees.
President Bush and his
Attorney General agree that under existing laws and treaties Bush is a war criminal
together with many members of his government. To make his war crimes legal after the fact,
Bush has instructed the Justice (sic) Department to draft changes to the War Crimes
Act and to US treaty obligations under the Geneva
Under the US Constitution
legal tradition, retroactive law is impermissible. What do Americans think
of their Presidents attempts to immunize himself, his government, CIA operatives,
military personnel and civilian contractors from war crimes?
Even worse than impermissible, any
retroactive law (technically known as ex post facto law) is in direct violation of the Constitution, Article I,
Section 9, and Paragraph 3 and is illegal.
No Bill of Attainder or ex
post facto Law shall be passed.
Any legislation that attempts to
change existing law and apply these changes retroactively is without question
unconstitutional and invalid. It would provide only the color of law but would
not be actual law. Without the prohibition of ex post facto law, then our Constitution or
any other law code that professes to uphold the rule of law would be empty.
What is absent from
the comments of Mr. Roberts, Attorney Harvey Silverglate Pardons Are Forever at Lew Rockwell and others, such as
House proposes retroactive war crimes protection - Moves to shield policy makers By Pete Yost, Associated Press as found in the Boston
Globe, San Francisco Chronicle, San Jose Mercury News, The Guardian, Townhall.com and the
New York Times,
is the foundational issue
Judge Anna Diggs Taylor mentioned in her conclusion. Modifying the Constitution or a
change in applicable statutes must be done first before any new law or act
contrary to Constitution or statute can be considered legal.
This core determination re-affirms
the Constitution as being a contract (not a living document) with obligatory terms and
conditions between the parties. Please remember that the Constitution only enumerates the
peoples rights and does not grant them. The high hurdle set in Article V for
changing the Constitution was intentional to protect the rights of the people from
The requirements for modifying the
Constitution are found in Article V.
The Congress, whenever two
thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this
Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several
States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be
valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the
Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths
thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;
Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred
and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of
the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal
Suffrage in the Senate.
Neither the Congress nor the
President can ratify changes to the Constitution; they only propose changes. Modifications
can only be done by the uniform agreement of both houses from 3/4ths of the State
Legislatures. The USA PATRIOT Act, the supposed interpretive authority of presidential
signing statements, the Congress ceding its authority to declare war in Iraq and many
other unconstitutional and criminal actions did not pass any Article V process. Lawless
defines the current President and the Congress as well with its acquiescence to his
tyranny - the unitary executive.
Any simple retroactive change to the
War Crimes Act would be constitutionally null and void. No real or de jure
protection for GWBush would exist. A clear opportunity to re-establish constitutional
authority is now present.
The Administration activities in
drawing up immunizing legislation with certain Congressmen are prima facie
evidence of a criminal conspiracy with the intent to violate civil rights, obstruct
justice, commit offense against the US and commit insurrection against the US.
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL
CHAPTER 13 - CIVIL RIGHTS
Sec. 241. Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons
conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory,
Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or
privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of
his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the
premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of
any right or privilege so secured
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this
section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual
abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall
be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may
be sentenced to death.
Sec. 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation,
or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth,
Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different
punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason
of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury
results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the
use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be
fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death
results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include
kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit
aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or
imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
CHAPTER 19 CONSPIRACY
Sec. 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States
If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense
against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any
manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object
of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five
years, or both.
If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object
of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not
exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.
CHAPTER 115 - TREASON, SEDITION,
AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES
Sec. 2383. Rebellion or insurrection
incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the
authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be
fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be
incapable of holding any office under the United
GWBush and his handmaidens are in
direct disobedience to the clear substance of Judge Diggs Taylors ruling and Hamdan
v Rumsfeld from the Supreme Court. They spit in the face of the Constitution to which
they have sworn an oath to uphold and protect.
The most expeditious course of action
for removing GWBush would not be impeachment (a non-starter in the fully corrupt GOP
Congress) but to commence prosecution by filing of Federal Criminal Complaints against the
President, collaborating Congressmen and others for the above listed crimes. Their actions
to create immunizing legislation are in essence admissions of guilt.
What only remains are for a few
serious attorneys or judges to summon the will and courage to commence the process of
restoring the Constitution. That list could well consist of:
Scheffer Professor of Law at Northwestern University
School of Law and former US Ambassador at Large for War Crimes Issues (1997-2001)
The stain of innocent lives killed in
illegal wars, war crimes and torture, brazen violations of constitutional rights, felony
conspiracy and many other crimes must be washed from the Republic and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Nathanael is a self-employed engineer
and lives in metropolitan area of Dallas, Texas. He had only ever been a life long
registered Republican but changed to the Constitution Party in May of 2004. He is a
regular columnist for Ether Zone.
"Published originally at EtherZone.com :
republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."
Nathanael can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org
Published in the September 6, 2006 issue of Ether Zone.
Copyright © 1997 - 2006 Ether
We invite your
comments on this article in our forum!