Why don't you and see if Obama is elected President. Then, if he invades Pakistan, you can impeach him for his audacity..

I was blown away at first by this article for its dispassionate, meticulously referenced, and probing analysis, particularly on the topics of illegal detention and torture. My surprised vanished when, half-way through, I decided to double check who the author was: Elaine Scarry, who has been one of the most vocal, informed, and powerful critics of torture, both in the U.S. and abroad, and whose writing on this and other topics is always both formidable and elegant.

I hope this article is widely read, as it presents the best case I have read to date for impeachment and the tacit but often unspoken motivations for evading the issue, the serious acknowledgment of which entails a principled and long-term commitment. Scarry is right that the rule of law issue is the absolutely central concern. The force of portraying illegal wire-tapping, the suspension of habeas corpus, and torture as mere 'policy differences' is precisely to reduce it to different 'beliefs' or 'world-views' without legal relevance, which amounts to saying there isn't any such thing as 'rule of law' as a independent standard of behavior.

We can't give up on justice just because Obama gets elected or because Bush is no longer in office.

The President of the United States and his subordinates have thumbed their collective noses at the rule of law. If we just "let it go" because he is gone, "it" will be back. And next time it could be worse. I know that seems hard to believe, but once the precedent is set in stone, someone else can do the same or even take it further.

What DIDN'T this administration do, anytime they wanted to? What was "too far"? Anything? They violated any part of the Constitution that didn't suit them. We can't let it stand, people. Please don't stop fighting against evil acts. Don't be complacent.

Thank you so much for this in-depth and well written report. It gives me hope that this administration will "get back what it has put out". I have long argued with friends that Bush and Cheney have committed war crimes and should be tried as murderers. I just hope this country does the right thing and at least one (or more) attorneys general pursue Mr. Bugliosi's recommendation.

FORCE CONGRESS TO IMPEACH GEORGE BUSH AND DICK CHENEY, call Nancy Pelosi @1-202-225-0100 and DEMAND IMPEACHMENT. DC business hours only, call often, and spread it around.

You need to get a life. You remind me of Shakespeare:
"Double, double, toil and trouble; Fire burn and cauldron bubble"
Got any more potions?

Thank you very much for this excellent report. Bush/Cheyney administration has committed the worst crimes imaginable. The country needs to get back to the state of "Nation of rule of law". Impeachment is the only way to go. It should not be left to a foreign country to try them under universal jurisdiction.

Jorod, you are the one who needs to get a life. People like you are the ones who are enabling the continuation of the fall of America. People like you were the Hitler youth and SS of the Nazis. If we ignore the crimes of the past 7+ years and elect McCain the United States of America as we know it will cease to exist. Because we will become the 21 century version of fascists Nazi regime.

First person to call someone a Nazi loses, John.

To the author, you're clearly very worried that the public will let Bush off the hook, yet you presumably have let Clinton off the hook. Not one mention of his multiple decisions that led to the deaths of thousands of people.

Not so fair and balanced, which is why I'm filing this article in "Fringe Fodder". No one in the mainstream will take this seriously.

Clinton never lied to the American people for the purpose of instigating a war. Clinton never presided over a regime that practiced torture. How does this comparison even begin to make sense?

Clinton is guilty of Desert Fox and support for sanctions, but he never made false claims in order to buttress his position. Scarry isn't saying Bush should be prosecuted because his decisions caused the deaths of others, but because he deceived the American people in the process (oh and he is responsible for the torture of prisoners, which is against the law). Can you not read? I mean honestly, I'm no fan of picking fights online, but have some sense.

Another apologist who refuses to read. Scarry does not suggest impeaching Bush and Cheney for their audacity, but for their crimes, amply described in this article.

Much like John's, your comment makes no sense. You're just going to ignore the administration's record of crimes with some flip nonsense about events that have not even happened? Try for a moment to find some logic there. You simply can't!

the other side of the balance beam from the rule of law is that which bush et all provoke. the tumbling house of debt, mismanagement and greed may drag us all unwilling and unwitting into the upcoming reign of terror wherein the reflecting pool will run red with the blood of both those who have swindled america and those who tried to save her. the rule of law flouted begets the terror, not from abroad but from your neighbors. if i recall it takes about 20 years for it to run its course. bailouts, indeed.

While torture in our name is indeed horrible, I am much more angry about the thousands of U.S troops who have been maimed and killed in Bush and Cheney's war. And the two or three Trillion dollars wasted that I and my children will have to pay in future taxes.

Elaine Scarry missed one important document for their future prosecution by the American people. Any prosecution of Bush and Cheney should begin with their March 18th, 2002, letter to the full Congress which lays out in writing their two lies for taking this great country into a ruinous war. The first lie is that Iraq posed an immediate threat to the United States (WMD). The second lie is the direct connection between Saddam and 9/11.

This damning evidence is rarely if ever cited. Read below.

Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate




March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

With regard to the above-quoted presidential message of March 18, 2003: How on Earth does it state that Saddam had a direct connection with 9/11? If anything, it seems to imply the opposite. Paragraph (2) essentially states that war against Iraq will not interfere with "continuing to take the necessary actions" against the 9/11 perpetrators. And that only makes sense if those perpetrators are distinct from Iraq.

With regard to your message Kevin, paragraph #2 is certainly not worded in plain English. But as you suggest, it does not say anything about the invasion of Iraq "not interfering" with the war on the 9/11 terrorists. It says we are going to war with Iraq because that is "consistent" with the United States pursuing all involved in the attacks of 9/11, including nations. This implies that Iraq and thus Saddam were involved in 9/11. But this is a lie; Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

I'm afraid I just don't see the implication that you see. I read paragraph (2) as merely implying that an invasion of Iraq would be consistent with continuing to fight al Qaeda in Afghanistan. I'm not sure how we can settle just what's being implied; I will leave it to anyone reading this to make up their own mind.

This debate about the paragraph speaks to an important tactic that the Bush administration has used throughout its time in office.

The law that the second paragraph is "consistent" with is an authorization to pursue violence in Iraq. Yet the second paragraph is concerned with the people who planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks. While nowhere in the letter does it say "Iraq is responsible for 9/11," the association is obvious and palpable.

The same is true of several of Scarry's citations. Never do Bush and Chenet et al. say "Iraq is responsible for 9/11"--they couldn't say this because they knew it wasn't true. So they built an association between these disparate entities--Iraq and al Qaeda--while remaining clear of deception in the most legalistic sense. There is some very close parsing of language going on in order to protect the president's behind while still disseminating the message that Iraq was not only a threat, but had already damaged the United States.

OK. If you are going to indict Bush, you better go after the co-conspirators, too. See this:
http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv

So the impeachment process is possible and/or can be used for criminal prosecution even after George W. Bush leaves office—giving the American people a sense of hope. Even though impeachment while Bush is in office does not seem likely due to the complicity of Congress relative to the illegitimate Iraq War, Kucinich’s efforts relative to impeachment and the efforts of hundreds of Americans relative to impeachment are not wasteful collectively. For example, such efforts are beneficial in that (1) legitimate accusations made in the course of Bush’s presidency appropriately and importantly inform the American people and the world of Bush’s abuses of power, corruption, and dishonesty; and (2) legitimate accusations, for example, in Dennis Kucinich’s excellent book, “The 35 Articles of Impeachment and the Case for Prosecuting George W. Bush,” may contribute to some impeachment and/or punitive process against Bush after he leaves office.

Dennis Kucinich is my role model. Kucinich is simply the best. Congressman Kucinich has, in any case, done invaluable, noble, and exemplary work in pushing for impeachment so vigorously and single-mindedly.

Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA

...On March 4, 2008, the citizens of Brattleboro, Vermont went to the polls and voted by a count of 2,012 to 1,795 to endorse the recommendation that if President Bush or Vice President Cheney came to that town, they should be “arrested and detained” for “crimes against our Constitution.” ...

Is this what things have come to in your United States?

Criminalizing political conduct is dangerous terrain, all filled with slippery slopes with moguls, pitfalls, and the quicksands of unintended consequences. Gerald Ford did your country a great favour in pardoning Richard Nixon; the impeachment of Clinton was to America's disgrace; and Obama will have plenty to do without submerging your country into a natioanlly divisive pyscho-drama, which will lead it becoming the Riven States of America.

Prosecutorial discretion is a hallmark of prosecutors' wise discharge of their obligations. When there are immeasurable costs that far outweigh the benefits of prosecution--the benefit in the instant case, psychic/political mollification for some--better not to indict. An even more ripped up nation is one the last things you all need.

And I'm not even talking about the questionable merits of the case, Vincent Bugliosi, Ms Scarry and other illuminati to the contrary notwithstanding.

Shorter itzik basman: let it go- what's a little war crimes. Illegal wars? Unlawful detentions? Torture? Spying on Americans in violation of the law? It's just politics.
Yeah... It's obvious that history is lost on you, but, I'll give it a shot. If Nixon is rightfully impeached and prosecuted, does Iran-Contra take place? Bush and Cheney's war along with the rest of their crimes?
Concern troll, heal thyself...

Great article! Bush and Cheney should be jailed for life.

Strangely Enough:

It amazes me how quickly self righteousness in the face of disagreement morphs into name calling by folks without the genitalia to identify themselves.

Yes, admittedly, you do put forth a great model: the paralysis of government action by the shadow of criminal prosecution --especially in that legally well defined area-- international law--and the even further subsuming of political questions by legal ones, not to mention the (of course) benign motives of all political actors in advancing such prosecutions, and the great social stability and national coherence that will eventuate.

The proof, strangely enough, will be in the pudding. Farts in windstorms will have better chances than the prosecutions being argued for here, save for by some bold municipality such as Brattlesboro, which is probably still overdosing on its delusional sense of self satisfaction.

Finally, and again, if you had the courage of your insults, you'd at least name yourself, as against hurling them (and I use the verb "to hurl" advisedly) anonymously and embodying the very thing you declaim.

Itzik Basman

Bombing of the twin towers was very wrong and did alarm me to the extent that I figured many more things might be blown up. Under those circumstances I thought it might be possible for others to really do great harm to our way of life and therefore I believed and still do that if things really start to fall apart and we can learn something by torturing someone that may save our way of life then I am all for torture whether legal or not. A major issue is does it work and aren't there really better less intrusive ways of getting the necessary answers. I consider Bush and Cheney real creeps for many other things they did. If we are dumb enough to vote for the people we do then we deserve the kind of government we get. The big problem is there are too many wanna be rich types around who believe the propaganda certain political hacks and self interest blocks put out. I just came across this web site a couple days ago and consider it one of the very finest I have ever visited. Sincerely, Dennis Gergen

I got lost in the article. I wanted to read it quickly. I will attempt to again. The article title is "President Crimes moving on is not an option". What are the crimes? List the crimes please and the law violated and jot down evidence to prove the crime briefly..bullet point facts..please?

Dear Tyrone,
Learn to read like an adult.

Sincerely,
Someone born before the Internet

Someday you will all be thanking the Bush administration for everything they have done to keep you safe. The Socialist regime Obama has started will only bring about the destruction of this entire nation and the work ethic is was founded on. Liberals - be careful what you wish for!

The torture thing is just a red herring. It is a distraction from the tax and spending plan Obama is cooking up. Don't be fooled people. The real issues are taxes and spending.