[Peace-discuss] FW: CIVIL RESISTANCE!--not "disobedience"

[Boyle, Francis A]

RIP: Henry B.
Fab


-----Original Message-----
From: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com<mailto:nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com> [mailto:nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 5:50 PM
To: undisclosed-recipients
Subject: [NYTr] Henry Gonzalez Resol'n to Impeach Bush I (1991)

Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
sent by Francis Boyle - Jan 18, 2006
The Gonzalez Resolution to Impeach George Bush

Congressional Record, Jan. 16, 1991, at H520-21.

RESOLUTION OF IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House,
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. GONZALEZ] is recognized for 60 minutes.

Mr. GONZALEZ, Madam Speaker, it is with great sadness, and yet with equally
great, if not greater, conviction, that I introduce today a resolution of
impeachment of President Bush. It is known as House Resolution 34, and I
will provide this resolution as introduced to be appended at the end of my
remarks today.

At a time when our Nation is deeply divided over the question of
war, we find ourselves on the brink of a world war of such magnitude that
our minds cannot fully comprehend the destruction that is about to be
leveled. The position we are in is a direct result of the actions of one
man and the reactions of another. The Iraqi people are as opposed to war as
are the American people. The difference is that the Iraqi people have no
choice but to support their country's leader, but the American people not
only have the right to oppose and speak out in disagreement with the
President, but they have the responsibility to do so if our democracy is to
be preserved. Today I exercise this constitutional right and responsibility
to speak out in opposition to war in the Middle East and in support of
removal of our Nation's Chief Executive.

When I took the oath of office earlier this month, as I had
numerous times before, I swore to uphold the Constitution. The President's
oath was the same, to uphold the Constitution of the United States. We did
not pledge an oath of allegiance to the President but to the Constitution,
which is the highest law of the land. The Constitution provides for removal
of the President when he has committed high crimes and misdemeanors,
including violations of the principles of the Constitution. President Bush
has violated these principles.

My resolution has five articles of impeachment. First, the
President has violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Our
soldiers in the Middle East are overwhelmingly poor white, black, and
Mexican-American or Hispanic-American. They may be volunteers technically,
but their voluntarism is based on the coercion of a system that has denied
viable opportunities to these classes of our citizens. Under the
Constitution, all classes of citizens are guaranteed equal protection, and
calling on the poor and the minorities to fight a war for oil to preserve
the lifestyles of the wealthy is a denial of the rights of these soldiers.

Let me add that since 1981 we have suffered the Reagan-Bush and
now the Bush war against the poor, and to add insult to injury, we now are
asking the poor to fight while here, as a result of this fight, even the
meager programs that the Congress had seen fit to preserve as a national
policy will suffer because the money for those programs will be diverted to
the cause of this unnecessary war.

Article II of this resolution states that the President has
violated the Constitution, Federal law, and the U.N. Charter by bribing,
intimidating, and threatening others, including the members of the U.N.
Security Council, to support belligerent acts against Iraq. It is clear
that the President paid off members of the U.N. Security Council in return
for their votes in support of war against Iraq or to abstain from voting
contrariwise. The debt of Egypt was, for example, forgiven--$7 billion,
without congressional approval. That, I think, casts doubtful validity on
that Presidential action. The reason for the cancellation of that debt is
so that we can then provide an equally enormous amount of armament for Egypt
which it cannot obtain because of the debt outstanding. A $140 million loan
to China was agreed to. The Soviet Union was promised over $7 billion in
aid. This is a sum totally unreported in our country but very well
discussed in foreign country presses such as Germany and others. Colombia
was promised assistance to its armed forces. Zaire was promised military
assistance and partial forgiveness of its debt. Saudi Arabia was promised
$12 billion in arms, and more than that. Actually in October, the President
let them have $2.2 billion, and there was a commitment for $21 billion more,
but because of the outcry in Congress and the Israeli opposition, that is
being postponed. But there is still a commitment for $22 billion. I am
sure this month will see the initial efforts to bring about compliance with
that commitment.

Yemen was threatened with the termination of support, and the United States
finally paid off $187 million of its debt to the United Nations after the
vote President Bush sought was made.

This is all so ironic. When our President ran for the U.S. Senate in the
1960's, he told the people of Texas that if he would be elected to the
Senate, he would lead the fight to remove the United States from the United
Nations if what he called Red China at that time was admitted. Fate and
power almighty have a very, very mysterious way of working together. Who was
to believe during that year in that race in Texas that years later this same
man, now the President, would be the man the President would appoint to
represent us in the United Nations and welcome Red China as a member of the
United Nations.

The vote was bought, and it will be paid for with the lives of our poor
elements who are going to shoulder the fight.

Article III states that the President has conspired to engage in a massive
war against Iraq, employing methods of mass destruction that will result in
the killing of tens of thousands of civilians, many of whom will be
children. No civilian lives have yet been lost that we know of, but when we
start using the weapons of massive destruction that are in place for this
war, there is no doubt that thousands of innocent civilians will lose their
lives. As killings occur, the principles laid down in the Nuremberg trials
will be applicable. Their deaths will not only be a moral outrage, they will
constitute violations of international law.

Article IV states that the President has committed the United States to acts
of war without congressional consent and contrary to the U.N. Charter and
international law. From August 1990 through January 1991 the President
embarked on a course of action that systematically eliminated every option
for peaceful resolution of the Persian Gulf crisis. Once the President
approached Congress for a declaration of war, 500,000 American soldiers
lives were in jeopardy, rendering any substantive debate by Congress
meaningless. It is also ironic that what we have ended up with now is that
the President has exchanged about 200 to 250 so-called hostages, Americans,
all of them employees of oil companies in Kuwait or Iraq, and in exchange we
now have close to 500,000 American soldiers as hostages. Hostages to the
whims, the caprices, and the decisions and judgments made by other leaders,
over which this President and our country has no control, all the way from
Shamir of Israel to the immigrants in the Saudi sands.

Article 5 states that the President has conspired to commit crimes against
the peace by leading the United States into aggressive war against Iraq, in
violation of article 24 of the U.N. Charter, the Nuremberg Charter, other
international instruments and treaties, and the Constitution of the United
States.

Again, there is a violation of law by a President, who, believing and acting
as if he is king, decides for the country, unilaterally, that war is the
answer.

Madam Speaker, it is a sad day for our country, and it will be an even
sadder day once the fighting starts. President Bush must be stopped. A
divided Congress reflecting the divided country is no way to conduct a war.
The preservation of lives is at stake, and the preservation of our country,
indeed, our democracy, is at stake as well.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. All I ask is a hearing, as
I have before, before the proper committee of proper jurisdiction, and that
is it. I will argue the case there. The rest is up to the Members' judgment.

Madam Speaker, I urge interest and support of this resolution, and to stand
up to the President on behalf of the soldiers who will die, the civilians
who will be massacred, and the Constitution that will be destroyed if this
country goes to war in the Middle East.

102nd Congress
H.Res.86

1st Session

____/s/ Henry B.Gonzalez____

Impeaching George Herbert Walker Bush, President of the United
States, of high crimes and misdemeanors.
_______________________________________________

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 21, 1991 (originally
January 16, 1991)

Mr. GONZALEZ submitted the following resolution; which was
referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
________________________________________________

                          A RESOLUTION

Impeaching George Herbert Walker Bush, President of the United
States, of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Impeaching George Herbert Walker Bush, President of the United States, of
high crimes and misdemeanors.

Resolved, That George Herbert Walker Bush, President of the United States is
impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles
of impeachment be exhibited to the Senate:

Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the
United States of America in the name of itself and of all of the people of
the United States of America, against George Herbert Walker Bush, President
of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its
impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.

                             ARTICLE I

In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, George
Herbert Walker Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to
execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his
ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the
laws be faithfully executed, has violated the equal protection clause of the
Constitution. U.S. soldiers in the Middle East are overwhelmingly poor
white, black, and Mexican-American, and their military service is based on
the coercion of an system that has denied viable economic opportunities to
these classes of citizens. Under the Constitution, all classes of citizens
are guaranteed equal protection, and calling on the poor and minorities to
fight a war for oil to preserve the lifestyles of the wealthy is a denial of
the rights of these soldiers. In all of this George Herbert Walker Bush has
acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of
constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and
justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore George Herbert Walker Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment
and trial, and removal from office.

                            ARTICLE II

In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, George
Herbert Walker bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to
execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his
ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the
laws be faithfully executed, has violated the U.S. Constitution, federal law
and the United Nations Charter by bribing, intimidating and threatening
others, including the members of the United Nations Security Council, to
support belligerent acts against Iraq. In all of this George Herbert Walker
Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive
of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and
justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore George Herbert Walker Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment
and trial, and removal from office.

                            ARTICLE III

In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, George
Herbert Walker Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to
execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his
ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the
laws be faithfully executed, has prepared, planned, and conspired to engage
in a massive war against Iraq employing methods of mass destruction that
will result in the killing of tens of thousands of civilians, many of whom
will be children. This planning includes the placement and potential use of
nuclear weapons, and the use of such indiscriminate weapons and massive
killings by serial bombardment, or otherwise, of civilians violates the
Hague Conventions of 1907 and 1923, the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and
Protocol I thereto, the Nuremberg Charter, the Genocide Convention and the
United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. In all of this George Herbert
Walker Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and
subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause
of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United
States.

Wherefore George Herbert Walker Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment
and trial, and removal from office.

                            ARTICLE IV

In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, George
Herbert Walker Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to
execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his
ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the
laws be faithfully executed, has committed the United States to acts of war
without congressional consent and contrary to the United Nations Charter and
international law. From August, 1990, through January, 1991, the President
embarked on a course of action that systematically eliminated every option
for peaceful resolution of the Persian Gulf crisis. Once the President
approached Congress for a declaration of war, 500,000 American soldiers'
lives were in jeopardy - rendering any substantive debate by Congress
meaningless. The President has not received a declaration of war by
Congress, and in contravention of the written word, the spirit, and the
intent of the U.S. Constitution has declared that he will go to war
regardless of the views of Congress and the American people. In failing to
seek a declaration of war, and in declaring his intent to violate the
Constitution in disregarding the acts of Congress - including the War Powers
Resolution - George Herbert Walker Bush has acted in a manner contrary to
his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the
great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury
of the people of the United States.

Wherefore George Herbert Walker Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment
and trial, and removal from office.

                            ARTICLE V

In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, George
Herbert Walker Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to
execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his
ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the
laws be faithfully executed, has planned, prepared, and conspired to commit
crimes against the peace by leading the United States into aggressive war
against Iraq in violation of Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, the
Nuremberg Charter, other international instruments and treaties, and the
Constitution of the United States. In all of this George Herbert Walker Bush
has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of
constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and
justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore George Herbert Walker Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment
and trial, and removal from office.

                                *
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems
.          Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us         .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012     http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives:   https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
========================================================

Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign, IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (phone)
217-244-1478 (fax)
(personal comments only)

From: Boyle, Francis A
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2017 3:07 PM
To: David Swanson <davidcnswanson at gmail.com>
Cc: C. G. Estabrook <carl at newsfromneptune.com>; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J <vhoffman at illinois.edu>; Miller, Joseph Thomas <jtmiller at illinois.edu>; Szoke, Ron <r-szoke at illinois.edu>; Dave Trippel <davetrippel at ameritech.net>; Arlene Hickory <a23h23 at yahoo.com>; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne <lina at worldcantwait.net>; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Mildred O'brien <moboct1 at aim.com>; David Johnson <davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net>; Jay <futureup2us at gmail.com>; Karen Aram <karenaram at hotmail.com>; Peace at lists.chambana.net
Subject: RE: FW: CIVIL RESISTANCE!--not "disobedience"

Francis A. Boyle: We just need one person to introduce the bill with courage, integrity, principles, and of course a safe seat. In Gulf War I, I worked with the late great Congressman Henry B. Gonzales on his bill of impeachment against Bush Sr. We put that one in. I did the first draft the day after the war started.
Back in early January 1991 when Ramsey asked me to go in with him and Gonzales on impeaching Bush Sr in order to prevent his Gulf War, Ramsey  told me that there were about 5 other  Members of the US  House who would endorse Gonzales’s Bill of Impeachment—Ramsey asked me to do the first draft. When push came to shove, the Dems all chickened out but for Gonzales. The Dems are just a Gang of Hopeless Warmongers—in my political lifetime at least going back to the Tonkin Gulf Resolution.  These Dem Jackals of Death cannot change their Spots!

Fab


Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign, IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (phone)
217-244-1478 (fax)
(personal comments only)

From: Boyle, Francis A
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2017 2:18 PM
To: David Swanson <davidcnswanson at gmail.com<mailto:davidcnswanson at gmail.com>>
Cc: C. G. Estabrook <carl at newsfromneptune.com<mailto:carl at newsfromneptune.com>>; peace-discuss at anti-war.net<mailto:peace-discuss at anti-war.net>; a-fields at uiuc.edu<mailto:a-fields at uiuc.edu>; Hoffman, Valerie J <vhoffman at illinois.edu<mailto:vhoffman at illinois.edu>>; Miller, Joseph Thomas <jtmiller at illinois.edu<mailto:jtmiller at illinois.edu>>; Szoke, Ron <r-szoke at illinois.edu<mailto:r-szoke at illinois.edu>>; Dave Trippel <davetrippel at ameritech.net<mailto:davetrippel at ameritech.net>>; Arlene Hickory <a23h23 at yahoo.com<mailto:a23h23 at yahoo.com>>; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net<mailto:peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net>; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com<mailto:sherwoodross10 at gmail.com>; abass10 at gmail.com<mailto:abass10 at gmail.com>; mickalideh at gmail.com<mailto:mickalideh at gmail.com>; Lina Thorne <lina at worldcantwait.net<mailto:lina at worldcantwait.net>>; chicago at worldcantwait.net<mailto:chicago at worldcantwait.net>; Mildred O'brien <moboct1 at aim.com<mailto:moboct1 at aim.com>>; David Johnson <davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net<mailto:davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net>>; Jay <futureup2us at gmail.com<mailto:futureup2us at gmail.com>>; Karen Aram <karenaram at hotmail.com<mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com>>; Peace at lists.chambana.net<mailto:Peace at lists.chambana.net>
Subject: RE: FW: CIVIL RESISTANCE!--not "disobedience"

The Dems also supported the Bush Jr. War of Aggression against Iraq. They are hopeless Warmongers. Fab.
From: Boyle, Francis A
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 9:35 AM
To: Killeacle <fboyle at uiuc.edu<mailto:fboyle at uiuc.edu>>
Subject: John Podesta Leaves Obama to Head Hillary Clinton's Presidential Campaign for 2016

Dori Smith: Who do you think might be the most effective person to introduce this bill {of impeachment against Bush Jr} and what is in the works in that regard?
Francis A. Boyle: We just need one person to introduce the bill with courage, integrity, principles, and of course a safe seat. In Gulf War I, I worked with the late great Congressman Henry B. Gonzales on his bill of impeachment against Bush Sr. We put that one in. I did the first draft the day after the war started. So in my opinion there is no excuse for these bills not to have been put in already. In fact, I think I mentioned to you before, on 11 March 2003 Congressman John Conyers convened a meeting of 40 to 50 of his top advisors, most of whom were lawyers, to debate putting in immediate bills of impeachment against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft, to head off the war. And there were draft bills sitting on the table that had been prepared by me and Ramsey Clark. And the Congressman invited Ramsey and me to come in and state the case for impeachment. It was a two hour debate, very vigorous debate, obviously all of these lawyers there. And most of the lawyers there didn’t disagree with us on the merits of impeachment. It was more as they saw it a question of practical politics, namely, John Podesta was there, Clinton’s former White House chief of staff; said he was appearing on behalf of the Democratic National Committee and they were against putting in immediate bills of impeachment because it might hurt whoever their presidential candidate was going to be in 2004. Well at that time no one even knew who their presidential candidate was going to be in 2004.
I didn’t argue the point, I’m a political independent, my position, and it was not for me to tell Democrats how to elect their candidates. I just continued arguing the merits of impeachment. But Ramsey is a lifelong Democrat and he argued that he felt that putting in these bills of impeachment might help the Democrats and it certainly wasn’t going to hurt them in 2004.
Well the Democrats did lose in 2004 but as Ramsey and I were walking out after a two hour debate adjourned and I had offered to stay as long as it took to polish up my bills of impeachment and get them put in right away, because the war started, it was going to start in four days. I turned to Ramsey and I said Ramsey I just don’t understand it, their arguments make no sense, why did they not take me up on my offer to stay and polish up those bills of impeachment and put them in right away to head off a war. And sadly, Ramsey said, “I think most of the people there want a war.” That was 11 March 2003.
It’s very clear that the high officials in the Democratic Party, certainly on the DNC, have been complicit with the Bush Administration in this war against Iraq from the get go. The Democratic national committee still vigorously opposes putting in any bills of impeachment against Bush and Cheney. Podesta made that very clear to us on 11 March 2003.

On Tuesday 11 March 2003, with the Bush Jr.
administration's war of aggression against Iraq staring the American
People, Congress and Republic in their face, Congressman John Conyers of
Michigan, the Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee (which has
jurisdiction over Bills of Impeachment), convened an emergency meeting
of forty or more of his top advisors, most of whom were lawyers. The
purpose of the meeting was to discuss and debate immediately putting
into the U.S. House of Representatives Bills of Impeachment against
President Bush Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld, and then Attorney General John Ashcroft in order to
head off the impending war. Congressman Conyers kindly requested that
Ramsey Clark and I come to the meeting in order to argue the case for
impeachment.

This impeachment debate lasted for two hours. It was presided over by
Congressman Conyers, who quite correctly did not tip his hand one way or
the other on the merits of impeachment. He simply moderated the debate
between Clark and I, on the one side, favoring immediately filing Bills
of Impeachment against Bush Jr. et al. to stop the threatened war, and
almost everyone else there who were against impeachment for partisan
political reasons. Obviously no point would be served here by
attempting to digest a two-hour-long vigorous debate among a group of
well-trained lawyers on such a controversial matter at this critical
moment in American history. But at the time I was struck by the fact
that this momentous debate was conducted at a private office right down
the street from the White House on the eve of war.

Suffice it to say that most of the "experts" there opposed impeachment
not on the basis of enforcing the Constitution and the Rule of Law,
whether international or domestic, but on the political grounds that it
might hurt the Democratic Party effort to get their presidential
candidate elected in the year 2004. As a political independent, I did
not argue that point. Rather, I argued the merits of impeaching Bush
Jr., Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft under the United States
Constitution, U.S. federal laws, U.S. treaties and other international
agreements to which the United States is a party, etc. Article VI of
the U.S. Constitution provides that treaties "shall be the supreme Law
of the Land." This so-called Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution
also applies to international executive agreements concluded under the
auspices of the U.S. President such as the 1945 Nuremberg Charter.

Congressman Conyers was so kind as to allow me the closing argument in
the debate. Briefly put, the concluding point I chose to make was
historical: The Athenians lost their democracy. The Romans lost their
Republic. And if we Americans did not act now we could lose our
Republic! The United States of America is not immune to the laws of
history!

After two hours of most vigorous debate among those in attendance, the
meeting adjourned with second revised draft Bills of Impeachment sitting
on the table.

Certainly, if the U.S. House of Representatives can impeach President
Clinton for sex and lying about sex, then a fortiori the House can,
should, and must impeach President Bush Jr. for war, lying about war,
and threatening more wars. All that is needed is for one Member of
Congress with courage, integrity, principles and a safe seat to file
these currently amended draft Bills of Impeachment against Bush Jr.,
Cheney, Rumsfeld, and now Attorney General Albert Gonzales, who bears
personal criminal responsibility for the Bush Jr. administration torture
scandal. Failing this, the alternative is likely to be an American
Empire abroad, a U.S. police state at home, and continuing wars of
aggression to sustain both-along the lines of George Orwell's classic
novel 1984. Despite all of the serious flaws demonstrated by successive
United States governments that this author has amply documented
elsewhere during the past quarter century as a Professor of Law, the
truth of the matter is that America is still the oldest Republic in the
world today. "We the People of the United States" must fight to keep it
that way! Podesta did not!

[Francis A. Boyle is a Professor of International Law and a human rights
attorney. He is the author of "Destroying World Order" (2004, Clarity
Press).]


Francis A. Boyle


Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (phone)
217-244-1478 (fax)
(personal comments only)

From: Boyle, Francis A
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2017 10:08 AM
To: 'David Swanson' <davidcnswanson at gmail.com<mailto:davidcnswanson at gmail.com>>
Cc: C. G. Estabrook <carl at newsfromneptune.com<mailto:carl at newsfromneptune.com>>; peace-discuss at anti-war.net<mailto:peace-discuss at anti-war.net>; a-fields at uiuc.edu<mailto:a-fields at uiuc.edu>; Hoffman, Valerie J <vhoffman at illinois.edu<mailto:vhoffman at illinois.edu>>; Miller, Joseph Thomas <jtmiller at illinois.edu<mailto:jtmiller at illinois.edu>>; Szoke, Ron <r-szoke at illinois.edu<mailto:r-szoke at illinois.edu>>; Dave Trippel <davetrippel at ameritech.net<mailto:davetrippel at ameritech.net>>; Arlene Hickory <a23h23 at yahoo.com<mailto:a23h23 at yahoo.com>>; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net<mailto:peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net>; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com<mailto:sherwoodross10 at gmail.com>; abass10 at gmail.com<mailto:abass10 at gmail.com>; mickalideh at gmail.com<mailto:mickalideh at gmail.com>; Lina Thorne <lina at worldcantwait.net<mailto:lina at worldcantwait.net>>; chicago at worldcantwait.net<mailto:chicago at worldcantwait.net>; Mildred O'brien <moboct1 at aim.com<mailto:moboct1 at aim.com>>; David Johnson <davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net<mailto:davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net>>; Jay <futureup2us at gmail.com<mailto:futureup2us at gmail.com>>; Karen Aram <karenaram at hotmail.com<mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com>>; Peace at lists.chambana.net<mailto:Peace at lists.chambana.net>
Subject: RE: FW: CIVIL RESISTANCE!--not "disobedience"

Failure to sufficiently punish a foreign government, even for an actual proven offense, has never been a high crime and misdemeanor. The United States is in fact bound by the Hague Convention of 1899, the Kellogg-Briand Pact, and the United Nations Charter to take any such dispute to arbitration and to settle it by pacific means. But that would require producing some evidence rather than mere allegations. Lawless "punishment" is much easier.
For sure David. These Dem Warmongers against Russia  are all  a disgrace! But what else do you expect from The Sons And The Daughters of The Best And the Brightest who gave us the Vietnam War? Plus ca change…
fab

Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (phone)
217-244-1478 (fax)
(personal comments only)

From: David Swanson [mailto:davidcnswanson at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2017 10:01 AM
To: Boyle, Francis A <fboyle at illinois.edu<mailto:fboyle at illinois.edu>>
Cc: C. G. Estabrook <carl at newsfromneptune.com<mailto:carl at newsfromneptune.com>>; peace-discuss at anti-war.net<mailto:peace-discuss at anti-war.net>; a-fields at uiuc.edu<mailto:a-fields at uiuc.edu>; Hoffman, Valerie J <vhoffman at illinois.edu<mailto:vhoffman at illinois.edu>>; Miller, Joseph Thomas <jtmiller at illinois.edu<mailto:jtmiller at illinois.edu>>; Szoke, Ron <r-szoke at illinois.edu<mailto:r-szoke at illinois.edu>>; Dave Trippel <davetrippel at ameritech.net<mailto:davetrippel at ameritech.net>>; Arlene Hickory <a23h23 at yahoo.com<mailto:a23h23 at yahoo.com>>; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net<mailto:peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net>; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com<mailto:sherwoodross10 at gmail.com>; abass10 at gmail.com<mailto:abass10 at gmail.com>; mickalideh at gmail.com<mailto:mickalideh at gmail.com>; Lina Thorne <lina at worldcantwait.net<mailto:lina at worldcantwait.net>>; chicago at worldcantwait.net<mailto:chicago at worldcantwait.net>; Mildred O'brien <moboct1 at aim.com<mailto:moboct1 at aim.com>>; David Johnson <davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net<mailto:davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net>>; Jay <futureup2us at gmail.com<mailto:futureup2us at gmail.com>>; Karen Aram <karenaram at hotmail.com<mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com>>; Peace at lists.chambana.net<mailto:Peace at lists.chambana.net>
Subject: Re: FW: CIVIL RESISTANCE!--not "disobedience"

Fantasies About Russia Could Doom Opposition to Trump
By David Swanson
http://davidswanson.org/node/5399<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__davidswanson.org_node_5399&d=DQMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=iioab8BLQ6IJxt-3gLhYzf1aAvTbGVgzPJj9W_0ugn0&m=zV9dXOD2Oi__i9uDGuZ-YQu0rXZ258hs-SyDzgCaV_M&s=bzAYiTrGy0IaK2lMOWvMrfRaRC5ukmqzrP-n0wiuHtM&e=>

To many Democrats for whom killing a million people in Iraq just didn't rise to the level of an impeachable offense, and who considered Obama's bombing of eight nations and the creation of the drone murder program to be praiseworthy, Trump will be impeachable on Day 1.

Indeed Trump should be impeached on Day 1, but the same Democrats who found the one nominee who could lose to Trump will find the one argument for impeachment that can explode in their own faces. Here's<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.huffingtonpost.com_entry_impeaching-2Dtrump-5Fus-5F5869b806e4b0eb586489f3a4&d=DQMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=iioab8BLQ6IJxt-3gLhYzf1aAvTbGVgzPJj9W_0ugn0&m=zV9dXOD2Oi__i9uDGuZ-YQu0rXZ258hs-SyDzgCaV_M&s=8AyIQkTmkKSkSOiOywadnW4-eHrMOlp2heW9WLS-RFw&e=> a "progressive" Democrat:

"In his dalliance with Vladimir Putin, Trump’s actions are skirting treason. ... By undermining further investigation or sanctions against the Russian manipulation of the 2016 election, Trump as president would be giving aid and comfort to Russian interference with American democracy."

There's a bit of a nod there -- in the word "investigations" -- to the lack of any evidence that Russia manipulated any U.S. election, yet that manipulation is stated as fact, and a failure to support further sanctions as punishment for it becomes "aid and comfort." What level of punishment exactly constitutes the absence of aid and comfort? And how does that level of punishment compare with the level likely to produce war or nuclear holocaust? Who knows.

Failure to sufficiently punish a foreign government, even for an actual proven offense, has never been a high crime and misdemeanor. The United States is in fact bound by the Hague Convention of 1899, the Kellogg-Briand Pact, and the United Nations Charter to take any such dispute to arbitration and to settle it by pacific means. But that would require producing some evidence rather than mere allegations. Lawless "punishment" is much easier.

But further evidence can emerge to counter the claim. The lack of evidence for the claim can weigh ever more heavily on public opinion. And the dangers of creating further hostility with Russia can enter the consciousness of additional people.

Meanwhile, we have a man planning to be president later this month whose business dealings clearly violate the U.S. Constitution in terms of not only foreign but also domestic<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.salon.com_2016_12_21_conflicts-2Don-2Dtop-2Dof-2Dconflicts-2Danother-2Demoluments-2Dclause-2Dthat-2Dshould-2Dbar-2Ddonald-2Dtrump-2Dfrom-2Doffice_&d=DQMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=iioab8BLQ6IJxt-3gLhYzf1aAvTbGVgzPJj9W_0ugn0&m=zV9dXOD2Oi__i9uDGuZ-YQu0rXZ258hs-SyDzgCaV_M&s=D3ale4wkPa2_yQXQRG7YIXCptzQTDZPzM9fHF1bxdec&e=> corruption. That's a perfectly overwhelming case for impeachment and removal from office that doesn't require opposing a single incident of mass murder or offending a single Pentagon contractor.

Beyond that, Trump is becoming president after election day intimidation, the partisan-based removal of voters from the rolls, and opposition to attempting to count paper ballots where they existed. He's arriving with the stated policies of unconstitutionally discriminating against Muslims, murdering families, stealing oil, torturing, and proliferating nuclear weapons.

In other words, Donald Trump will be from Day 1 an impeachable president, and Democrats will have already spent months building their campaign around the one thing that won't work. Imagine what will happen after all their hearings and press conferences, when their supporters find out that they aren't even accusing Vladimir Putin of hacking into election machines, that in fact they are accusing unknown individuals of hacking into Democrats' emails, and that they are then vaguely speculating that those individuals could have been sources for WikiLeaks, thereby informing the U.S. public of what was quite obvious and ought to have been widely reported for the good of the U.S. government, namely that the DNC rigged its primary.

By the time the Democrats beat themselves to the floor with this charade, more facts will likely have come out regarding WikiLeaks' actual source(s), and more hostility will likely have been stirred up with Russia. The war hawks have already got Trump talking up nuclear escalation.

Luckily there is an ace in the hole. There is something else that Democrats will be eager to hold Trump accountable for. And give Trump a month and he'll produce it. I'm referring, of course, to that greatest fear of Our Beloved Founding Fathers, the ultimate high crime and misdemeanor: the presidential sex scandal.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20170102/f7a6e517/attachment-0001.html>