Court Of Impeachment And War Crimes: The People May Indict President George W. Bush

Click for a full report.

Imbush Peach

An interview with Naomi Wolf about the 10 steps from democracy to dictatorship!

Stop The Spying Now

Stop the Spying!

Friday, September 14, 2007

The People May Indict President George W. Bush


ENOUGH CHATTER AND WAILING; The Questions Placed before the Court of Impeachment And War Crimes By Ron Fisher Of Virginia Must Be Answered, i.e., (1) Can we Indict and Prosecute a Sitting President? (2) If So How? And (3) If It Be True, On What Grounds? The consideration shall be for all matters of Indictment: Impeachment and Civil Proceedings.

The Matter is not without merit, and it has been given very serious consideration by many others and it there where we must first focus our attentions.

The people themselves may petition a court to convene a grand jury to investigate Bush's corrupt administration. Such a panel will have the power of the subpoena and the indictment.

Do not miss the concluding decision clinching passages!

It's not just 911 that such a panel might investigate. An overwhelming number of those favoring Bush's impeachment say that there is "plenty" to warrant Bush's removal from the office he seized.

But, given the recalcitrance of Congress, how are "the people" to proceed? I recommend the following handbook for the would-be activist: Facts About Grand Juries

In the year 2005, a growing majority of Americans were not only opposing the disastrous war against Iraq, they were opposing Bush on almost every issue from illegal government wiretapping to this government's planned theft of Social Security.

It was in that year that a majority of Americans said that they supported the impeachment of George W. Bush. Even fewer support Dick Cheney. Others oppose impeachment and removing Bush simply because it would leave something even worse in his stead: Dick Cheney.

As I write this, Newsweek asks How Low Can He Go?

President Bush registers the lowest approval rating of his presidency—making him the least popular president since Nixon—in the new NEWSWEEK Poll.

June 21, 2007 - In 19 months, George W. Bush will leave the White House for the last time.

The latest NEWSWEEK Poll suggests that he faces a steep climb if he hopes to coax the country back to his side before he goes. In the new poll, conducted Monday and Tuesday nights, President Bush’s approval rating has reached a record low. Only 26 percent of Americans, just over one in four, approve of the job the 43rd president is doing; while, a record 65 percent disapprove, including nearly a third of Republicans.

It's been some two years and nothing has been done.

The situation is increasingly dangerous and demands a real investigation followed by impeachment, trial, and removal from office.

Depending upon the specific charges, a criminal trial of Bush/Cheney's should begin immediately.

Following that trial, Bush should be turned over to the International Tribunal at the Hague to stand trial for war crimes, crimes against the peace and crimes against humanity.

How frustrating it must be for thousands of bloggers, activists, journalists and writers to raise the issue of war crimes and high treason knowing that the odds of anything being done by officialdom are slim to none.

Too often I am asked: you may be right but what the hell can we do about it?

Too often I am left advising people to educate and agitate.

At a time when not only the White House but Congress itself seems complicit in the ongoing war crime in Iraq, my answers are inadequate.

Indeed, what can be done when the House of Representatives will not adequately investigate 911 let alone begin impeachment proceedings against George W. Bush?

On the other hand, a grand jury investigating the Bush White House would have sweeping powers to define the scope of its own investigation and the power of the subpoena to back it up.

For example, Michael Moore wants the images made by hundreds of cameras trained on the Pentagon released.

It would clear up the question: what did strike the Pentagon. Only a guilty government would not want you to know.

It occurs to me that a Grand Jury could simply demand those items. Failure to comply is a crime.

Of course, Bushies will cite "national security" as did Nixon in Watergate.

Bush prefers brinkmanship and, thus far, the Democrats have always backed down.

But a Grand Jury is not the Congress. It does not have to stand for re-election.

Would Bush really prefer to stonewall knowing that the issue would go straight to the Supreme Court?

Would Bush risk a purely legal decision on the merits of the case?

In most instances, grand juries investigate issues brought to them by a prosecutor.

In those cases, charges are returned in an indictment.

Some states allow grand juries to act on their own.

In those cases, charges are returned in what is called a "presentment". A presentment has the same legal effect and weight as an indictment, that is, both initiate a criminal case.

Many want to know why a Federal Grand Jury was not convened to investigate 911 in the first place. Never mind! I know why! Bushco had a cover story to peddle.

A real investigation would have only muddied the water. It would have delayed the onset of a war that Bush was hell-bent and desperate to wage on behalf of his sponsors.

Getting Bush out of the Oval Office is a matter of very real urgency.

There are remedies. The people waited patiently for a Democratic majority. Having got one, we are constantly disappointed.

There must be millions, like me, who are sick to death of waiting for justice, millions like me who feel disenfranchised and abandoned by this "government of the people". The people simply must not wait for Congress to begin a real investigation.

Unless every judge in every state, in every county, in every town or city is crooked or, in other ways, bought and paid for by Bush's crooked gang, there may be a way to convene a Grand Jury that will fully investigate the events of 911, those that have followed, and bring charges against administration officials who may have facilitated or helped plan it, and certainly have used it.

Simply, the people may petition a judge to convene a grand jury.

The time has come to brush up on some basics, in this case, the Grand Jury system.

Here is a great link: Using a Grand Jury to Investigate the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks. What is often called a "runaway" Grand Jury could be useful right now. As pointed out in the article, Federal grand juries have already played central roles in the investigations of the Oklahoma City bombing, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and the bombing of two US embassies in Africa.

Grand juries are typically summoned by a court when an attorney general or a district attorney’s motion is granted by the chief judge to empanel the body. But a court may also summons a grand jury upon its own motion and grand jurors are summoned from the same pool as trial jurors.

If one has concerned themselves with the question of the legalities and legitimacy of indicting George W. Bush, Richard B. Cheney and other members of the current administration; the name of Elizabeth de la Vega must spring quickly to mind as the most currently publicized advocate of this approach, this idea.

Therefore, in legal parlance The Court will first consider her Brief as present in explanatory and observation fashion by

Bear in mind that all advocates before this court in this matter have taken the minimal position that: Americans need to impeach Cheney and indict Bush if we are to prove to the world we have any moral fiber left.

Why? Click Here!

That having been acknowledged; let us proceed.

Tomgram: Elizabeth de la Vega, Indicting Bush

Think of it as a milestone. This is now the first website to "indict" the President, the Vice President, and their colleagues for defrauding us into war in Iraq. I put that "indict" in quotes because what follows, as former federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega makes clear in her new book United States v. George W. Bush et al., is "not an actual indictment." It can't be, of course; but consider it the second best thing.

De la Vega has, in her career as a prosecutor, prepared numerous fraud indictments and, as she argued in the first excerpt from her book posted at Tomdispatch earlier this week, "A Fraud Worse than Enron," what George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and their senior officials committed was a crime, not just in the colloquial sense of the word, but in the legal sense too (and not a victimless crime either). While their crime was of a magnitude that puts even Enron, no less run-of-the-mill fraud cases, to shame, it also has all the elements of a typical, small-time scam.

De la Vega's "hypothetical indictment" of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, and Colin Powell that you are about to read remains, unfortunately, in the realm of fantasy. But only for now; until our world comes more fully to grips with the criminal nature of the Bush administration's acts, you can at least turn to the full de la Vega book. A special project, produced in conjunction with Seven Stories Press, a wonderful independent publisher, it's officially published on December 1st (but available now).

You won't want to miss it. It's superbly done and -- though I hesitate to say it, given the nature of the subject matter -- genuinely enjoyable to read because De la Vega turns out to be as skilled a writer as she is a prosecutor, and applies both her talents to the book.

So check out the indictment, read the first day of grand jury testimony (which will be posted at this site on Thursday), and in the meantime get the investigative ball rolling by purchasing the book at or, if you want to give all involved a few extra cents, directly at the Seven Stories website. After all, the excerpts at Tomdispatch can only give you a taste of the full case De la Vega makes.


United States v. George W. Bush et al.
By Elizabeth de la Vega

Assistant United States Attorney: Good morning, Ladies and Gentlemen. We're here today in the case of United States v. George W. Bush et al. In addition to President Bush, the defendants are Vice President Richard B. Cheney, former National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice -- who's now the Secretary of State, of course -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and former Secretary of State Colin Powell.

It's a one-count proposed indictment: Conspiracy to Defraud the United States in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371. I'll explain the law that applies to the case this afternoon, but I'm going to hand out the indictment now, so you'll have some context for that explanation. Take as long as you need to read it, and then feel free to take your lunch break, but please leave your copy of the indictment with the foreperson. We'll meet back at one o'clock.



Plaintiff, Conspiracy to Defraud v. the United States

GEORGE W. BUSH, ) 18 U.S.C. Section 371



Introductory Allegations

At times relevant to this Indictment:

1. The primary law of the United States Federal Government was set forth in the U.S. Constitution ("Constitution"), which provides that the first branch of government is the Legislative Branch ("Congress"). Pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Congress has certain powers and obligations regarding oversight of foreign affairs, including the powers to:

(1) declare war;

(2) raise and support the armed forces; and

(3) tax and spend for the common good.

2. Article II of the Constitution establishes the Executive Branch. The Executive Power of the United States is vested in the President, who is also the Commander in Chief of the Armed Services.

3. Defendant GEORGE W. BUSH ("BUSH") has been employed as President of the United States since January 20, 2001. On that day, BUSH took a constitutionally mandated oath to faithfully execute the Office of President and to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. BUSH is also constitutionally obligated to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

4. As Chief Executive, BUSH exercised authority, direction, and control over the entire Executive Branch, which includes the White House, the Office of the Vice President, the Departments of State, Defense, and others, and the National Security Council.

5. Defendant RICHARD B. CHENEY ("CHENEY") has been employed as Vice President of the United States since January 20, 2001.

6. Defendant CONDOLEEZZA RICE ("RICE") was employed as the National Security Adviser from January 2001 to January 2005, when she became Secretary of State, a position she holds as of the date of this indictment. As National Security Adviser, RICE exercised direction, control, and authority over the National Security Council, which coordinates various national security and foreign policy agencies, including the Departments of Defense and State.

7. Defendant DONALD M. RUMSFELD ("RUMSFELD") has been employed as Secretary of Defense since January 2001.

8. Defendant COLIN M. POWELL ("POWELL") was employed as Secretary of State from January 2001 through January of 2005.

9. Before assuming their offices, CHENEY, RICE, RUMSFELD and POWELL took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.

10. As employees of the Executive Branch, BUSH, CHENEY, RICE, RUMSFELD, and POWELL were governed by Executive Orders 12674 and 12731. These Orders provide that Executive Branch employees hold their positions as a public trust and that the American people have a right to expect that they will fulfill that trust in accordance with certain ethical standards and principles. These include abiding by the Constitution and laws of the United States, as well as not using their offices to further private goals and interests.

11. Pursuant to the Constitution, their oaths of office, their status as Executive Branch employees, and their presence in the United States, BUSH, CHENEY, RICE, RUMSFELD, and POWELL, and their subordinates and employees, are required to obey Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, which prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States.

12. As used in Section 371, the term "to defraud the United States" means "to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful government functions by deceit, craft, trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest." The term also means to "impair, obstruct, or defeat the lawful function of any department of government" by the use of "false or fraudulent pretenses or representations."

13. A "false" or "fraudulent" representation is one that is: (a) made with knowledge that it is untrue; (b) a half-truth; (c) made without a reasonable basis or with reckless indifference as to whether it is, in fact, true or false; or (d) literally true, but intentionally presented in a manner reasonably calculated to deceive a person of ordinary prudence and intelligence. The knowing concealment or omission of information that a reasonable person would consider important in deciding an issue also constitutes fraud.

14. Congress is a "department of the United States" within the meaning of Section 371. In addition, hearings regarding funding for military action and authorization to use military force are "lawful functions" of Congress.

15. Accordingly, the presentation of information to Congress and the general public through deceit, craft, trickery, dishonest means, and fraudulent representations, including lies, half-truths, material omissions, and statements made with reckless indifference to their truth or falsity, while knowing and intending that such fraudulent representations would influence Congress' decisions regarding authorization to use military force and funding for military action, constitutes interfering with, obstructing, impairing, and defeating a lawful government function of a department of the United States within the meaning of Section 371.

The Conspiracy to Defraud the United States

16. Beginning on or about a date unknown, but no later than August of 2002, and continuing to the present, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the defendants,


and others known and unknown, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to defraud the United States by using deceit, craft, trickery, dishonest means, false and fraudulent representations, including ones made without a reasonable basis and with reckless indifference to their truth or falsity, and omitting to state material facts necessary to make their representations truthful, fair and accurate, while knowing and intending that their false and fraudulent representations would influence the public and the deliberations of Congress with regard to authorization of a preventive war against Iraq, thereby defeating, obstructing, impairing, and interfering with Congress' lawful functions of overseeing foreign affairs and making appropriations.

17. The Early Months of the Bush-Cheney Administration: Prior to January of 2001, BUSH, CHENEY, and RUMSFELD each demonstrated a predisposition to employ U.S. military force to invade the Middle East, including, specifically, to forcibly remove Saddam Hussein.

18. Since 1992, CHENEY has endorsed a "bold foreign policy" that includes using military force to "punish" or "threaten to punish" possible aggressors in order to protect the United States’ access to Persian Gulf oil and to halt proliferation of weapons of mass destruction ("WMD"), a term that is customarily used to describe chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.

19. On or about January 26, 1998, RUMSFELD and seven other future BUSH-CHENEY administration appointees signed a letter sent by a conservative policy institute named "Project for a New American Century" ("PNAC") to then President William Clinton, which called for U.S. military action to forcibly remove Saddam Hussein from power.

20. In January 1999, BUSH named RICE and her future Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley ("Hadley"), as his presidential-campaign foreign-policy advisers, along with future Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz ("Wolfowitz") and four others who had publicly advocated forcibly removing Saddam Hussein.

21. On or before September 2000, 12 future BUSH-CHENEY administration appointees, including Wolfowitz, former Assistant to Vice President CHENEY, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, and Rumsfeld's long-term aide Stephen Cambone, participated in drafting "Rebuilding America's Defenses," a PNAC policy statement which asserted that the "need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." PNAC acknowledged that its goals would take a long time to achieve "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event--like a new Pearl Harbor."

22. Once BUSH became the Republican candidate in the 2000 presidential election campaign, he and CHENEY informed the general public that they would be reluctant to use military force and did not believe that the United States should engage in "nation-building."

23. On and after January 20, 2001, BUSH and CHENEY caused to be appointed as senior foreign policy advisors and consultants, at least thirty-four persons who had publicly endorsed the PNAC principles of United States global preeminence and use of force to "punish" or "threaten to punish" emerging threats from weapons of mass destruction ("WMD") or impediments to United States access to oil in the Middle East. Of those appointees, eighteen had also publicly advocated forcibly removing Saddam Hussein.

24. In late December 2000, BUSH and CHENEY advised outgoing President William J. Clinton and others that, among potential foreign policy issues, BUSH's primary concern was Iraq.

25. On February 11, 2001, BUSH ordered the first airstrikes since 1998 to be conducted outside of the United Nations ("UN") agreed-upon No-Fly zones, to get Saddam Hussein's "attention."
26. The Attacks of September 11, 2001. On September 11, 2001, nineteen men hijacked four commercial airplanes. They crashed two planes into the World Trade Towers in New York City and another into the Pentagon in Washington, DC. The fourth plane crashed in Pennsylvania. In total, nearly 3,000 people died as a result of the September 11, 2001, attacks ("9/11").

27. Shortly afterward, United States intelligence agencies determined that 9/11 was the work of the terrorist organization al Qaeda, spearheaded by Osama Bin Laden. Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, two from Yemen, and two from Lebanon. This information, along with the conclusion that no evidence linked Saddam Hussein to the attacks or al Qaeda, was immediately communicated to BUSH, CHENEY, RICE, RUMSFELD, POWELL, and others.

28. BUSH-CHENEY administration members began discussing an invasion of Iraq immediately after 9/11. BUSH, RUMSFELD and others also assigned various subordinates, including former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, CIA Director George Tenet, and General Richard Meyers to look for intelligence that could justify attacking Saddam Hussein's regime.

29. On September 17, 2001, BUSH secretly ordered the formulation of preliminary plans for an invasion of Iraq, while admitting to his aides that no evidence existed to justify an attack.

30. On or about September 18, 2001, in response to BUSH's request, Clarke sent RICE a memo that stated: (a) the case for linking Hussein to 9/11 was weak; (b) only anecdotal evidence linked Hussein to al Qaeda; (c) Osama Bin Laden resented the secularism of Saddam Hussein; and (d) there was no confirmed reporting of Saddam cooperating with Bin Laden on unconventional weapons.

31. On September 20, 2001, BUSH informed British Prime Minister Tony Blair that after Afghanistan, the United States and Britain should return to the issue of invading Iraq.

32. U.S. Intelligence Community Assessments of Risk from Iraq in Effect on November 2001. On occasion, Executive Branch officials request assessments of current intelligence on risks posed by WMD in a given country. Although such assessments are coordinated by the Central Intelligence Agency ("CIA"), the final product incorporates the analyses, including dissenting opinions, of the intelligence branches of the Departments of State, Energy, Defense, the National Security Agency, and others, which are collectively called the Intelligence Community ("IC").

33. As of November 2001, the most recent assessment on Iraq was a December 2000 classified Intelligence Community Assessment ("ICA") called "Iraq: Steadily Pursuing WMD Capabilities." This ICA was a comprehensive update on possible Iraqi efforts to rebuild WMD and weapons delivery systems after the 1998 departure of International Atomic Energy Agency ("IAEA") representatives and UN weapons inspectors, who are collectively referred to as the United Nations Special Commission ("UNSCOM").

34. Regarding Iraq's possible nuclear program, the December 2000 NIE unanimously concluded that:

(a) The IAEA and UNSCOM had destroyed or neutralized Iraq's nuclear infrastructure, but Iraq still had a foundation for future nuclear reconstitution;

(b) Iraq was continuing low-level theoretical research and training, and attempting to obtain dual-use items that cold be used to reconstitute its nuclear program;

(c) if Iraq acquired a significant quantity of fissile material through foreign assistance, it could have a crude nuclear weapon within a year; if Iraq received foreign assistance, it would take five to seven years to produce enough weapons-grade fissile material for a nuclear weapon; and

(d) Iraq did not appear to have reconstituted its nuclear weapons program.

35. Escalation of Military Activity and Planning for Invasion of Iraq. On November 21, 2001, BUSH secretly ordered preparation of a formal war plan for invading Iraq. Thereafter, for sixteen months, the BUSH-CHENEY administration expended substantial U.S. government funds in military activity and planning for invasion of Iraq, all without notice to, or approval by, the U.S. Congress.

36. BUSH did not receive an extensive briefing about possible WMD in Iraq before ordering a war plan, nor did he discuss the legitimacy of grounds for war with anyone. BUSH received no such briefing until December 21, 2002.

37. On or about November 27, 2001, RUMSFELD asked General "Tommy" Franks, head of Central Command, which supervises Middle East operations, to immediately prepare an Iraq war plan in response to BUSH's order.

38. Thereafter, Franks discussed numerous revised Iraq war plans with RUMSFELD. Between December 2001 and August 2002, BUSH, CHENEY, RICE, RUMSFELD, POWELL, and others held at least five lengthy meetings about Franks' plans. In August, BUSH ordered Franks to prepare to invade Iraq using the "Hybrid Plan," a combination of the "Running Start" and "Generated Start" plans developed previously.

39. During 2002, the United States and Great Britain increased air strikes in order to degrade Iraqi air defenses and began deploying troops to areas around Iraq.

40. On or about July 30, 2002, without approval by, or notice to, Congress, BUSH caused the diversion of $700 million from Afghanistan war funds into Iraq invasion preparations.

41. On September 5, 2002, without approval by, or notice to, Congress, BUSH caused approximately 100 United States and British aircraft to launch ballistic missiles at Iraq's major western air-defense facility.

42. By September 12, 2002, without approval by, or notice to, Congress, BUSH had caused the movement of 40,000 military personnel and over 350,000 tons of equipment to areas around Iraq. Franks also ordered Central Command to be moved to Al Udeid Air Base near Doha, Qatar.

43. Behind-the-Scenes Strategizing with British Officials: On or before March 2002, BUSH, RICE, Wolfowitz, and others secretly began discussing ways to persuade the public and foreign allies to accept Bush's goal of invading Iraq, with British Prime Minister Tony Blair ("Blair") and his advisers.

44. On March 12, 2002, in Washington, DC, RICE met with Blair's Foreign Policy Adviser Sir David Manning and informed him of BUSH's problems with persuading "international opinion that military action against Iraq was necessary and justified."

45. On March 17, 2002, in Washington, DC, British Ambassador Sir Christopher Meyer advised Wolfowitz that the two countries should "wrong foot" Saddam Hussein by seeking a UN resolution that would require the readmission of weapons inspectors with the expectation that Saddam would create a justification for war by obstructing the inspections.

46. On April 6, 2002, in Crawford, Texas, BUSH and Blair discussed strategies to sway public opinion regarding military action in Iraq. Blair agreed to support a United States invasion if the two countries obtained a UN resolution first.

47. In mid-July, 2002, in Washington, DC, White House officials discussed Iraq with visiting British officials. Upon their return to London, these officials reported the talks to Blair in a meeting at 10 Downing St. on July 23, 2002. Among other things, Blair's advisers suggested that he urge BUSH to devise a more realistic political strategy for attacking Iraq, because a desire for "regime change" would not justify military action under international law.

48. In mid-July, 2002, in Washington, DC, CIA Director Tenet and others talked about the Bush administration's intentions regarding Iraq with Sir Richard Dearlove, the head of British Intelligence.

49. On July 23, 2002, during the Downing St. meeting described above, Dearlove informed Blair that in the United States "Military action was now seen as inevitable. BUSH wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

50. On July 23, 2002, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw also noted that BUSH had "made up his mind to take military action." Straw said he would urge POWELL to persuade BUSH to seek a UN resolution requiring Saddam Hussein to readmit weapons inspectors, in effect, suggesting the "wrong footing" strategy that Meyer had described to Wolfowitz.

51. Behind-the-Scenes Efforts to Fix Intelligence Around the Policy. Within weeks after learning from Clarke, Tenet, and others that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had no involvement with either 9/11 or al Qaeda, RUMSFELD caused Deputy Undersecretary for Defense Douglas Feith ("Feith") to secretly create the Counter Terrorism Group ("CTEG"), a small unit of political appointees whose mission was to find links between Iraq and al Qaeda by reviewing raw intelligence that previously had been discarded as unreliable. CTEG reported weekly to RUMSFELD's long-term associate Stephen Cambone, and occasionally presented information directly to Wolfowitz, thereby circumventing standard IC procedures.

52. At some time in 2002, Feith also designated political appointees to work under his supervision in the newly-created Office of Special Plans, whose purpose was to develop and package information for use in marketing the President's plan for an invasion of Iraq. In the fall of 2002, this group presented information directly to RUMSFELD, to RICE's office, and to CHENEY's office, thereby circumventing standard IC procedures.

53. In the spring of 2002, CHENEY and his former aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, began visiting CIA headquarters to question CIA agents' assessments about Iraq. RUMSFELD and Deputy National Security Adviser Hadley also repeatedly pressed CIA Director Tenet and his subordinates to present a stronger case against Iraq.

54. Bush's Creation of the White House Iraq Group. By the summer of 2002, domestic and international support for BUSH's plan to invade Iraq was lukewarm. At the same time, Bush's chief political strategist and Senior Adviser Karl Rove and Kenneth Mehlman, head of the White House Office of Strategic Initiatives, were beginning to coordinate the President's involvement in the November 7, 2002, congressional election.

Their overall goal was to gain Republican majorities in both houses of Congress so that the President would have the greatest possible support for his policies. Rove had specifically recommended that Republicans "focus on war" as a way to win elections. Consequently, in the summer of 2002, BUSH's efforts to win support for an invasion of Iraq and his efforts to assist Republican congressional candidates became inextricably intertwined.

55. In the summer of 2002, BUSH caused the creation of the White House Iraq Group, which was co chaired by BUSH's long-term political operatives Karl Rove and Karen Hughes, who remained BUSH's close associate even though she had resigned her position as Counselor to the President. This team, also called WHIG, was largely a political and public-relations entity that included RICE, Hadley, President's Chief of Staff Andrew Card, President's legislative liaison Nicholas Calio, CHENEY's key aide and veteran Republican political strategist Mary Matalin, CHENEY's senior adviser Libby, and James Wilkinson, another Republican campaign consultant.

56. On or about September 6, 2002, Rove and Card publicly announced that: (a) the BUSH-CHENEY administration was beginning to "roll out" its case for an invasion of Iraq; (b) its public-relations campaign was specifically directed at forcing Congress to pass a resolution authorizing the President to use military force in Iraq; (c) BUSH wanted the resolution passed in about five weeks, before the 2002 election; and (d) in the end, it would be difficult for any legislator to vote against it.

57. The Defendants' Massive Fraud to "Market" an invasion of Iraq. On or about September 4, 2002, BUSH staged a photo opportunity with a bipartisan group of congressional leaders, after which he falsely and fraudulently announced that Iraq posed a serious threat to the safety of the United States and the world, while concealing from Congress and the American people the material facts that:

(a) he had no reasonable basis whatsoever for his assertion;

(b) he had never discussed the legitimacy of the grounds for an attack against Iraq with anyone;

(c) he had never extensively reviewed existing intelligence regarding any possible threat from Iraq;

(d) he had not requested an updated intelligence assessment on Iraq;

(e) the United States intelligence assessment then in effect stated that Iraq had neither nuclear weapons nor a nuclear weapons program; and

(f) the IC had consistently reported that Iraq had no involvement in 9/11 and no relationship with al Qaeda.

58. On September 4, 2002, BUSH also falsely and fraudulently claimed he was beginning an "open dialogue" with the American public, with Congress, and with United States allies to decide how to respond to Iraq, while concealing the material facts that he:

(a) had requested a formal plan to invade Iraq nearly a year before;

(b) had been conducting significant military and nonmilitary planning and attacks against Iraq for a year;

(c) had directed significant military deployment to areas around Iraq;

(d) was planning a massive air assault against Iraq's air defense facility for the next day; and

(e) intended to work with the UN only to create a justification to use military force against Iraq.

59. Thereafter, the defendants and WHIG executed a calculated and wide-ranging strategy to deceive Congress and the American people by making hundreds of false and fraudulent representations that were only half-true, or literally true but misleading; by concealing material facts; and by making statements without a reasonable basis and with reckless indifference to their truth, regarding, among other things:

(a) their true intent to invade Iraq;

(b) the extent of military buildup and force used against Iraq without notice to or approval by Congress;

(c) their true purpose in seeking a Congressional resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq;

(d) their true intent to use their involvement in seeking a UN resolution requiring Iraq to cooperate with weapons inspectors as a sham; and

(e) their claimed justifications for invading Iraq, including but not limited to:

The alleged connection between Saddam Hussein and the attacks of September 11, 2001;

The alleged connection between Iraq and al Qaeda;

The alleged connection between Saddam Hussein and any terrorists whose primary animus was directed towards the United States;

Saddam Hussein's alleged intent to attack the United States in any way;

Saddam Hussein's possession of nuclear weapons and the status of any alleged ongoing nuclear weapons programs;

The lack of any reasonable basis for asserting with certainty that Saddam Hussein was actively manufacturing chemical and biological weapons; and

The alleged urgency of any threat posed to the United States by Saddam Hussein.

60. Congressional Joint Resolution to Authorize Use of Force Against Iraq. As a result of the defendants' false and fraudulent "marketing" of the President's plan to invade Iraq, on October 11, 2002, the U.S Congress, acting pursuant to its Article I constitutional authority to oversee and authorize use of military force, passed a Congressional Joint Resolution to Authorize Use of Force Against Iraq ["the Resolution"] which stated:

The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to—

(a) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(b) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

61. The Resolution required the President to, either before or within 48 hours after exercising the authority to use force, make available to the Senate and the House of Representatives his determination that:

(a) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either

(1) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or

(2) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(b) acting pursuant to this resolution 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 terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

62. The Resolution also required the President to, at least every 60 days, present Congress a report on "matters relevant to this joint resolution."

63. In furtherance of the above-described conspiracy, the defendants and their coconspirators committed and caused to be committed the following overt acts:


A. On December 9, 2001, CHENEY announced on NBC's Meet the Press that "it was pretty well confirmed" that lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta had met the head of Iraqi intelligence in Prague in April 2001, which statement was, as CHENEY well knew, made without reasonable basis and with reckless disregard for the truth, because it was based on a single witness's uncorroborated allegation that had not been fully investigated by U.S. intelligence agencies.

B. On July 15, 2002, POWELL stated on Ted Koppel's Nightline: "What we have consistently said is that the President has no plan on his desk to invade Iraq at the moment, nor has one been presented to him, nor have his advisors come together to put a plan to him," which statement was deliberately false and misleading in that it deceitfully implied the President was not planning an invasion of Iraq when, as POWELL well knew, the President was close to finalizing detailed military plans for such an invasion that he had ordered months previously.

C. On August 26, 2002, CHENEY made numerous false and fraudulent statements including: "Simply stated there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us," when, as CHENEY well knew, this statement was made without reasonable basis and with reckless indifference to the truth in that the IC's then prevailing assessment was that Iraq had neither nuclear weapons nor a reconstituted nuclear weapons program.

D. On September 7, 2002, appearing publicly with Blair, BUSH claimed a recent IAEA report stated that Iraq was "six months away from developing a [nuclear] weapon" and "I don't know what more evidence we need," which statements were made without basis and with reckless indifference to the truth in that: (1) the IAEA had not even been present in Iraq since 1998; and (2) the report the IAEA did write in 1998 had concluded there was no indication that Iraq had the physical capacity to produce weapons-usable nuclear material or that it had attempted to obtain such material.

E. On September 8, 2002, on Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, RICE asserted that Saddam Hussein was acquiring aluminum tubes that were "only suited" for nuclear centrifuge use, which statement was deliberately false and fraudulent, and made with reckless indifference to the truth in that it omitted to state the following material facts:

(1) the U.S. intelligence community was deeply divided about the likely use of the tubes;

(2) there were at least fifteen intelligence reports written since April 2001 that cast doubt on the tubes' possible nuclear-related use; and

(3) the U.S. Department of Energy nuclear weapons experts had concluded, after analyzing the tubes's specifications and the circumstances of the Iraqis' attempts to procure them, that the aluminum tubes were not well suited for nuclear centrifuge use and were more likely intended for artillery rocket production.

F. On September 8, 2002, RUMSFELD stated on Face the Nation: "Imagine a September 11th, with weapons of mass destruction. It's not three thousand, it's tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children," which statement was deliberately fraudulent and misleading in that it implied without reasonable basis and in direct contradiction to then prevailing intelligence that Saddam Hussein had no operational relationship with al Qaeda and was unlikely to provide weapons to terrorists.

G. On September 19, 2002, RUMSFELD told the Senate Armed Services Committee that "no terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people than the regime of Saddam Hussein," which statement was, as Rumsfeld well knew, made without reasonable basis and with reckless indifference to the truth in that:

(1) Hussein had not acted aggressively toward the United States since his alleged attempt to assassinate President George H. W. Bush in 1993;

(2) Iraq's military forces and equipment were severely debilitated because of UN sanctions imposed after the 1991 Gulf War;

(3) the IC's opinion was that Iraq's sponsorship of terrorists was limited to ones whose hostility was directed toward Israel; and

(4) Iran, not Iraq, was the most active state sponsor of terrorism.

H. On October 1, 2002, the defendants caused the IC's updated classified National Intelligence Estimate to be delivered to Congress just hours before the beginning of debate on the Authorization to Use Military Force. At the same time, the defendants caused an unclassified "White Paper" to be published which was false and misleading in many respects in that it failed to include qualifying language and dissents that substantially weakened their argument that Iraq posed a serious threat to the United States.

I. On October 7, 2002, in Cincinnati, Ohio, BUSH made numerous deliberately misleading statements to the nation, including stating that in comparison to Iran and North Korea, Iraq posed a uniquely serious threat, which statement BUSH well knew was false and fraudulent in that it omitted to state the material fact that a State Department representative had been informed just three days previously that North Korea had actually already produced nuclear weapons. The defendants continued to conceal this information until after Congress passed the Authorization to Use Military Force against Iraq.

J. Between September 1, 2002, and November 2, 2002, BUSH traveled the country making in excess of thirty congressional-campaign speeches in which he falsely and fraudulently asserted that Iraq was a "serious threat" which required immediate action, when as he well knew, this assertion was made without reasonable basis and with reckless indifference to the truth.

K. In his January 28, 2003 State of the Union address, BUSH announced that the "British have recently learned that Iraq was seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa" which statement was fraudulent and misleading and made with reckless disregard for the truth, in that it falsely implied that the information was true, when the CIA had advised the administration more than once that the allegation was unsupported by available intelligence.

L. In a February 5, 2003, speech to the UN, POWELL falsely implied, without reasonable basis and with reckless disregard for the truth, that, among other things: (1) those who maintained that Iraq was purchasing aluminum tubes for rockets were allied with Saddam Hussein, even though POWELL well knew that both Department of Energy nuclear weapons experts and State Department intelligence analysts had concluded that the tubes were not suited for nuclear centrifuge use; and (2) Iraq had an ongoing cooperative relationship with al Qaeda, when he well knew that no intelligence agency had reached that conclusion.

M. On March 18, 2003, BUSH sent a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate which asserted that further reliance on diplomatic and peaceful means alone would not either:

(1) adequately protect United States national security against the "continuing threat posed by Iraq" or

(2) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant UN Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, which statement was made without reasonable basis and with reckless indifference to the truth in that, as BUSH well knew, the U.S. intelligence community had never reported that Iraq posed an urgent threat to the United States and there was no evidence whatsoever to prove that Iraq had either the means or intent to attack the U.S. directly or indirectly.

The statement was also false because, as BUSH well knew, the UN weapons inspectors had not found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and wanted to continue the inspection process because it was working well.

N. In the same March 18, 2003 letter, BUSH also represented that taking action pursuant to the Resolution was "consistent with 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 terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001," which statement was entirely false and without reasonable basis in that, as BUSH well knew, Iraq had no involvement with al Qaeda or the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001



[Note: Bear in mind that this is not an actual indictment, but crafted as a draft, all substance being true and real]

Assistant United States Attorney: Ladies and Gentlemen, we're going to spend the afternoon discussing the law that applies to your consideration of the indictment.

The full discussion is omitted in this excerpt, but, in brief, this is the legal question you will be deciding:

Is there probable cause to believe that the defendants used deceit, craft, trickery, dishonest means -- including lies, false pretenses, misrepresentations, deliberate omissions, half-truths, false promises, and statements made with reckless indifference to their truth -- to obstruct, impede, or interfere with Congress' lawful government function of overseeing foreign affairs, relating to the invasion of Iraq?

We'll see you all tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. Our witness tomorrow will be an FBI agent. She's from Boston, but we should be able to get by without a translator.

Have a good evening.


[Coming Thursday: Part 3 of United States v. George W. Bush at – The Grand Jury Testimony]

Elizabeth de la Vega is a former federal prosecutor with more than 20 years of experience. During her tenure, she was a member of the Organized Crime Strike Force and Chief of the San Jose Branch of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California. Her pieces have appeared in the Nation Magazine, the Los Angeles Times, and Salon. She writes regularly for This hypothetical indictment is part of her new book, United States v. George W. Bush et al. She may be contacted at

Excerpted from United States v. George W. Bush et al. by Elizabeth de la Vega, published December 1, 2006 by Seven Stories Press and

Copyright 2006 Elizabeth de la Vega



Vice President Aaron Burr was subject to indictments in two states while still in office. Burr stayed out of those two states to avoid prosecution.

In the case of Spiro Agnew, Solicitor General Robert Bork filed a brief arguing that, consistent with the Constitution, the Vice President could be subject to indictment and criminal prosecution.

While still Vice President, Agnew plea bargained a deal in which he plead "no contest" to tax evasion.

He resigned the same day he entered his plea.

For a President, there is no clear precedent one way or another. The closest is the case of Nixon. The Grand Jury reportedly wanted to indict Nixon.Prosecutor Jaworski convinced them to avoid the issue of whether the President may be indicted by naming him as an unindicted coconspirator.

This was sufficient to get a subpoena for Nixon's records including the tapes.

Nixon argued that the subpoena was invalid because he was not subject to indictment. The Supreme Court sidestepped the indictment issue by ruling that they did not need to answer that question in order to reach their conclusion that the subpoena was valid.

United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 687 n. 2 (1974).

There is not a single word in the Constitution that supports a claim that thePresident cannot be indicted. On the contrary, the Constitution merely saysthis about impeachment:

Article I, Section 3, Clause 7:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Officeof honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Partyconvicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment,Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Article II, Section 4:

The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Convictionof, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Note that in the above sections the Constitution treats impeachment of thePresident exactly the same as impeachment of any other Officer. The only place where the Constitution treats the President differently with respect toimpeachment is in that the Chief Justice sits as the presiding officer in theSenate trial of a President:

Article I, Section 3, Clause 6:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. Whensitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. Whenthe President of the United States is tried the Chief Justice shallpreside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence oftwo thirds of the Members present.

Since the Constitution treats the President identically to all other Officers,and since there is substantial precedent for indicting other impeachableofficers including judges and members of Congress, it follows that the President may also be indicted. Courts have specifically held that a federal judge is indictable and may be convicted prior to removal from office.

United States v. Claiborne, 727 F.2d 842, 847-848 (9th Cir.), cert. den., 469 U.S. 829 (1984);

United States v. Hastings, 681 F.2d 706, 710-711 (11th Cir.), cert. den., 459U.S. 1203 (1983);

United States, v. Isaacs, 493 F.2d 1124, 1142 (7th Cir.),cert. den. sub nom., Kerner v. United States, 417 U.S. 976 (1974).

Note also that Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 brings up the issue of indictment.

It clearly indicates that those subject to impeachment are also subject toindictment "according to Law." It in no way suggests that the law be suspended until after the impeachment and/or Senate trial.

The New York Times reported on 1/31/99 that "Starr has concluded that he has the constitutional authority to seek a grand jury indictment of president Clinton before he leaves the White House in January, 2001." If that be true and I hold that it was, and given the circumstances and causations surrounding the Clinton matter; it pales in comparison to those issues facing this court, at this moment.

Professor Eric Freedman of the Hofstra University School of Law has submitted extensive written and oral testimony to Congress stating that a sitting President may be indicted. He questions under what circumstances this power may be used. See, e.g., E. Freedman, "The Law and King and the King as Law: Is a President Immune from Criminal Prosecution Before Impeachment?" 20 Hastings L.Q.7 (1992).

Among Freedman's arguments in support of the position that a sitting President can be subjected to criminal proceedings, Freedman contends that the 25th Amendment can be used as a mechanism for having the President leave office temporarily if a criminal trial or resulting sentence precludes the President from performing his constitutional duties.

The Amendment kicks in if the President "is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office," then the 25th Amendment applies (the quoted text is straight from both the 3rd and 4th sections of the Amendment).

In practice, I do not expect the 25th Amendment to actually be applied. For all of the arguing by Presidents that their ability to function would be impaired by any court action, I bet all such arguing will disappear when they are faced with the 25th Amendment.

All of a sudden, an indicted President will announce that he can discharge 100% of his duties despite the indictment.

All concerns about being preoccupied with the prosecution will disappear.

Nevertheless, the 25th Amendment is a useful argument to counter any claim that a President may be unable to discharge his duties. Calling it into play makes the argument go away…quickly.

Many of the arguments that a President cannot be indicted are trumped by the 25th Amendment. If the President can be removed temporarily to deal with criminal proceedings, the Office of the President can continue unimpeded.

It is the Office that must be protected, not the person who sits in it.

Also, many of the arguments against indictment are really arguments against arrest.

If the President remains free during criminal proceedings, he canperform his job just fine.

Criminal proceedings need not impede the President any more than impeachment proceedings.

If criminal proceedings take too much of the President's time or if incarceration should be necessary, clearly the 25th Amendment provides more than adequate remedy to protect the Office of the President and the continuation of the government.

I find that the official government position on indictment of the President is contained in several papers circa 1974 (regarding Nixon and Agnew) and 2000 (Clinton).

These argue that the Vice President can be indicted but the President cannot. The arguments regarding the President are weak.

First, the papers admit that "the plain terms of the [Impeachment Judgment] Clause do not impose such a general bar to indictment or criminal trial prior to impeachment and therefore do not, by themselves, preclude the criminal prosecution of a sitting President."

Would anyone be so dense as to argue that a President guilty of Rape or physical spousal abuse or murder, could not be subject to criminal prosecution? That is a rhetorical question which I assure you that would not want to answer in the negative!

The papers also admit that there is difficulty in assigning an implied immunity to the President when the Constitution expressly provided immunity to Congress in the Arrest and Speech or Debate Clauses of Article I, Section 6.

If the Founders had meant to give immunity to both the President and Congress, why did they only expressly say so for Congress?

If they only meant to define for Congress the boundaries of a broader immunity, why did they not expressly define the broader immunity for the President?

The argument that there cannot be an implied immunity in addition to the express immunity is not conclusive, but it is very strong. The papers dismiss it without providing adequate justification.

The papers then go on to argue that there is an implied immunity. They invent this from reading between lines in cases that do not apply. There is no case that rules on the indictment of a President.

In fact, the same arguments that were used in these papers to argue that a President cannot be indicted were used unsuccessfully to argue that Nixon's tapes could not be subpoenaed and that Clinton could not be made to testify to a Grand Jury. Courts overruled those arguments.

No final court decision has ever accepted as strong a principle of executive privilege as would be required by these arguments that the President cannot be indicted.

The papers consider the possibility that the precedents that say that other Officers can be indicted while in office do not apply to the President. The papers end up admitting that they cannot justify such an argument.

The papers admit that a trial of the President would not be precluded due to being "too political for the judicial process." If other Officers can be indicted and tried fairly, so can the President.

The papers raise question of whether it is practical to have a prosecutor who is part of the Executive Branch prosecute the President. The experience we have developed with independent prosecutors in the cases of Nixon, Clinton, and the CIA leak case show that this is not a problem.

Nixon may have tried to fire the prosecutor, but he did not succeed.

Furthermore, if a conflict of interest cannot be resolved, the 25th Amendment provides a resolution.

If the President and the Cabinet refuse to apply the 25th Amendment, then the prosecution may need to be delayed -- but that does not mean that a prosecution should not be allowed in all cases.

The papers then turn to the argument that past precedents give executive privilege to the President that prohibit indictment. In this area, they talk about the constitutional balance of powers. While balance of powers is anaccepted principle, there are no words in the Constitution to support it.

Nothing in the Constitution says that one branch cannot take actions that affect other branches. In fact, clearly, such actions are allowed. For example, Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 gives Congress the authority to audit spending by the other branches. Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 gives the Judicial Branch authority to indict any impeachable Officer.

They note that Jefferson claimed to not be required to personally attend theBurr trial. Yet it is a big step from not being required to attend someoneelse's trial and not being required to attend your own. Clinton was required to give a deposition in a mere civil matter, and then he was required to give Grand Jury testimony.

If the Burr precedent has been so weakened, it cannot be used as an argument against indictment.

They then argue that the President is simply too busy to be bothered with acriminal trial. This argument loses to the 25th Amendment response given above.

Perhaps the President should not be bothered with minor matters, but he most certainly should have to answer to felonies. If that means that he "is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office," then the 25th Amendment applies.

The argument that the President is too busy was attempted by Clinton. The argument was rejected by the courts.

In the ultimate example of confusing the Office of the President with the person who holds the office, they argue that "the President is the symbolic head of the Nation. To wound him by a criminal proceeding is to hamstring the operation of the whole governmental apparatus, both in foreign and domestic affairs." This argument falls on deaf ears.

Nonsense. Clinton was wounded by the sex scandal, and the Presidency survived. Nixon resigned in disgrace, and the Presidency survived.

They argue that the House and Senate are a more appropriate place for a necessarily political trial of the President, but they ignore the fact that the Constitution explicitly states that impeachment does not preclude indictment.

The Founders were apparently not impressed with an argument that Congress and only Congress could be involved in such a matter.

The papers also express the concern that "A criminal trial of a sitting President, however, would confer upon a jury of twelve the power, in effect, to overturn this national election." Of course, we have already had a Court of nine judges overturn a national election.

In Bush v. Gore, the Court was clear in claiming jurisdiction over choosing the President. It is inconsistent to claim that a court cannot take jurisdiction over determining whether the President has committed a crime.

The papers also consider that the Framers may have expected the President to be immune from Prosecution while in office. Some statements made at the time support such an argument (while others refute it). There is a remedy that ends this post!

They seem to have felt that the President's job was too important to allow such a distraction. Because these matters are a distraction the President may break the law without concern for penalty? That goes against every precept of right and wrong and the notion that man is above the law. It is rejected.

While this argument may have applied to the original Constitution, it is knocked down by the 25th Amendment. Anything the Framers may have said is made irrelevant when in conflict with later changes.

The 25th Amendment expressly provides for the temporary replacement of the President. The Framers had not considered this, so their opinions on the matter cannot be determined.

The main argument that indictment of the President should not be allowed is that it would impair a government function.

Yet if it did impair a government function, namely that the President "is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office," then the 25th Amendment's requirements are satisfied.

Bork argues that the 25th Amendment shows the importance of the President because it is the only example in the Constitution of providing for the temporary replacement of an Officer.

He completely misses that by providing for that replacement, the 25th Amendment puts the protection of the Office over the protection of the individual. By protecting the Office, the need to protect the individual from indictment is eliminated.

But then I would expect nothing different from Bork!

Next, the papers turn to more court cases that they claim shed light on this issue. Since no court has ever made a relevant ruling, these arguments rely on extrapolating from dicta found in these cases. The arguments are admitted to be very thin.

The 2000 paper oddly claims that U.S. v. Nixon supports these claims of immunity. Nixon lost that case. It was found that he did not have sufficientimmunity to protect him from a subpoena. It is hard to extend that into an argument that he was immune from indictment.

It is noted that U.S. v. Nixon stated that the lack of an explicit immunityclause for the Executive in the face of an explicit immunity clause for Congress is not necessarily dispositive on whether the Framers intended the President to have some exclusion for confidentiality, but that is because confidentiality is a separate issue from arrest.

Arrest is restricted for members of Congress but not for the President.

Furthermore, the Court eventually found that the President did not even have a sufficient exemption for confidentiality to block the subpoena.

Ultimately, the Nixon Court found that "the legitimate needs of the judicial process may outweigh Presidential privilege" and that "[N]either the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality . . . without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances." Such is certainly the case for a felony indictment related to official acts and abuse of power.

In Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982) and Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997), the court found limited immunity from civil prosecution. The argument that this immunity extends to criminal matters is defeated by the plain language of both cases.

Both cases explicitly called out that this immunity applied to civil cases only. In Fitzgerald, the Court concluded, "When judicial action is needed to serve broad public interests - as when the Court acts, not inderogation of the separation of powers, but to maintain their proper balance, cf. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, supra, or to vindicate the public interest in an ongoing criminal prosecution, see United States v. Nixon, supra -the exercise of jurisdiction has been held warranted.

In the case of this merely private suit for damages based on a President's official acts, I hold it is not."

It is also worth noting that the dissent in Fitzgerald called out that giving immunity in a civil case could mean that " criminal laws of the United States are wholly inapplicable to the President."

The dissent (signed by four Justices) states that "I find this approach completely unacceptable." Justice Burger responded that "It strains the meaning of the words used to say this places a President 'above the law.'

The dissents are wide of the mark to the extent that they imply that the Court today recognizes sweeping immunity for a President for all acts.

The Court does no such thing. The immunity is limited to civil damages claims." Together, these five Justices stand as a majority insisting that the President is not above the law.

If Fitzgerald did not give the President immunity from criminal prosecution, the Clinton case most certainly did not. In Clinton, the court weakened the immunity in Fitzgerald. The majority opinion that the "President is not above the law" still stands. Read that again!

Those who claim Presidential immunity from indictment base their claim on admitted weak arguments that are not supported by the plain text of theConstitution. The Constitution as it now stands, with the 25th Amendment,provides little to no protection for a President in the case of a felony indictment.


"Impeachment: An Overview of Constitutional Provisions, Procedure, and Practice"

Hearing: Impeachment or Indictment: Is a Sitting President Subject to the Compulsory Criminal Process? September 9, 1998. S.Hrg. 105-969. Serial No. J-105-119. GPO Stock No. 552-070-23918-9. $11.00.

A Sitting President's Amenability to Indictment and Criminal


Memorandum from Robert G. Dixon, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Amenability of the President, Vice President and other Civil Officers to Federal Criminal Prosecution while in Office (Sept. 24, 1973)

Memorandum for the United States Concerning the Vice President's Claim of Constitutional Immunity (filed Oct. 5, 1973), In re Proceedings of the Grand Jury Impaneled December 5, 1972: Application of Spiro T. Agnew, Vice President of the United States (D. Md. 1973) (No. 73-965)


Grand Jury: "Can We Indict Bush & Cheney?"

The answer is: Yes! A recently expired grand jury raised the question. It might have indicted but for a few details. Think of it. Bushman and Dickster might have been looking at hard jail time, impeachment, the possibility of war crimes trials.

My recent article --How the People May Bring Criminal Charges Against Bush --urged citizens to petition a judge to empanel a grand jury. My article pointed out that the people themselves may petition a court to convene a grand jury to investigate Bush's corrupt administration. Such a panel would have the power of the subpoena and the indictment. The legal standard for bringing an indictment against Bush or Cheney is "probable cause".

Since writing the article and while researching existing literature, I learned that the issue of indictments against Bush and/or Cheney had, indeed, come up in the proceedings of at least one sitting grand jury.

Praise from a Member of a Recently Expired Grand Jury R. S. Nelson (SF Bay Area)

Shortly after this book [ United States V. George W. Bush et al. ] became available, but before I became aware of it, I asked the federal prosecutor (or "AUSA" for Assistant US Attorney) we were working with at the time whether we could indict Bush & Cheney.

As I expected, the question was not answered. Another member of the federal Grand Jury sharply and quickly asked me "Who would write the indictment?" Ms. de la Vega points out in the first paragraph of her Introduction that writing an indictment of Bush & Cheney is not a smart move for an AUSA to make if they wish to remain employed.

Had I known of retired AUSA de la Vega's book, I might have pushed for our Grand Jury to issue our own indictment without the help of the staff of the local US Attorney's office! There just might have been 11 other jurors besides myself who would have voted in favor of such an action... While Bush's Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez would be unlikely to allow prosecution of his fellow Republicans, the issuance of an indictment by a sitting federal Grand Jury would probably garner some interesting news coverage!

On some days the start of the Grand Jury session needed to be postponed until a quorum appeared. It was during these interludes of waiting with the AUSA present that questions like "Can we indict Bush & Cheney" could be entertained.I have long believed that Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, and Rumsfeld are criminals. Elizabeth de la Vega provides the evidence and legal framework clearly meeting the "Probable Cause" standard to indict these people. They appear to have committed serious crimes against the people of the USA, and should be held to account.

That this route is considered is symptomatic of a state of official lawlessness in Washington and disdain for the rule of law throughout the Bush administration.

What can be done when the House of Representatives will not adequately investigate 911 let alone begin impeachment proceedings against George W. Bush?

Here's what can be done: the people can petition a judge to convene a grand jury charged with considering a panoply of criminal charges against George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, and Colin Powell.There is an appalling lack of general understanding about grand juries.

An early objection was simply the creation of a "legitimate authority". A judge IS a legitimate authority. A grand jury appointed by a judge IS a legitimate authority.

There are only about three ways in which grand juries are convened. A petition to a judge is one of them. The people may petition a judge to convene a grand jury and judges have always had that authority.

A grand jury itself has sweeping authority. Some grand juries have been called "run away grand juries".

In my previous article, I mentioned that one such panel investigated organized crime in New York and returned numerous indictments against alleged crime bosses.

Make no mistake about it. A bona fide grand jury, duly appointed by a judge, could investigate and return indictments against all the crooks inside Bush's corrupt crime syndicate of an administration.

It was facetiously objected that " is a wonderful idea ...of delivering all of our nuclear war fighting elite up to a Grand Jury." Well, we gave that power to Bush!!!

I fail to see how a grand jury, if consisted of straw suckin' simpletons, could do any worse!A grand jury investigating the Bush White House would have sweeping powers to define the scope of its own investigation. It would have the power of the subpoena to back it up.

I recommend the following handbook for the would-be activist: Facts About Grand Juries. As for the question of who shall write the indictment, I appeal to readers of this forum. There must surely be someone of the caliber of author Elizabeth De La Vega who could assist a grand jury in the drafting of a comprehensive indictment against Bush and Cheney.

If Alberto Gonzales should try to restrain the scope of such an investigation, my advice would be to investigate Gonzales for possible obstruction of justice. Clearly, Gonzales' primary responsibility has been that of an "enabler" tasked with making legal, after the fact, many crimes that have surely been committed by both George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
Should anyone doubt that such an indictment could be returned, I recommend de la Vega's book.

Elizabeth De La Vega builds a legal case that President Bush and top members of his administration engaged in a conspiracy to "deceive the American public and Congress into supporting the war." Drawing on her experience as a federal prosecutor, as well as the work of scholars and legal experts, she brings a well-honed legal perspective to the issue.

She presents her argument in transcript form as a hypothetical weeklong presentation to a grand jury, including extensive testimony from three fictional investigative agents. Despite her somewhat specialized approach, the author clearly defines the legal terms and issues and avoids jargon.

Elizabeth de la Vega is a former federal prosecutor with twenty years of experience. If anyone could draft an indictment, she can and has done so in her book.

Clearly, the defendants --George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, and Colin Powell --have committed the crime of taking this nation to war upon a fraud, a pack of malicious lies.

The indictment will most certainly charge the defendants with conspiracy to defraud the United States.The facts of Ms de la Vegas' case are indisputable, the case is real. George W. Bush et al perpetrated a cynical, callous fraud upon the people of the US that resulted in the deaths of some 2,500 American soldiers, over 650,000 Iraqis.

The cost of the "war" has surpassed $450 billion dollars as of this writing.Our founders foresaw problems with a rogue executive and provided the mechanism of impeachment to address the issue. Unfortunately, the Congress seems content to muddle through to the end of this "President's" term.

I consider that option to be disastrous.

The Constitutional process is already weakened, perhaps beyond the political will to repair it and the people are increasingly demoralized an ongoing war crime in Iraq, beyond description in terms of its human toll and unimaginable in terms its fiscal effects now and in the future. Bluntly, Bush is a rogue "President" of doubtful legitimacy who has shown disdain for the very principle that is summarized in three words: "rule of law".

Various statements attributed to him having to do with the Constitution are credible because they are in character. Bush is, in fact, on network video tape declaring "...this would be a whole lot easier if this was a dictatorship...just as long as I'm the dictator."

I didn't think it funny.Let's get on with it. Petition a judge. Empanel a Grand Jury. There is probable cause NOW to bring indictments against both George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Should Gonzales not allow it, he had best have sound legal reasons for his position. Else, indict him for obstruction of justice!Resources:

United States V. George W. Bush et al. (Paperback)by Elizabeth De La Vega

American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America

Impeach the President: The Case Against Bush And Cheney

Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic

Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War

Armed Madhouse: From Baghdad to New Orleans--Sordid Secrets and Strange Tales of a White House Gone Wild

Alexandria Advocates Alliance Petition Of Impeachment Resolution

The Long Form Summary Of Cause(s)

An Outline Form Summary Of Cause(s)

Jefferson Manual Notes And Precedents

We The People


Memo of Law

Reform Plan

Goals & Agenda

Info, Ed & Trng

Legal Action Plan.

Iraq Occupation

Iraq Withdrawal Plan.

Iraq Withdrawal Legislation

Iraq Withdrawal Lawsuit

Plan Replace Bush, et al

Grand Jury Indictment of Bush, et al

Impeachment Articles Cheney

Impeachment Articles Bush

The Existentialist CowboyConservative Lies

Indict Bush

Why Conservatives Hate America

GOP Crime Syndicate


Impeach or Indict Bush and Cheney (The Texas Influence and Problem) by Ronnie Dugger

The year 2006 will be historic for the nation, and probably for humanity. Texans Bush and Rove and their conspirators in the second Bush presidency have disgraced American democracy at home and in the world with debasements of our nation and our values that have now entered their climactic phase. What part will the rest of us Texans play in this decisive year?

As I have written in a review-essay that appears in the tenth-anniversary spring issue of Yes!, the quarterly of new solutions published in Washington state by David and Frances Korten (, we are living and working in the very days and nights of the American Emergency, the climactic American Crisis. Our elections are bought, and our government is run by and for the major transnational corporations.

Bush announced in 2002 his illegal presidential policy that the United States can and will attack other nations first, waging war on them, when he so decides. He is now waging, as if he were doing it in our names, a bloody war of aggression against Iraq, which on the face of it is a crime against humanity under the Nuremberg principles that we and our allies established and enforced with hangings after World War II.

The President, the Vice-President, and their factors sold this war to Congress with twistings and lies that were crafted to infuriate and terrorize us about Iraq’s alleged connections to Al Qaeda and mass-murder endangerments to us from Iraq itself, all of which literally did not exist.

In polls now six of 10 Americans do not believe the president is honest. Yet he has three more years of dictatorial control over our nuclear and other arms and our Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps and seems now to be maneuvering to use that control to wage another aggressive war on Iran, with literally incalculable consequences.

We Texans are a major source of this deterioration into crisis.

The leading Democrats of the state so dishonored the liberal traditions of their party that in the resulting political vacuum, Bush was elected Governor here, and from Austin he mounted the campaign that a 5-4 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court illegally decreed made him President.

After that, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, from Sugar Land, crafted his scheme to use corporate money to widen the Republicans’ majority in the Texas delegation to Washington, D.C., battening down right-wing GOP control of the House and the Congress.

The third President from Texas and his Republican Congress then waged aggressive war on Iraq, drove the nation into insolvency to further enrich the already rich, and just for good measure tore up the Constitution.

As we in Texas bear guilt for this we have also begun to join the resistance and revolt against it, starting with Cindy Sheehan’s brigades in Crawford.

By happy accident the Texas trip-root that now threatens to help bring the Bush presidency crashing down, crushing itself under its own arrogance, hubris, and criminality, is a law against corporate money in Texas elections that was passed a century ago in the state’s populist afterglow.

To uphold that law, Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle has braved ruthless contumely, as he had done often before in order to prosecute public officials he believed had violated the laws. While it was merely seemly to await the outcome of the trial of DeLay and his co-defendants on the charges that they laundered corporate money through Washington to elect Republicans to the House from Texas, in a speech in September Earle declared what he believes his prosecution is all about.

“Corporate money in politics” has become “the fight of our generation of Americans....It is our job—our fight—to rescue democracy from the money that has captured it,” he said. “The issue that we’re faced with is the role of large concentrations of money in democracy, whether it’s individuals or corporations, the issue is the same.”

Since 1994, although the polls show a majority of Texan citizens support progressive reforms such as adequate taxation for equal education for Texas schoolchildren, the leaders of the disappearing Texas Democratic Party and their statewide candidates, finking out on every ethically important political issue, have proved again and again that nothing fails like failure.

Rot-gut Republicans have swept every statewide office and achieved mercenary domination of the Texas courts, too. In my opinion, Texas Democrats ought to have concluded by 2002 at the latest that they should be choosing, from among the waves of the on-comers, entirely new sets of state and local party leaders and candidates.

For example, rather than be taken in, even a jot, by the torrent of contemptuous abuse directed at Ronnie Earle by Tom DeLay, his lawyers, and that ilk, Texans should be realizing that—just as the dramatic prosecutions of Thomas E. Dewey in New York made him a Republican presidential candidate and now the populist prosecutions of Eliot Spitzer in New York State are making him a national figure—Ronnie Earle has fully qualified himself as a front-rank leader in Texas politics.

For another example, this year, in my opinion—shared, by the way, by Jim Hightower—Texans are very fortunate to have running for Attorney General the lifelong labor lawyer and Democratic firebrand David Van Os of San Antonio. The Observer does not make political endorsements, but I may say here for myself alone that David, in my carefully considered personal judgment, is the Ralph Yarborough of his generation.

The national resistance to Bush, Cheney, Rove, et al., is coming into focus, too. John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, which is the logical source for impeachment initiatives, has taken the significant step of calling for an investigation of Bush and Cheney with a view to censure, which obviously could metamorphose into impeachment.

Tom Daschle, until recently the Minority Leader in the Senate, Sen. Edward Kennedy, and Nancy Pelosi, the House Minority Leader, are all calling for investigations of Bush and Cheney. (We know where Pelosi has vanished to since this writing…off the table!)

Elizabeth Holtzman writes for impeachment in the current Nation, and the Internet is on fire with initiatives to impeach Bush and Cheney for crimes committed in office, foremost among them lying our nation into a war of aggression. Impeachment is unlikely as long as the House remains firmly in GOP control, but this year it would be gratifying to see citizens seeking the election of House candidates—whether Democrats, Republicans, or independents—who promise explicitly to vote, if elected, to impeach Bush and Cheney.

If impeachment does not become possible, let me broach with you the idea that a grand jury, federal or state, should indict Bush and Cheney for their manifold official crimes. Are we, as we are so often piously assured, “a nation of laws and not of men,” or is the President above the law if his party controls the House and can block impeaching him?

The Constitution is silent on whether a seated President and Vice President can be indicted, while in office, for crimes committed while they have held those offices. Constitutional lawyers are congenitally prone to announcing that this cannot be done because it would disrupt the ongoing business of the government. But it is time to do it, if necessary absent impeachment, for exactly that reason—to disrupt the continuation of THIS government.

I have not yet found one constitutional lawyer who can cite a Supreme Court case or any other judicial precedent prohibiting their indictment—if you know of one please let me hear from you. In 1973 Nixon’s attorney general said the President can’t be indicted, but why should Nixon’s attorney general bind us?

Committed to nonviolence, determined, in this post-Gandhi era, against violence, nevertheless we are once again in the position of the Framers of the Constitution. In the post-revolutionary emergency, the Founding Fathers took things in their own hands, violating their clear instructions from the states by proposing to create the United States, which the states then created.

In the crisis we are in now we must not be misled by expostulating lawyers or posturing politicians. We the citizens can make up our own minds whether we can indict Bush and Cheney and, if they are convicted, throw them out.

May we close here, then, as we began two centuries and more ago, with the words of Tom Paine. “We have it in our power to begin the world over again,” he said. “The birth day of a new world is at hand… We are a people upon experiments. It is an age of revolutions, in which everything may be looked for.”

Many people in the antiwar movement try to reassure themselves: Bush cannot possibly attack Iran. He does not have the means to do so, or, perhaps, even he is not foolish enough to engage in such an enterprise.

Various particular reasons are put forward, such as: If he attacks, the Shiites in Iraq will cut the US supply lines. If he attacks, the Iranians will block the Straits of Ormuz or will unleash dormant terrorist networks worldwide. Russia won't allow such an attack. China won't allow it -- they will dump the dollar. The Arab world will explode.

All this is doubtful. The Shiites in Iraq are not simply obedient to Iran.

If they don't rise against the United States when their own country is occupied (or if don't rise very systematically), they are not likely to rise against the US if a neighboring country is attacked.

As for blocking the Straits or unleashing terrorism, this will just be another justification for more bombing of Iran. After all, a main casus belli against Iran is, incredibly, that it supposedly helps the resistance against U.S. troops in Iraq, as if those troops were at home there.

If that can work as an argument for bombing Iran, then any counter-measure that Iran might take will simply "justify" more bombing, possibly nuclear. Iran is strong in the sense that it cannot be invaded, but there is little it can do against long range bombing, accompanied by nuclear threats.

Russia will escalate its military buildup (which now lags far behind the U.S. one), but it can't do anything else, and Washington will be only too glad to use the Russian reaction as an argument for boosting its own military forces.

China is solely concerned with its own development and won't drop the dollar for non-economic reasons. Most Arab governments, if not their populations, will look favorably on seeing the Iranian Shiite leadership humiliated.

Those governments have sufficient police forces to control any popular opposition-- after all, that is what they managed to do after the attack on Iraq.

With the replacement of Chirac by Sarkozy, and the near-complete elimination of what was left of the Gaullists (basically through lawsuits on rather trivial matters), France has been changed from the most independent European country to the most poodlish (this was in fact the main issue in the recent presidential election, but it was never even mentioned during the campaign).

In France, moreover, the secular "left" is, in the main, gung-ho against Iran for the usual reasons (women, religion).

There will be no large-scale demonstrations in France either before or after the bombing. And, without French support, Germany--where the war is probably very unpopular -- can always be silenced with memories of the Holocaust, so that no significant opposition to the war will come from Europe (except possibly from its Muslim population, which will be one more argument to prove that they are "backward", "extremist", and enemies of our "democratic civilization").

All the ideological signposts for attacking Iran are in place.

The country has been thoroughly demonized because it is not nice to women, to gays, or to Jews. That in itself is enough to neutralize a large part of the American "left".

The issue of course is not whether Iran is nice or not ­according to our views -- but whether there is any legal reason to attack it, and there is none; but the dominant ideology of human rights has legitimized, specially in the left, the right of intervention on humanitarian grounds anywhere, at any time, and that ideology has succeeded in totally sidetracking the minor issue of international law.

Israel and its fanatical American supporters want Iran attacked for its political crimes or supporting the rights of the Palestinians, or questioning the Holocaust.

Both U.S. political parties are equally under the control of the Israel lobby, and so are the media.

The antiwar movement is far too preoccupied with the security of Israel to seriously defend Iran and it won't attack the real architects of this coming war--the Zionists-- for fear of "provoking anti-Semitism".

Blaming Big Oil for the Iraq war, thought it was and is a fact, was quite debatable in this nation of denial, but, in the case of Iran, since the country is about to be bombed but not invaded, there is no reason whatsoever to think that Big Oil wants the war, as opposed to the Zionists.

In fact, Big Oil is probably very much opposed to the war, but it is as unable to stop it as the rest of us.

As far as Israel is concerned, the United States is a de facto totalitarian society--no articulate opposition is acceptable.

The U.S. Congress passes one pro-Israel or anti-Iran resolution after another with "Stalinist" majorities.

The population does not seem to care. But if they did, but what could they do? Vote? The electoral system is extremely biased against the emergence of a third party and the two big parties are equally under Zionist influence.

The only thing that might stop the war would be for Americans themselves to threaten their own government with massive civil disobedience.

But that is not going to happen.

A large part of the academic left long ago gave up informing the general public about the real world in order to debate whether Capital is a Signifier or a Signified, or worry about their Bodies and their Selves, while preachers tell their flocks to rejoice at each new sign that the end of the world is nigh.

Children in Iran won't sleep at night, but the liberal American intelligentsia will lecture the ROW (rest of the world) about Human Rights. In fact, the prevalence of the "reassuring arguments" cited above proves that the antiwar movement is clinically dead.

If it weren't, it would rely on its own forces to stop war, not speculate on how others might do the job.

Meanwhile, an enormous amount of hatred will have been spewed upon the world.

But in the short term, it may look like a big Western "victory", just like the creation of Israel in 1948; just like the overthrow of Mossadegh by the CIA in 1953; just like the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine seemed to be a big German victory after the French defeat at Sedan in 1870.

The Bush administration will long be gone when the disastrous consequences of that war will be felt.

PS: This text is not meant to be a prophecy, but a call to (urgent) action. I'll be more than happy if facts prove me wrong.


Movement to impeach George W. Bush - Wikipedia

Project Censored

Dennis Loo

Progressive Democrats of America

CODEPINK:Indict President Bush

Seven Stories Press

The World Can't Wait

Impeach Bush: The Four Reasons for Responsible Citizenship

SourceWatch - The case for impeachment of President George W. Bush

ImpeachBush / VoteToImpeach

Green Party: Impeach Bush

Impeachment Videos

Impeachment Watch: de la Vega, Part I

Impeachment Watch: John Nichols, The Genius of Impeachment

Impeachment Watch: Blogroll

To Impeach or To Win?

Open Letter to Speaker Pelosi

Impeachment Watch: Lewis Lapham

He's got Mail: New Postal Law Lets Bush Snoop into Yours

David Lindorff website

Impeach on the Beach

Tuesday 1/9/07 Briefing

Impeachment Song

Land of Enchantment to Initiate Impeachment

State Resolution: Avenue to Impeachment

Voices of Impeachment: Videos

Only Impeachment Can Prevent More War

Hirsch Proposes Impeachment Trap To Stop Bush Nuclear Attack on Iran
Impeachment and the Media: Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting

Bush Must Go

Kucinich: President's Actions Could Lead to Impeachment

Conyers to Begin Impeachment Process Next Week

Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush


Impeachment by the People Could Motivate Congress

Anti-War Groups Seek Impeachment

Congress Must Draw a Line in the Sand: Attack Iran = Impeachment

23 Towns Take up Impeachment Resolution

Feith-Based Intelligence = Impeachable Offense

Emergency Summit to Impeach Bush for War Crimes

20+ American Campuses Protest or Strike Against the War

NM Senate Rules Committee Passes Bush-Cheney Impeachment Resolution!

National Impeachment Push Announced

Merci mille fois à Thomas Jefferson

Grassroots Impeachment Movement Rapidly Expands

What Lincoln Really Said with thanks to David Swanson

Vermont Puts Impeachment on the Table

Power Abuse: Lessons from Women

Conservative Voice on Impeachment


House Overturns Bush Order on Secret Papers

GonzoGate: CBS says AG to Exit Soon

Tell Congress to Support Kucinich Imperative for Impeachment

Kucinich: Impeachment May be the Only Remedy

Michael Corcoran: The Politics of Impeachment

Madam Speaker: Impeachment Proceedings Against Cheney Are No Longer a Choice here.

Ticia's Diary at Daily Kos

War Tax-Protest

A Letter From Ramsey Clark

A Nation

A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition. Org

A28 Nationwide Impeachment Actions

Able Independent Media Resource Links

Action Center for Justice

After Downing St

Alexandria Democratic

American (Iraq)



Black Quill Letters

C-Span Capitol Spotlight

Campus Antiwar Network

Center for Constitutional Rights

Citizens Impeachment Commission

Code Pink 4


Common Dreams

Complete Goverment Resource Room

Congressional Quarterly


Constitution Summer


Court Of Impeachment And War Crimes (Home Page)

Culture of Peace Initiative

David Swanson




Democracy Rising


Dennis Kucinich Site

Dennis Kucinich: Cheney Articles Of Impeachment [ H Res 333 complete]

Denny’s News and Views (The Ohio, Pa and Political Watch Connection)

Gold Star Families For Peace

Google News Search (Impeach Bush and Cheney)

Google Web Search (Impeach Bush and Cheney)

Grassroots America

Green Party of the United States

Hip Hop Caucus


Impeach 07.Org

Impeach Bush


Impeach for Peace


Impeachment (New Jersey) Well Organized Contact Established

Impeachment Watch The TPM Cafe

Independent Progressive Politics Network

Information Clearing


Iraq Veterans Against The War


Just A Bump In The Beltway


Maui Peace Action

MDS (Arlington Tx)

Michael Moore

Mid East Dispatches

Military Free Zone



Movement For A Democratic Society (MDS)

National Lawyers Guild

National Priorities (Get Your Cost Calculator Here)

NDN New Democrat

NDN New Democrat

Neighbors For Peace and Justice (Impeachment Tag)

Noam Chomsky Official Site

People For The American

Political Animal

Political News and Blog Links

Prince Williams Democratic




Rose Covered Glasses (Ken Larson)

SDS (Chapter Listings)

Service Academy Grads Against The War



Students For A Democratic Society (SDS)

Subversion Of

Takoma Park MD, Impeachment Project

Tampas Back Door Ways (Impeachment Support)

Tampa’s Back

The Boyle Articles of Impeachment

The Center for Nonviolent Communication

The Daily Kos

The Highest Law Of Our Land


The Next Revolution

The Peace Alliance


The Precinct Master Home Page

The White House

This Can’t Be Happening. Net (Dave Lindorff)

Tom Paine.Common Sense

Tom (Good Guy and a Veteran)

True Majority Action

United for Peace and Justice

Velvet Revolution

Veterans For Peace

Virginia Democratic Party

Virginians For Peace and Accountability

Voters For Peace

Willie Nelson

World Can't Wait


Chuck Hagel: George W. Bush 'Could' Face Impeachment if He Ignores Congress on Iraq War by Steve Clemons

CNN's Impeachment Reality Check Needs a Fact Check

Impeachment Watch: April

World Tribunal On Iraq Demands Bush And Blair Indictment At International Criminal CourtWTI, August 1, 2005

Blog from The World Tribunal on Iraq, Istanbul, By Jodie Evans.

The Crime of Agression Against IraqBy John H. Kim, Esq.

Criminal Prosecution of an Incumbent PresidentBy John H. Kim, Esq.

Don't let the Downing Street Fade Away! Check out

An article about our efforts has been posted at

Americans need to impeach Cheney and indict Bush if we are to prove to the world we have any moral fiber left.

The moral question for all Americans is how much longer are we to put up with a government that doesn't represent the will of our people? Is "the Silent Majority" in favor of Bush' aims to steal Iraq's oil for our use, or are we just cowards and/or too lazy to demand his removal, along with all of his Neocon henchmen?

Are Americans silent because they are asleep to the danger the Bush regime is creating for us? Or are they silent because the media have confused them to the point they have given up and turned on something more entertaining?

If we don't move to impeach Cheney, we're going to have a war on Iran to go along with the failed "cakewalks" in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Democrats were elected in 2006 with a mandate to stop the Iraq war - or so we were led to believe. Instead, the Democrat majority in Congress seem to be content with letting the death toll mount for their political benefit in the 2008 election. Thus, they are complicit with the Bush administration in keeping the war going.

The polls say the American public is even more disgusted with the Congress, with its Democrat majority, than with the Bush/Cheney/Neocon machine. Hard to believe, but apparently true.

The truth is, most Democrats march to the same Neocon, pro-Israel orders that the most warlike Republicans do. Israel wanted the war on Iraq and they got it. Now, they want the U.S. to make war on Iran and they will get it within six months unless the people demand that Congress impeach Cheney, to slow the process of the Neocon war machine.

My question is, What are we going to do about it? Grumble and then go back to watching American Idol or some other useless fantasy dreamed up by the media to distract us from our duty as free men and women?

Impeachment of Cheney would be a good start. You don't want to impeach Bush and make Cheney President and you don't want to impeach both and make Nancy Pelosi President, either. Reading her gushing speech to the America Israel Public Affairs Committee Policy Conference should alert us that she would be even more willing to use U.S. power to do Israel's errands.

Ideally, most of Congress should also be impeached for tacitly going along with Bush' illegal war on Iraq and Afghanistan, but that's not practical. We have bigger fish to fry.

Impeaching Bush and Cheney, while getting someone truly trustworthy (Ron Paul?) to step into Pelosi's spot to run the country and begin a process of rooting out the Neocons in the various departments, especially at State Department, would be a good start.

Then let the war crimes trials begin. These drastic moves should convince those in our government who secretly do the bidding of unelected special interests, foreign governments, and corporations that the American people will not tolerate any more of this madness.

But will enough Americans stir themselves to do anything toward reclaiming our country?

Let me digress for a moment to remind you that revolution and asserting our God-given rights to self-government is fun.

It is very empowering to see your protests bring down a smug and evil regime, such as the Nixon administration was. There was a war involved there, too - and mass protests helped end it.

Engaging the machinery to impeach Cheney will do the same now.

One key difference between Vietnam and Iraq is that now the average American 18-year-old is not concerned about being drafted to fight the war. Having your life on the line sharpens your resolve to protest.

If you do much reading on the other plans the Neocons have for stirring up trouble with China and Russia, you already know that your life is on the line, right where you sit.

Read up on Paul Craig Roberts' latest articles at to learn what's being planned for your future.

Since we now have an completely mercenary military, it's easy to put what's happening in Iraq out of one's mind. For the moment.

Perhaps if Americans were to realize that they and their children and grandchildren will soon be paying for Iraq in either higher taxes or much higher inflation, they would take more interest in taking action to impeach Cheney and indict Bush.

The biggest cost that most Americans face as a result of the war is in the price of gasoline, but the mainstream media has been helpful to the Bush administration in not making this a major issue.

In fact, the general tone of reporting seems to blame the oil companies for not keeping their refineries running full-bore. News articles have focused on refinery breakdowns and hurricane damage as the reason for price increases, not the fact that the Iraq war has cut that nation's production and added an instability premium to the price of oil.

If the war on Iraq was a war for oil, it has been a miserable failure. If the purpose was to drive up oil profits for the Bush campaign donors in the industry, then it has been a sterling success. One more reason to impeach Cheney and indict Bush, to examine their financial ties with the oil and military industries.

If Iraq was a source of no-bid billions in contracts for Halliburton, Cheney's former employer, shouldn't that be reason to impeach Cheney?

( An important side issue is the question of why no new refineries are planned for the U.S., if the old ones are insufficient to handle demand. The answer, which also is not to be found in the major media, is that it would be a waste of money to build more refineries when the world supply of oil has passed its peak and will be dropping sharply in future years. Major oil companies won't admit this, but their actions tell the story. )

But, getting back to the question at hand of "Are the American people willing to do something to end the killing in Iraq, or will history rightly judge us as co-conspirators in this bungled war of conquest?" - What are you willing to do?

A grassroots campaign to force the House to impeach Cheney would unite America against its real enemies.

Are you willing to sign an online impeachment petition? Write your Congresspersons and Senators? (Don't bother writing the White House, we know they don't care.) Stop paying some taxes? Forbid your children/grandchildren from enlisting? Refuse deployment, if you're already in the military?

Will you talk to your neighbors and the people at work about impeaching Cheney? Will you ask your pastor, rabbi, or imam to take a stand?

Will you write letters and op-ed pieces to your local newspapers?

Will you picket federal office buildings? War materiel manufacturers? Will you divest your investment money from war profiteers?

Will you join a national strike?

How about a sit-in at your Congressperson's office until they vote to impeach Cheney?

What will you do to stop the killing that's being done in your name and arguably, for your benefit?

If you're not a co-conspirator in these war crimes, you'd better take a moral stand apart from those who are, because judgment will be passed on this nation sooner or later. It will take the form of U.S. economic devastation, more home front terrorism, and eventually - if the Neocons get their way - a nuclear Armageddon.

Whether you believe in Judeo-Christian concepts of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," or "as you sow, so shall you reap," or the Hindu concept of karma, or the more New Age themes of "the laws of attraction and reciprocity" or simple folk concepts like, "What goes around, comes around," we're going to have hell to pay for the suffering we have inflicted on Iraq and Afghanistan.

We have lost our moral standing in the eyes of the world. Most Americans will never venture into another country, so they don't care.

We can regain some respect in the world with a successful campaign to impeach Cheney and later indict both Bush and Cheney.

Maybe the average American will care when they are falsely accused of supporting al-Qaeda and imprisoned, their bank account frozen, and they're tortured on a daily basis, without a fair trail, without rights.

Maybe then, they'll wish they had spoken up to impeach and indict Cheney, Bush, and their Neocon brain trust.

But, of course, by that time - for that person - it will be too late to protest.

So, what are you willing to do about it? Like they say, freedom is not free.

Impeach Cheney! Indict Bush! Bring the criminals to justice!

Let's do it now, while we still have the chance.

Let's impeach and indict them now, before they stir up a real hornet's nest by attacking Iran.

Part I: Scholars and experts such as Barbara Olshansky, David Lindorff, Michael Ratner, John Dean, and Elizabeth Holtzman have written about the legal grounds for impeachment arising from the president's misrepresentations about the grounds for an unprovoked invasion of Iraq.

According to federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega, writing as a private
citizen in United States v. George W. Bush et al, there is probable cause to believe that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Powell violated Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, which prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States.

First, de la Vega claims that under the law that governs charges of conspiracy to defraud, the legal question is not whether the president lied. The question is not whether the president subjectively believed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The legal question that must be answered is far more comprehensive: Did the president and his team defraud the country?

After swearing to uphold the law of the land, did our highest government officials employ the universal techniques of fraudsters – deliberate concealment, misrepresentations, false pretenses, half-truths – to deceive Congress and the American people?

Despite the group of folks who are more than willing to tell you to your face that you are a treasonous traitor lunatic moonbat for even uttering the words: “War Crimes”; the very name of this blog tells you that I am as prepared to be as dismissive of those mental midgets and their verbal lint as they are contemptuous of me. So let us proceed without apology.


A simple read of this section alone, to say nothing of a full examination of The Geneva Conventions, says: GUILTY!

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 118 > § 2441

§ 2441. War crimes

(a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection

(b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.

(b) Circumstances.— The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).

(c) Definition.— As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct—

(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;

(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;

(3) which constitutes a violation of common Article 3 of the international conventions signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party and which deals with non-international armed conflict; or

(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.

War Crimes PDF By J Bruce Campbell 8-16-6

American Genocide In The Middle East: Three Million and Counting PDF by David Goodner August 8, 2007

The Iraq War: Legal or Illegal? Video Link

Wrecking Iraq: One Million Dead, 2 Million Wounded, 3 Million Displaced Collateral Genocide PDF By MIKE FERNER May 11, 2007

Janis Karpinski helps to go after Rumsfeld in Germany PDF November 14th, 2006

The Deeper Reality Behind Rumsfeld's Resignation PDF By Chris Floyd 11/09/06

Bush confesses to war crimes PDF Nicolas J S Davies, Online Journal Contributing Writer Sep 11, 2006

Retroactive War Crime Protection Proposed PDF by Pete Yost August 10, 2006

U.S. to drop Geneva rule, officials say PDF Clause bars humiliation, degradation of detainees by Julian E. Barnes June 5, 2006

New Army documents reveal US knew of and approved torture before Abu Ghraib scandal PDF RAW STORY May 2, 2006

Iran, Bush & Nuremberg PDF Peter Dyer, May 16, 2006

U.S. prepares to face U.N. on torture as Amnesty report blasts 'war crimes' PDF RAW STORY April 28, 2006

Former aide to Powell: authorization for torture came from "the very top" PDF By Joanne Laurier 7 March 2006

One Thousand A Month Tortured To Death In Iraq PDF Paul Joseph Watson/Prison February 21 2006 - the outgoing UN human rights chief, Dr. John Pace, dropped a bombshell when he told an obscure Maltese newspaper that as many as a thousand detainees a month are being tortured to death in Iraq.

BREAKING - New Abu Ghraib Photos Released PDF Daily Kos February 14, 2006

Last month, President George W. Bush murdered four children PDF

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION TORTURE MEMO SCANDAL PDF- This article contains several memos in .PDF format

Amnesty International Calls for Prosecutions of U.S. Officials PDF Joshua Rubenstein interviewed by Scott Harris Between The Lines June 09, 2005

Amnesty Chief: US Kills Prisoners in Secret Jails PDF

New memo indicates Gen. Sanchez signed off on Abu Ghraib abuses, perjured himself before Congress PDF

Suit Alleges Rumsfeld Approved Torture - Two U.S. human rights groups sued Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Tuesday, saying he first authorized and then failed to stop torture of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan

US disclosures signal wider detainee abuse By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff December 26, 2004

IRAQI POW ABUSE - A document released for the first time today by the American Civil Liberties Union suggests that President Bush issued an Executive Order authorizing the use of inhumane interrogation methods against detainees in Iraq [PDF download].

Navy probes new Iraq prisoner photos / Navy says tactics seen in photos OK PDF By Seth Hettena, AP December 3, 2004 [Will it be ok when it happens to US soldiers? -ed.]

Soldier says Abu Ghraib interrogators told him to stage mock electrocution Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington Thursday October 21, 2004

Iraq abuse 'ordered from the top' - Brig Gen Janis Karpinski told the BBC she was being made a "convenient scapegoat" for abuse ordered by others.

TEXT OF THE PENTAGON "TORTURE MEMO" Posted Jun 9, 2004 02:38 PM PST [You know the one Rummy refuses to give to Congress! -ed.]

'US president not bound by laws banning torture' PDF Washington, June 7

Bush uses "war on terror" as a pretext to commit war crimes, then White House lawyer tortures the truth. By Frederick Sweet

Bush’s legal propagandist defends the indefensible: torture in Afghanistan and Iraq By Richard Hoffman and Mike Head 20 May 2004

US press accounts confirm: Rumsfeld, Bush approved Iraq torture policy By Alex Lefebvre 18 May 2004

'Bush, Rumsfeld signed memo for Iraq abuse' Monday, 17 May , 2004

Memos Reveal War Crimes Warnings By Michael Isikoff Monday 17 May 2004

Call on the German Federal Prosecutor to Investigate Rumsfeld and Other U.S. Officials for War Crimes at Abu Ghraib Do it NOW!

Spc. Sabrina Harmon poses over the body of Manadel al-Jamadi who was a allegedly beaten to death by CIA or civilian interrogators in the prison's showers.

President Authorized Abu Ghraib Torture, FBI Email Says PDF by New Standard Staff Dec. 21, 2004

Do you know this man? Baghdad Dweller August 2,2005

Private Contractors that routinely torture Iraqi prisoners are not subject to arrest or court martial by the coalition command. The military leaves it up to the companies to take disciplinary action. These contractors operate directly under Mossad intelligence and follow their policies on torture. The soldiers that are up for court martial have been made to be accomplices but are not the main culprits in the scandal. The private contractors working for the Mossad and the Mossad 'advisors' should also be on trial along with the leaders of the military at the highest level, including the Commander and Chief. --Webber


by Richard Mathews

Tue Oct 18, 2005 at 07:03:50 PM PDT

As we approach the close of the investigation of the CIA leak, we face the question of whether Bush and Cheney could possibly be indicted.

Many have suggested that they should instead be named as unindicted co-conspirators. A careful examination of the issues shows that this is not necessary.

Bush and Cheney CAN be indicted. Much more below the fold.

Richard Mathews's diary :

Additional Research Tags: George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Impeachment, corruption, indictments, Valerie Plame, PlameGate, CIA, Supreme Court, Constitutional Law, Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

One of the areas of research that this court deemed it proper to explore was that of “Others that have seriously pursued the path of Indictment”, and they do exist despite a lack of media exposure. What’s new?



By Greg Szymanski

A federal whistleblower close to the Chicago federal grand jury probe into perjury and obstruction charges against President Bush and others said indictments of top officials were handed down this week.

A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Northern District of Illinois, however, refused to confirm or deny the source’s account.

“We are not talking about any aspect of this case, and our office is not commenting on anything regarding the investigation at this time,” said Randall Sanborn from the office of U.S. federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, the attorney conducting the grand jury probe into whether Bush and others in his administration violated federal law in a number of sensitive areas, including leaking the name of a CIA operative to the media.

In December 2003, Fitzgerald was named special counsel to investigate the alleged disclosure of Valerie Plame’s name to several mainstream columnists, but the present grand jury probe has expanded to include wide reaching allegations of criminal activity as new information has surfaced.

Although the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Chicago is staying silent, it is well known that Fitzgerald is digging deep into an assortment of serious improprieties among many Bush administration figures, based, in part, on subpoenaed testimony provided by former Secretary of State Colin Powell.

According to whistleblower Tom Heneghen, who recently reported on, Powell testified before the citizen grand jury that Bush had taken the United States to war based on lies, which is a capital crime involving treason under the U.S. Code. “Regarding the Powell testimony, there is no comment,” said Sanborn.

However, sources close to the federal grade jury probe also allegedly told Heneghen a host of administration figures under Bush were indicted, including Vice President Richard Cheney, Chief of Staff Andrew Card, Cheney Chief of Staff I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, former Attorney General John Ashcroft, imprisoned New York Times reporter Judith Miller and former Cheney advisor Mary Matalin. Heneghen, unavailable for comment, also allegedly told sources White House advisor Karl Rove was indicted for perjury in a major document shredding operation cover-up.

In recent weeks, there has been much controversy over Fitzgerald’s wide-reaching probe, which is extending far beyond the Bush administration to include what some have called “a wholesale cleansing” of a crime laden White House and Congress.

Fitzgerald’s investigation is said to be also centered on members of the 9-11 Commission, members on both sides of the aisle in the House and Senate and also select high-powered members of the media.

Needless to say, administration officials are “fighting mad” with Fitzgerald. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts is trying to derail Fitzgerald’s probe by calling him to testify before the Senate regarding his true motives behind the investigation.

Political observers are now wondering whether administration-friendly Republican legislators, some under investigation themselves, are conspiring like President Nixon did in Watergate with Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox in an attempt to shield the Bush administration from prosecution.

In late July, reports about the recent bomb scare in the subway under the congressional offices at the Dirksen Building—coincidently near where Fitzgerald was holding his grand jury hearings—raised questions as to whether government operatives were sending the zealous prosecutor a “warning message” that he was entering dangerous waters with his investigation.

The bomb scare was reported to local police late Monday afternoon, July 18, causing the subway to be evacuated for approximately 45 minutes while bomb sniffing dogs and SWAT team members searched for what was reported to be “a suspicious package” left on one of the subway cars.

Fitzgerald began serving as the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Illinois in September 2001. He was initially appointed on an interim basis by former Attorney General Ashcroft before being nominated by Bush.

The Senate confirmed his nomination by unanimous consent in October 2001. In December 2003, he was named special counsel to investigate the Plame case. Based on the testimony of ABC sources in late July, it appears that at least two close associates of Rove testified before the grand jury. One was Susan Ralston, a longtime associate of Rove and considered to be his right hand.

The other was “Izzy” Hernandez, regarded as Rove’s left hand and now a top official in the Commerce Department.

Ramsey Clark's Indictment of George W. Bush

Below is the indictment written by former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark.

Join us on Thursday, August, 26, 2004, to hear the reading of the indictment and presentation of evidence from expert witnesses, eyewitnesses, GI resisters, and representatives from international sessions of the World Tribunal on Iraq.

Thursday, August 263-9 pmMarin Luther King Auditorium65th & Amsterdam

For more information:

To Register:

To Donate:


This Criminal Indictment Charges George W. Bush, Richard B. Cheney, Colin Powell, Donald H. Rumsfeld, John D. Ashcroft, Tommy Franks, and his successors as Commander of U.S. Forces in Iraq, George J. Tenet, L. Paul Bremer, III, John Negroponte and others to be named with Crimes Against Peace, War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity and other criminal acts in violation of the Charter of the United Nations, International Law, the Constitution of the United States and Laws Made in Pursuance Thereof.

The Crimes Charged are:

1. Waging a War of Aggression against the sovereignty of Iraq and the rights of its people, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths and injuries among the people of Iraq, most civilians, from military violence and thousands of U.S. G.I’s. War of aggression is defined as “the Supreme international crime” in the Nuremberg Judgment.

2. Authorizing, encouraging and condoning the use of excessive force, in terrorism, tactics called “Shock and Awe”, targeting defenseless civilians and, civilians facilities and indiscriminate bombing and assaults.

3. Authorizing and ordering the use of illegal weapons including super bombs, cluster bombs, depleted uranium enhanced bombs, missiles, shells and bullets and threatening the use of nuclear weapons.

4. Authorizing, ordering, concealing and condoning assassinations, summary executions, murders, disappearances, kidnappings and torture.
5. Authorizing, financing, utilizing and condoning illegal violence, use of force and torture by highly paid paramilitary civilian forces operating anonymously and not accountable to U.S. supervisors for their acts, who kill, coerce, control and contain the Iraqi population.

6. Authorizing, ordering and condoning the systematic destruction of economic, social, cultural, medical, educational, governmental and diplomatic resources, properties and facilities throughout Iraq.

7. Authorizing, ordering and condoning acts designed to divide the Iraqi population to cause internal conflict and violence among major segments of the society, ethnic, religious, political and economic, in order to weaken and exhaust the population and bring all segments under the control of a new surrogate government submissive to U.S. command.

8. Authorizing, imposing and maintaining a violent, criminal military occupation over Iraq which kills defenseless Iraqi’s daily and fans the flames of anti-U.S. anger worldwide.

9. Defying and incapacitating the peace making capacity and role of the United Nations by unilateral actions to undermine its potential effectiveness while continuing to coerce and use the U.N. to pursue U.S. policies in Iraq and elsewhere, and coercing and enticing other nations to support U.S. policies and actions in violation of international law in the U.N. Security Council and against Iraq and other nations.

10. Engaging in systematic acts to undermine and destroy international laws and treaties designed to prevent and control war, weapons of mass and indiscriminate destruction; limit participants in military service; protect the environment; prevent the economic exploitation of poor nations; and engaging systematic acts to obstruct justice by the evisceration of the International Criminal Court and manipulation or defiance of other international judicial and regulatory bodies that might seek to hold the U.S. accountable to international law and the will of the majority of the people of the international community.

11. Manifesting their continuing commitment to world domination by ordering, directing and condoning violent regime change in Haiti in March 2004 to replace the independent, elected democratic President Jean Bertrand Aristide with a U.S. selected and controlled neo Duvalierist surrogate causing growing violence, hundreds of deaths and further impoverishment of the Haitian people.

12. Threatening the sovereignty and independence of nations, and acting to change regimes that refuse to yield to U.S. demands for economic subservience and political control for U.S. corporate and government interests, including most prominently Cuba, Iran, a divided Korea, the Philippines, Syria, Sudan and Venezuela; and supporting Israel’s illegal occupation, brutalization and expanding settlement of Palestine in defiance of the United Nations, international law and world opinion; all of which adds to international anger and violence against the United States and its citizens.

13. Destroying the sovereignty, right to self determination, cultural integrity and control of its own resources of Iraq and its peoples by imposing an interim government headed by a long time C.I.A. asset who directed violence against Iraqi civilians for the U.S. in the 1990's; and manipulating procedures for the imposition of a new Constitution drafted by and installation of a new government chosen through controlled electoral processes and subservient to the will and command of the U.S. government.

14. Usurping the war powers delegated in the constitution to the Congress to pursue wars of aggression and other unlawful military actions; and attempting to pack the federal courts with judges committed to ideologies in conflict with the Constitution of the United States to achieve judicial decisions supporting those ideologies.

15. Systematically weakening fundamental human rights globally and the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution within the U.S. enabling U.S. forces to unlawfully seize individuals in 100 countries, including U.S. citizens and arrest thousands of aliens in the U.S. and hold them, transport them, torture many, deny all access to courts to determine the legality of such seizures, arrest and treatment.

16. Making Guantanamo [U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay?] a symbol of U.S. power to imprison and abuse persons on the soil of a foreign sovereign nation, Cuba, against its will and to publicize U.S. contempt for human rights by displaying its power to arbitrarily seize, confine and abuse persons without revealing who they are, any charges against them, or what their future may be, placing U.S. power above all laws, international and national, and beyond the reach of all courts, including those of the U.S.

17. Giving economic preferences to favored corporations and business interests to extract enormous profits in both war and peace sectors of the economy from impoverished Iraq and U.S. taxpayers.

18. Systematically utilizing, controlling, directing, manipulating, misinforming and restricting press and media coverage and deliberately presenting false and misleading reports to obtain support for U.S. military and political and actions; and to deprive the American people of knowledge essential to develop an informed opinion , which is essential to democratic processes and elections.

19. All for the purpose of dominating, controlling, and exploiting Iraq and other non compliant nations by military force and economic coercion. In addition to full accountability for the foregoing crimes and full reparation to victims, the offenses constitute “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States requiring the removal from office of all the participating civil Officers of the United States upon impeachment for and conviction for their acts.

Dated: August 5, 2004Ramsey Clark

Tokyo War Crimes indictment against George W. Bush

International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan 1 March 2004

The URL of this article is:


President of the United States of America


The Prosecution has presented a formidable Indictment against the Defendant, George Walker Bush, President of the United States and Commander -in-Chief of US military forces for serious crimes ; waging a war of aggression on Afghanistan, war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Afghan people, against prisoners of war ; and the use of radioactive depleted uranium weapons of mass destruction , against the people of Afghanistan ; with serious fall out effects on the military personnel of the United States ,UK and other forces deployed ; and on countries, in and around the region .

Relevant for the trial, is the profile of the Defendant , elected as the 43rd President of the United States, and sworn in as President in January 2001 ; the year of the military attack on Afghanistan ; after an election which received international focus , in view of the issues involved , resolved by the Supreme Court. The Defendant's past history, of close association, with the Corporate sector in the United States of America, has been highlighted in the indictment by the prosecution ,in particular with the Oil and Energy sector ; the Defendant formed an oil company, the Arbusto Energy Inc in 1978, which was unsuccessful ; after which Spectrum 7 Energy of Ohio was formed in 1984 with the Defendant as CEO ; thereafter the Defendant was a Consultant to Harken Energy from 1986 , prior to being elected as Governor of Texas in 1994 and re-elected in 1998.

2.Accomplices and Accessories to the Crimes of waging a war of aggression, war crimes and crimes against humanity .

In view of the undisputed facts, that apart from the military forces of the United States ,ordered to be deployed by the Defendant as Commander-in-Chief for the war on Afghanistan , military forces of other governments were deployed and leading members of the defendant's administration , participated in the decision making ; the prosecution has clarified in the indictment , that other members of the Defendant's administration who were a party to the conspiracy to wage a war on Afghanistan ,and those heads of government who have deployed military forces of their countries to assist in the military occupation ; are equally accomplices and accessories to the crimes committed by the Defendant ; though in this trial it is the Defendant who has been proceeded against .

3. Universal Jurisdiction

The Tribunal being conscious of the basic principle of jurisprudence that ' no one must be condemned unheard ' , that ' justice must not only be done but appear to be done '; appointed amicus curiae , a Senior counsel from Japan ,to assist with the defense of the Defendant; amicus curiae entered a plea of "not guilty", on behalf of the Defendant and questioned the jurisdiction of the Tribunal as and by way of preliminary objection ; the Defendant, though duly served by the Secretariat of the ICTA through the embassy of the United States in Tokyo and directly , failed to appear before the Tribunal and enter a plea.

Professor Willaird B. Cowles in an article titled 'Universality of Jurisdiction over War Crimes ( California Law Review , Vol. 33 ( 1945) p.177 ) emphasized that :

…….." all civilized states have a very real interest in the punishment of war crimes "…and that " an offense against the laws of war , as a violation of the laws of nations , is a matter of general interest and concern"…

This was in an academic paper written more than half a century ago, when the principle of ‘Universality of Jurisdiction’, and the personal accountability of individuals for War Crimes, was gaining adherents among jurists , after the Second World War.

The objection raised to the exercise of jurisdiction by this Tribunal on behalf of the Defendant, by amicus curiae ; and the United States government claiming "impunity" in various forums , against indictment for war crimes ; is best answered by the undertaking given to the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg , by the Chief Counsel for the government of the United States of America , Mr. Justice Robert H. Jackson , who stepped down temporarily ,as Judge of the United States of America , to represent the United States before the Nuremberg Tribunal , established pursuant to the Moscow Declaration and the London Agreement of 1945 , to which the government of the United States was a signatory . Justice Jackson categorically declared that:

" If certain acts of violation of treaties are crimes , they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others , which we would not be willing to have invoked against us …"

In view of this position taken before the Nuremberg Tribunal , the Defendant is liable not only before this Tribunal ,but the entire claim of ‘impunity’ of the government of the United States, is legally untenable ; no government can surrender the right vested in its citizens to invoke International Criminal Law, not by a Resolution of the Security Council nor by bilateral treaty.

On the issue raised by amicus curiae , of how authoritative is the verdict of such a Tribunal ; it is necessary to restate , that sovereignty is a constitutional and political concept , which resides in the final analysis with the people ; who have a right to judge through legal forums created by them ; at a critical period of history for serious crimes committed against humanity ; in particular , when several governments across continents have abandoned the democratic principle of governance; many being elected in seriously flawed electoral process ; on the basis of Corporate support and campaign contributions

4. The World Disorder.

The critical question , among others, posed before this Tribunal by the Prosecution is, how do we challenge this 'world disorder ' ; this is a juridical question ; yet the law is always a reflection of existing economic and political systems ; though all legal systems maintain that the purpose and objective of law , is the preservation of the ‘Rule of Law’ within and between nations; this presupposes that there are no privileged individuals , classes, or groups, within and across nations .

5. The Charge of Waging a War of Aggression .

The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg referring to the charge of waging a war of aggression , highlighted the gravity of this offense in the following words:

" To initiate a war of aggression ….is not only an international crime ; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes, in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole".

The legal defense of the Defendant to this charge , is to be found in public statements made by the Defendant ,after the terrorist attacks of 11th September 2001 , on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, by hijacking of aircraft in the United States ; which admittedly , destroyed the lives of approximately three thousand innocent citizens of the United States; and of other nationalities and religious beliefs .

The defense advanced by amicus curiae is, that the military attack of 7th October 2001 ordered by the Defendant, as President of the United States and its Commander in Chief , was a ‘just war’ or a ‘bellum justum’; a war of self defense, a preventive war ; in response to the terrorist attacks of al Qaeda , masterminded by Osama bin Laden, harbored by the Taliban government in Afghanistan , which had permitted terrorist camps on its territory ; who were committing hostile acts against the United States of America .

6. 11th September 2001 attacks in the United States had no connection with Afghanistan .

The prosecution has questioned the factual and legal basis of this defense , submitting at page 17 of its Indictment that –

"….. it is not established that the 9.11 incidents were the acts of Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda ……..the letter to the Chairman of the UN Security Council which the United States sent on October 7 ,2001 and another letter which the United Kingdom sent of October 4, 2001 and the videotape released on December 13 are inadequate as defenses .Therefore the criminal activities of Osama bin Laden and the members of the al Qaeda have never been established enough to prosecute them for 9.11 incidents".

Admittedly videotapes of an individual claiming to be Osama bin Laden , reaching swiftly into the hands of the administration of the Defendant, and other governments , desiring to advance their own explanation for events; is not proof of the involvement of Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda organization ,in the terrorist attacks of 9.11 ; this is tainted evidence.

On the basis of the facts which have emerged in the public domain , of the background of Osama bin Laden and of those alleged to have perpetrated the attacks of the 11th September 2001 ; of which judicial notice can be taken as per rules of evidence of the ICTA statute ; the core issue which confronts this Tribunal is whether those who allegedly committed the crimes of the 11 th September 2001 in the United States, had any connection with Afghanistan .The relevant facts to assess the defense are :

A. As per identities of the hijackers/terrorists of 11th September disclosed by US Intelligence Agencies ; 15 are citizens from Saudi Arabia ; and four others are citizens of countries like Kuwait ,Morocco , UAE .

B. There is yet , no authoritative report on the perpetrators of 9.11.The organization and circumstances, which resulted in the hijacking of so many aircraft .The US Senate Investigative Commission has held back crucial pages of its report, dealing with the role of "friendly " governments .

C. The families of the victims of the 11th September 2001 terrorist attacks , have demanded another Commission ; publicly requesting disclosure of vital evidence, such as the "black boxes " , "voice recorders" , the complete "air traffic control records" of the relevant flights ; and the airport "surveillance tapes" showing passengers boarding the flights and passenger lists.

D. Administration and Justice Department officials moved to prevent disclosure of evidence ,that could be used in discovery proceedings, in Civil Law Suits filed by many families of 9.11 victims ; Judge Hellerstein ,hearing the suits has suspended 9.11 tort law suits, pending clarification of government's decision .

E . Another 10 member commission jointly of the Senate and White House ,the Keenan Committee has been appointed , which has yet not given an authoritative report on the events of 9.11 ; some of the members of this committee ,have issued statements of being denied Daily Intelligence Briefings made to the President by the CIA in the months preceding the attack .

F. General Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States military , admitted , that no US aircraft from any US air base, or from Norad , the joint US -Canadian Air Defense Command were mobilized or scrambled on 11 th September 2001 to protect the citizens of the United States .

G .Osama bin Laden is not an Afghan or a religious fighter, but a wealthy billionaire ; a citizen of Saudi Arabia ; recruited as the Intelligence asset of the United States and other countries for many years ; the pivot of the 'Arab fighters '; trained in furtherance of the military strategic interests of the government of the United States on the Pakistan/ Afghanistan border; for deployment in various regions . The bin Laden family has had extensive financial interests in the United States and Saudi Arabia, including in the Carlyle Corporation, in which the Defendant and his family also had investments .

H. The takeover of the Taliban militia in 1996 , as the de facto government in Kabul controlling several regions of Afghanistan , was with the backing of the California based oil and energy company, Unocal , with extensive military and logistic support from the United States, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Jane's Defense Weekly an authoritative journal on defense acquisitions the world over , has conservatively estimated that half of all military supplies of the Taliban militia were from Pakistan ; which in turn obtains substantial military supplies from the government of the United States .

I. The de facto Taliban government in Kabul, was wholly dependent for support on the government of the United States and Pakistan; and had not committed a single act hostile to people of the United States ; prior to the military invasion of Afghanistan on 7th October 2001 and the dispersal of the Taliban forces .It was not the case of the Defendant that the United States was attacked by the Taliban government .

J. The al Qaeda a fact which is undisputed was not an organized military force ; they were "foreign fighters" recruited by covert agencies from several countries .

K. On the submission advanced by amicus curiae that this was a "just war " what has been termed as "bellum justum " against international terrorism, to disperse terrorist bases in Afghanistan ; it is public knowledge that the terrorist bases , were established to conduct the "holy war " against communism on the Pakistan/Afghan border by the United States with the assistance from the ISI in Pakistan ; this has been officially confirmed by the public admissions of Zbigniew Brerzinski, the eminent former National Security Adviser to President Jimmy Carter ; who has disclosed that the first directive sanctioning assistance for the training of such fighters on the Pakistan /Afghanistan border, to pursue the civil war against the communist government in Afghanistan, was issued by President Jimmy Carter on July 3 ,1979; prior to the arrival of Soviet troops into Afghanistan ;this had the desired effect of involving the Soviet military in support of the Afghan government, which escalated the civil war ; these facts have been independently confirmed by the former Director of the CIA Robert Gates in the book "From the Shadows ".

On the basis of the aforesaid factual position the defense advanced that the military attack on Afghanistan was a "just war" as a measure of "self- defense" or a "preventive war" cannot be legally sustained.

7. The war on Afghanistan not in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations, customary International Law and the decisions of the International Court of Justice .

Despite the aforesaid findings on facts , the absence of evidence to establish that the 9.11 attacks had any connection with Afghanistan; even if such a conclusion was possible, as per the public statements of the Defendant on the reasons for waging this "War against Terror" ;would this justify a full scale military onslaught on Afghanistan by the Defendant, with hundreds of bombing sorties .

One of the most significant 20th Century developments in International Law, has been the restriction and regulation by treaty and customary law of the former unregulated privileges of States to resort to war .

The Defendant as President of the United States and as Commander -in-Chief of the United States Armed forces, was not constitutionally empowered to declare war ;the Congress under the US Constitution was not authorized to delegate to the President of the United States its constitutional power to declare war. Whereas under Article 1, Section 8 , clause 11 of the Constitution of the United States, the power to declare war vests with Congress ; limitations are imposed on the exercise of this power , by Article 1 , Section 8 , clause 15 , which mandates that Congress is not authorized to "call forth the militia " except to "execute the laws of the Union and to suppress insurrections and invasions ".

The terrorist attack of 11th September 2001 was neither an invasion or insurrection of the United States of America; Congress could not delegate what was constitutionally impermissible ; prima facie the military attack on Afghanistan was an unconstitutional and illegal exercise of power by the Defendant.

Moreover the war on Afghanistan was not justified in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations ;Article 2, paragraph 4 of the United Nations , a treaty ratified and signed by the United States ,specifies that-

" all members shall refrain in their International relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State , or in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations ."

The only exception to the aforesaid binding rule, is the right to resort to self -defense under Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, strictly subject to the rule of law and procedure laid down in the UN Charter ; the nature of incidents of 9.11 , were terrorist attacks ; as such Article 51 of the United Nation Charter could not be resorted to ; the issue ought to have been resolved by resorting to Conventions against terrorism to which the United States is a signatory . Article 33 of the UN Charter mandates that before resorting to war , every government is required to resort to negotiation ,mediation ,conciliation ,arbitration and judicial settlement. Admittedly this mandatory procedure was not complied with .

The communication of John Negroponte ,US Permanent Representative to the Security Council , indicates , that the decision by the Defendant to resort to war was taken , before the complete facts were available on the nature of the attack .This communication informed the Security Council that :

" Since 11 September , my government has obtained clear and compelling information that the Al Qaeda organization which is supported by the Taliban regime in Afghanistan , had a central role in the attacks. There is much we do not know .Our enquiry is in its early stages .We may find that our self-defense requires further actions with respect to other organizations and States "

It was clear that the enquiry, as to the nature and cause and perpetrators of the attack were in the "early stages" ; war cannot be resorted to unless the facts are clearly ascertained , it is a remedy of last resort ; the last sentence of this communication, that the government of the United States reserves its right to take "further actions with respect to other organizations and States" establishes that a case for continuous military intervention was already being made .

The right to resort to war as a measure self-defense , is neither unrestricted nor subjective ; as observed by the International Court of Justice in the case relating to "Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua ( Nicaragua V The United States of America , I.C.J. Reports 1986 p.94 para 176 ) ruling that:

…" the submission of the right to self-defense to the conditions of necessity and proportionality is a rule of customary International Law .."

…." there is a specific rule whereby self-defense would warrant only measures which are proportional to the armed attack and necessary to respond to it , a rule well established in International Law "…

This dual condition applies as much to customary International law and to the right of self-defense under Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations .

The terrorist attacks of 9.11 in the United States were not carried out by any government or an armed contingent of any government or State party; nor authorized in any manner whatsoever by the de facto Taliban government in Kabul ; the response of the Defendant in waging a war to devastate an entire nation ,was neither a proportional response , nor warranted .

The Defendant and his administration from the past practice of States ,was wholly aware, that many countries facing terrorist attacks ; hijackings of aircraft , shooting down of civilian aircraft, and continuous cross border terrorism for several years ; have not resorted to war ; opting to negotiate on the issues .The United States government could have resorted to the provisions of the Tokyo Convention or to the 1971 Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the safety of Civil Aviation ; or to any of the existing Conventions against terrorism; a proportionate response. .

Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations permits the exercise of the right to self-defense only "until the Security Council has taken measures" .The Security Council responded immediately ; the Security Council , by Resolution No.1368 passed on 11th September 2001 and Resolution No.1373 dated 28th September 2001; called on member States to work together urgently to "fully implement the relevant International Anti-Terrorist Conventions" and "prevent and suppress the financing" of terrorist attacks by "freezing financial" assets.

It may be argued, that the Defendant made an attempt to prevent the war, by demanding that Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda , should be handed over by the Taliban; this admittedly was not a bona fide attempt ; as wholly inadequate time was allotted for the staged negotiations , even though the Taliban government ,made some responses .In less than a month of the terrorist attack , before dawn on 7th October 2001 , the US-UK coalition forces launched serial bombings in Afghanistan on Kabul and on 31 major cities and towns without exhausting other alternative remedies.

The document Prosecution Ex. B-1 which is the address of the Defendant to Congress dated 20th September 2001 establishes that the Defendant declared that the Al Qaeda organization , was to be found in sixty countries; that the "war against terror" ,was just beginning with Afghanistan, as the first target ,but not the last ; and that for the Defendant , the military attack on Afghanistan was only the first of a series of wars to be initiated against different nations.

In any assessment of the nature of the war in Afghanistan , it must be remembered that the United States had termed Soviet military troop presence in Afghanistan, in support of the then Afghan government in 1979 ; as Soviet military aggression ; applying the same standards , the war waged by the Defendant could not be regarded as a "just war" or a war in "self –defense"; as the Taliban government admittedly did not request for any military assistance from the United States ,which the Afghan government in 1979 had sought from the former USSR, against the Mujahideen groups waging covert war .

The issue of waging a war of aggression cannot be judged by this Tribunal blindfold ; events in Iraq , even before the hearings of this Tribunal commenced , establish a consistent pattern which this Tribunal is entitled to take judicial notice of ; the war in Afghanistan was followed, by the military attack on Iraq; on the basis of "non-existing weapons of mass destruction"; a war in which the entire infrastructure of Iraq was destroyed in a manner similar to Afghanistan ; DU weapons were extensively used in both countries as weapons of extermination of present and future generations , genocidal in properties .It is only the oil pipelines , oil wells and platforms and the contracts of Corporations which had to be secured ;even as the livelihood and economies of both nations were destroyed.

The war waged on Afghanistan was manifestly a war of aggression .

8.The alternative reasons advanced by the prosecution for the War of Aggression - UNOCAL's ( Centgas consortium ) objective of regime change for the pipeline project.

The prosecution has referred in the Indictment to the involvement of oil and energy Companies of the United States ,in the internal affairs of Afghanistan as the real reason for this war, and relied on public documents, establishing that the California based Oil Company , the Unocal , through a seven member consortium Centgas , had commenced negotiations with various factions, in the government of Afghanistan ; for its pipelines project , across Afghanistan , Pakistan , to the Indian Ocean ; from the oil-gas rich Central Asiatic Republics of the former USSR ; in preference to the old pipeline routes through Russia or an alternative route through Iran. ( UNOCAL Position Statement : "Proposed Central Asian Pipeline Projects" ,(1998 ) www, ).

This project aimed at exercising monopoly control over the hydrocarbon resources in this region and distribution through pipelines ; referred to in the Complaint/Petition lodged in 1998 , by citizens groups to the Attorney General of California , under California Code of Civil Procedure 803 and the California Corporations Code ,1801 , for cancellation of Charter of UNOCAL, for violation of human rights within the USA, in Afghanistan and Myanmar.

The Unocal company commenced negotiations with various political factions in the government ; however the internecine fratricidal struggle of the former Mujahideen groups ,created a difficult situation for negotiation ; as a consequence the Unocal , supported the creation of a hard line Taliban militia government , with arms supplies and logistic support from Pakistan ; supported by the United States and Saudi Arabia ;which gradually captured Kabul and extensive areas in the southern ,central and eastern regions of Afghanistan.

The proposed pipeline project once again faced difficulties, on the failure of the Taliban militia , to control the entire geographical territory of Afghanistan, in particular the Northern regions close to Turkmenistan and other Republics ; vital for the pipelines, which continued under the control of the Northern Alliance; and the difficulties in respect of the alternative negotiations being conducted by the Argentinean Company Bridas in the same region . Unocal in these circumstances, increasingly frustrated , sought political /military alternatives by way of "regime change ".

Admittedly Unocal’s case on the pipeline project was advanced through successive US administrations. Financial investments and inflows of capital into the United States, it has always been emphasized by US oil and energy Corporations; could be controlled, by monopoly control and distribution of hydrocarbon resources of the world.

The prosecution has placed on record before this Tribunal , Prosecution document Ex.A -40 which is the testimony of John J. Maresca , Vice President , International Relations , UNOCAL Corporation, to the House Committee on International Relations , Subcommittee on Asia and Pacific on 12th February,1998( ap/wsap212982.htm.) A core document on the stand of the prosecution, that the reason for the war lay elsewhere ; in the hydrocarbon resources of the region.

John Maresca , Vice President of Unocal , in his testimony outlined implicitly a future rational for a military invasion of Afghanistan and take over of its resources .The testimony indicates disillusionment with the Taliban forces, which UNOCAL had once supported and spells out future possibilities-

"…The country has been involved in a bitter warfare for almost a decade. The territory across which the pipeline would extend is controlled by the Taliban , an Islamic movement that is not recognized as a government by most other nations .From the outset we have made it clear that construction of the proposed pipeline cannot begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments , lenders and our company….In spite of this , a route through Afghanistan appears to be the best option ….Centgas cannot begin construction until an internationally recognized Afghanistan government is in place .For the project to advance it must have international financing …"

In 1998 even as the Taliban and Northern alliance battled for control of the Northern Region , the UNOCAL company posted on its web page on August 21 ,1998 ( also reproduced in the memorandum submitted by citizens groups in the USA to the Attorney General of California in 1998 referred to earlier ) the following statement –

" As a result of sharply deteriorating political conditions in the region , Unocal which serves the development manager for the Central Asian ( Centgas) pipeline consortium , has suspended all activities involving the proposed pipeline project in Afghanistan "….

"Unocal will only participate in construction of the proposed Central Asian Gas Pipeline when and if Afghanistan achieves peace and stability, necessary to obtain financing from International Agencies for this project and an established government is recognized by the United Nations and the United States ."

Simultaneously the economic and political reasons, which was the ideology for the new wars for oil, hydrocarbon and other resources , amid deteriorating economic conditions for Corporate America ; was being worked out by the Project for the New American Century , which dovetailed with the aggressive economic policies of the Oil , Energy and other Corporations .

In 1997 prominent Republican party members among them , Donald Rumsfeld , Dick Cheney , Jeb Bush , Paul Wolfwitz , John Bolton , Peter Rodham , Zalmay Khalilzad ( an employee of UNOCAL ) and 18 other prominent Americans ,broadly known as the neo-conservatives , organized the Project for the New American Century, the PNAC (www.newamericancentury.order )for the establishment of a New World Order .A reference to these facts, influencing the ideology of the Defendant is necessary ; just as a reference to the ideology of the Nazi party was permitted to be brought on record at the Nuremberg trials.

Objectively considered , governments of both Republican and Democratic parties have resorted to war , to control regions and resources prior to, during and after the Second World War .However the PNAC in its document published in September 2000 called "Rebuilding America's defenses :Strategy , Forces and Resources for a New Century " was an ideological justification to prepare the citizens of the United States for continuous wars..The PNAC documented highlighted that –

….." At present United States faces no global rival .America's grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position so far into the future as possible ……'

……." Further the process of transformation , even if it brings revolutionary change is likely to be a long one , absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -----like a new Pearl Harbor ……."

……." And advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool …….."

The prosecution has conclusively proved its case, for the alternative reasons for the war of aggression waged by the Defendant ; which was regime change , in the interest of Unocal ‘s pipeline project , by inviting judicial notice of the Tribunal to established facts , that whereas Afghanistan was attacked on 7th October 2001 ; a conference was convened by the government of the United States and NATO on 27th November 2001 ,acquiesced to by the Secretary General of the United Nations to form a transitional government, not in Afghanistan but in Bonn ; where the four non-Taliban Northern Alliance groups remained present .The cabinet was nominated on 5th December 2001 by the United States of America and other occupying powers not by these groups .

Even earlier ,on 1st December 2001 , President Hamid Karzai, a resident of the United States over several years, a green card holder ; the former official Representative of Unocal to the erstwhile Taliban militia's de facto government in Kabul , was sworn in as head of the interim government ( officially called the Transitional Government of Afghanistan ).Unocal now directly controls the government of Afghanistan.

On 23rd January 2003 , the Project for the New American Century , the PNAC sent one more note to President Bush which stated …………" we write to endorse the bold course you have chartered for American National Security strategy ……..the victory over the Taliban in Afghanistan was an essential step in stabilizing that country………other rogue states remain a major problem."

In 1864 referring to the increasing interference of Corporations in the political life of the USA ;President Abraham Lincoln was to warn in a letter to Colonel William Elkins :

" I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country…Corporations have been enthroned and an era of high corruption will follow and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working on the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed …"

The decision for regime change in Afghanistan, as in the changes of the earlier governments in Afghanistan , was dictated by the interests of Unocal and the Centgas consortium ; the result was war.

9.Testimony of RAWA Revolutionary Association of Afghan Women

A vital and independent witness at this trial , is Witness D, a representative of RAWA, the Revolutionary Association of Afghan Women (the name of the witness cannot be disclosed for reasons of personal security; the Tribunal has resorted to alphabetical identification of these witnesses with a view to ensure their security ) who deposed on the tragedies inflicted by the government of the United States and other outside powers on the Afghan people; emphasizing that the war waged by US forces did not liberate the people and women of Afghanistan as was claimed by the Defendant ;the militarily attack on Afghanistan ,brought even more suffering on the Afghan people ; who faced bombings and were once again refugees in the camps .

Women faced increasing insecurity and even rape and kidnapping by warring factions .That the Taliban militia was initially supported by the United States, as were the former Mujahideen who had regrouped as Northern ‘war lords" ; Osama bin Laden ,not an Afghan had been supported by the United States . The witness emphasized that women in Afghanistan ,did not need to be emancipated by foreign military forces ; they had been emancipated by the Afghan ruler Shah Amanullah in 1920, and had the right to vote from 1929;.

Despite the dispersal of the Taliban women continued to be oppressed , by the "war lords" who were members of the Karzai Government and some of the provincial governors .Coercive laws ,continued to exist against women , even in Kabul ; the dignity and equal rights of Afghan women , which prevailed in the period prior to 1979, before the civil war commenced in Afghanistan, has not been restored.; Afghanistan because of these civil war conditions, followed by military occupation , was economically devastated and had been reduced to the world’s biggest producer of opium .

The evidence of this witness , who does not belong to any of the political factions in the tortuous history of Afghanistan , supports the prosecution case, that the war waged by the Defendant was not a "just war ", against terrorism ;and that the defendant had committed the serious crime of waging a war of aggression against a nation already facing difficult conditions , by external support to extremist and other organizations misusing religion in Afghanistan ; and that women had not been emancipated by this war as was claimed by the Defendant.

10.The effects of 9.11 and of the war on the people of the United States.

The 11th September 2001 terrorist attacks and the war , raise issues as to the use of 9.11 attacks and the war; within the United States ; even as Corporations, collapsed ,due to financial accounting frauds and systemic problems ,which resulted in millions of job losses , attributed to 9.11 by the media.

Two witnesses appeared before the Tribunal, to depose about conditions in the United States, immediately after the 11 th September 2001 . Mr. Bobby Marsh who lost a loved one in the World Trade Centre , gave the Tribunal a poignant account of the personal tragedies of so many people in the United States , including his own.. The attacks were seen by him and other people in the United States , first on Television .

The visual images had a devastating impact on him and other people ; those who had loved ones in these buildings were agonized about their safety .The witness deposed that he was informed on the cell phone by Margaret, his close friend and companion who worked at the World Trade Centre , ; that instructions had been given by some officials to all those trapped in the towers , when the attack took place , to stay where they were ,till the fire brigade department gave further instructions ;his companion who obeyed the instructions died.

This was the last communication that he was to receive from her. Many people who rushed to safety , ignoring official instructions , survived . This witness further deposed that the terrorist attacks of 11th September 2001 were used to create paranoia among the people ;there was an attempt to create a war hysteria .The media in particular was immediately mobilizing people for war ; on the other hand the anti- war movement was supported by thousands of Americans across the United States who did not support a war on Afghanistan ; even some of those who were affected by the 9.11 terrorist attacks and had lost their loved ones.

Ms Gloria Lavera, President of the press workers union , the Union of Typographical Workers gave detailed evidence on the use of the print and television media to create mass hysteria ; and on the deteriorating situation within the United States for the freedom and democratic rights of citizens ; with workers losing jobs , facing repression, and reductions in their social security benefits ;the witness mentioned that immigrants were detained in hundreds without trial and no access to legal counsel.

Simultaneously surveillance commenced, on different groups and individuals ,by intelligence organizations within the United States including illegally accessing their internet., telephones , and even libraries to verify their political beliefs .In this atmosphere , the Patriot Act was passed , sacrificing political freedom in the name of National Security; authorizing detentions and extensive surveillance of law abiding citizens. In answer to a question from the Tribunal , as to in whose interest the Patriot Act was passed ; this witness replied that it was passed in the interest of the Corporations in the context of mounting job losses.

11. War Crimes

The Defendant as Commander –in –Chief of US forces ,was aware that the military attack on Afghanistan was unjustified ; yet orders were given for the carpet bombing of cities , towns , and villages .The nature of weapons of mass destruction used , the range of firepower unleashed in a country with few military targets ; resulted in mass murder of civilians and unnecessary loss of life of combatants who were surrendering .The entire infrastructure of Afghanistan was destroyed;

The women of Afghanistan who have lived through the horror of these war crimes , have given evidence before this Tribunal; their oral evidence has been reinforced and supported by authoritative reports of humanitarian and scientific organizations . It is clear from these reports from neutral sources, that the bombings of United States military forces were indiscriminate, sparing neither the International Red Cross Hospitals in Kabul and Kandahar, the Kajakai dam ; warehouses of the Red Cross where food was stored ; the maternity hospital at Kabul ; the military hospital at Herat ; homes ,electrification facilities , irrigation projects , schools, TV stations and telephone exchanges were among other institutions indiscriminately bombed and destroyed ; constructed over years of development efforts by the people of Afghanistan ,a landlocked developing country .

The testimony of Kenji Katsui, a journalist from Japan, who with a team investigated the destruction caused by the war and bombing ; reveals that in several parts of Kabul , in towns and villages across of Afghanistan ,civilian homes and the infrastructure of the country was in ruins, due to bombing ; sources of water supply and electricity were affected, normal life in such circumstances for the people was impossible .The witness conceded that a civil war, had raged in Afghanistan for more than 20 years , causing immense suffering ; however he emphasized, that the war waged by the United States was the final blow.

The witness handed over the video film taken by him which was screened by the Tribunal , of the destruction caused and interviews with people in Afghanistan .The witness maintained that his testimony was supported by the entire investigative team ; present as observers at the trial.

There have been other agonizing accounts before this Tribunal , of indiscriminate bombing of civilian homes and areas; from witnesses for whom it was not easy to depose ,as they were women from Afghanistan ,the victims of the bombing , directly affected .Witnesses A, B and C ( whose identities have been concealed on request by referring to them in an alphabetical order )

Witness A had lost members of her family in the bombings of Kabul in a civilian home ; Witness B fled from Afghanistan ,when the bombings commenced from US aircraft ; trekked several miles seeking shelter in refugee camps on the borders of Afghanistan/Pakistan ,which she said lacked in 2001 the basic facilities ,such as food and other amenities, which had been available during the earlier civil war in Afghanistan , when she had sought shelter from successive regimes and their atrocities; deposing that she and her family had become a refugee four times since 1979.

Witness C had lost her daughter , a dedicated young teacher in her early twenties , immediately after her marriage ; the couple had been bombed in their home, by United States forces while they were asleep ; her only desire was that a school be constructed, to commemorate her daughter's commitment to education .

On answers to questions from the Tribunal the witnesses denied that their homes were military targets , or in close proximity to any military installations ; Witness A stated that a few Taliban were residing in residential homes in the area , but there were no military installations.

The witnesses agonized by their loss, maintained , that the reason for their presence at the trial , was the necessity to find a voice for the suffering inflicted on them ,without reason ; and the disruption of their lives earlier by the civil war between the Mujahideen forces and the government of Afghanistan , when Russian troops arrived ; thereafter by the warlords ; after that by the Taliban forces ; and finally by the US military invasion , bombings and occupation ; they had lost hope for the future .

Even as the Tribunal prepared for its concluding hearings in December 2003 ; a UN spokesmen on 5th/6th December expressed regret that 15 children were killed in US bombing ,on a village .Whereas US forces claimed that this was collateral damage as they were pursuing the Taliban.

12. Plea on behalf of the Defendant of "collateral damage" on civilians that use of weapons of mass destruction not prohibited by a specific Convention; legally untenable in view of clear rules of International Humanitarian Law for the conduct of warfare.

The defense advanced by amicus curiae on behalf of the Defendant , to the charge of war crimes committed on civilians, by indiscriminate bombings on the population, and on existing civilian infrastructure; on combatants and non-combatants alike ; is that this was collateral damage in a just war against terrorism ; that the Defendant had no knowledge of the bombings on civilians and civilian infrastructure; and that none of the weapons used in Afghanistan by US forces , even though weapons of immense destructive power were prohibited by specific Conventions to which the United States was a signatory.

It is necessary to reiterate well established principles of International Humanitarian Law which prohibit such war crimes. In the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on Nuclear Weapons rendered in 1996 ; Judge Christopher Gregory Weeramantry, in a learned and reflective judgment , recalled , that traditional principles of Humanitarian Law is deep rooted in many cultures and civilizations ,whether "Hindu, Buddhist, Chinese , Christian , Islamic and traditional African" among other civilizations, over thousands of years, Referring to and quoting the famous "Martens clause" introduced by unanimous vote into the Hague Convention of 1899 on the Laws and Customs of War on Land ( Hague IV ) and the 1907 Hague Convention which mandated that:

-…." In cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them , the inhabitants and belligerents remain under the protection and the rule of the principles of the law of nations , as they result from the usage established among civilized peoples , from the law of humanity and the dictates of conscience ."

Justice C.G. Weeramantry referred in his judgment to an interesting historical fact , relevant in this trial of the Defendant; that Mr. Martens, author of the aforesaid " Marten Clause " had clarified, during the negotiations of the 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions ;that Mr. Martens owed the inspiration of this clause" to President Abraham Lincoln ‘s directives to Professor Leiber, to prepare instructions for General Grant , to draw up regulations ,for the humane conduct of the War of Secession in the United States ,between forces of the Union and Confederacy"….. and what was referred to as the "Martens clause" in International Humanitarian Law was its "logical and natural development".

To contend as the Defendant does, that the United States Armed forces and its President , is not bound by rules of International Humanitarian Warfare for the manufacture , stockpiling and use of weapons , in violation of the laws of warfare ; of which a critical clause, reproduced thereafter in practically every Convention regulating International Humanitarian Law, was inspired by President Abraham Lincoln of the United States ; is an attempt to turn back the clock of history, and to continue the tragic and criminal decision making of the government of the United States , that led to the nuclear attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki , serious war crimes ; and which the Tokyo District Court in Shimoda v The State( The Japanese Annual of International Law ,Vol 8 1964 ,p 240 ) did not take to its correct logical and legal conclusion; though the court conceded in a part of its reasoning, that it could "safely see that besides poison gas and bacterium the use of means of injuring the enemy which causes at least the same or more injury is prohibited by International Law…." It is necessary to recall the threat of the government of the United States to bomb Vietnam "into the stone age " while assessing these Crimes.

The International Court of Justice in the Advisory Opinion on Nuclear Weapons in 1996 ; referred to customary International law regulating the conduct of war ;to the 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions; the four Geneva Conventions including the Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating Poisonous and other Gases and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare; the two Additional Protocols of 1977, binding on all State parties, even those who are not signatories ,as these protocols merely reaffirm existing principles of International Customary Law regulating armed conflict ; the Environmental Modification Convention of 1977 and the Conventional Weapons Convention of 1980;as International Humanitarian Law on the conduct of warfare emphasizing that the " Martens Clause " is the link between Treaty Law and Customary International Law in International Humanitarian Law.

In addition to the aforesaid Conventions , the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use , Stockpiling , Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction of 1997 , and similar Conventions ; merely codify ,established principles of customary International law , that the right of parties "to adopt means of injuring the enemy are not unlimited" and "arms , projectiles or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering shall not be used "; and that civilian populations are not to be harmed , among other principles codified subsequently by Convention.

The working paper prepared , pursuant to the Resolution 2001/6 , by Y.K.J.Yeung Sik Yuen on " Human Rights and Weapons of Mass Destruction , Or With Indiscriminate Effect , or of a Nature to Cause Superfluous Injury or Unnecessary Suffering" for the Sub-Commission on the promotion and protection of Human Rights , of the Commission of Human Rights, Economic and Social Council( E/CN.4/Sub.2/2002/38 dated 27th June 2002 ) broadly reiterates the principles of the aforesaid Advisory Opinion of the ICJ.The author referring to the principles of customary International Humanitarian Law ,and to the Conventions and treaties , in force for over a century has correctly summarized the tests to be satisfied before weapons systems fulfill the legal test for deployment as follows-

"The above Conventions are by no means exhaustive and taken together with the precepts of customary International Law show that a number of legal principles banning or limiting certain arms are now firmly established. .

Weapons are to be considered banned if :

a. Their use has indiscriminate effects ( no effective distinction between civilians and belligerents);

b. Their use is out of proportion with the pursuit of military objective;

c. Their use adversely affects the environment in a widespread , long term and severe manner;

d. Their use causes superfluous injury and unnecessary suffering."

In accordance with these tests, the following weapons systems used in Afghanistan are illegal and their permitted use by the Defendant, Commander-in –Chief of US forces are War Crimes .The illegal weapons are:

1.Depleted Uranium munitions

2. Fuel –air explosives (FAEs) or Daisy Cutters

3.Cluster bombs.

4.Anti-Personnel mines

13. Use of genocidal and homicidal radioactive Depleted Uranium weapons in Afghanistan , a war crime ,genocide, and homicide

The evidence presented before the Tribunal , which has shocked the conscience of the judges of this Tribunal, is the thoroughly researched evidence on the genocidal and homicidal nature of Depleted Uranium weapons used in Afghanistan by United States military forces , with the Defendant as their Commander-in-Chief by Leuren Moret , President , Scientists For Indigenous People, City of Berkely Environmental Commissioner ; Professor Katsuma Yagasaki of the Faculty of Science of the Ryukyus University, Okinawa ; and of Major Doug Rokke , Professor of Physics and Geosciences of Jacksonville State University , former Director of DU weapons project of the US army from 1994- 1995 in charge of the cleaning up of DU in Iraq , himself affected by DU .

These three witnesses made available to this Tribunal , details of their investigations , scientific documents, memorandum from the US army sources and the Manhattan project ; statistical studies of people of Iraq , children and others exposed to DU ordnance after the first Gulf War, including from the Gulf War Veterans Association , on the nature of this weapon ; which prove beyond doubt that the Defendant as Commander-in-Chief of US forces used DU weapons in Afghanistan ,in the manner that Zyklon-B was used across Europe ; as a weapon of mass murder in Afghanistan calculated to destroy of all living species exposed .

Professor Albrecht Schott , Scientist , World Depleted Uranium Centre, Berlin in an address titled "Consequences of the Military and Civil Use of Depleted Uranium (DU)", at the public symposium on 'American Policy and its Consequences', has described Depleted Uranium as " A Weapon Against This Planet ." Prosecution Document E-130 ; this leads logically to the word "Omnicide" used by witness Leuren Moret, among other scientists while describing the effect of this weapon system ; as going beyond the "silent genocide" it has inflicted on the Afghan and Iraqi people.

Rosalie Bartell author of the classic book "No Immediate Danger" has given the following comprehensive meaning of the term Omnicide as :

"The concept of species annihilation means a relatively swift , deliberately induced end to history , culture , science , biological reproduction and memory. It is the ultimate human rejection of the gift of life , an act which requires a new word to describe it as omnicide ."

The use of DU ordnance in Afghanistan by the United States military forces has not been denied . The US military forces with the Defendant as Commander-in-Chief ,with full knowledge of the nature and impact of the weapons system, known to the Manhattan project as early as 1943 ; used DU ordnance by way of attack aircraft, AH-64 helicopter gun ships , advanced cruise missiles ,CALCM among others . PGU -14 API uranium piercing munitions fired by Vulcan Canon installed on A10 Gun ships, and AH-64 Apache gun ships apart from the Bunker buster bombs( DU weapons ) which were dropped from F-16 attack planes.

It is authoritatively estimated by independent scientific investigations and reports on record before this Tribunal , and the prosecution conservatively estimates , that at the very minimum 500-600 tonnes of DU ordnance were used throughout Afghanistan including at Tora Bora, Shaikoot , Paktia , Mazare-e-Sharif , Jalalabad , Nangarhar ,Khost , Kundoz and Kabul around Bagram from October 2001 after the bombings commenced on 7th October 2001, whereas Dr Mohammed Daud Miraki of the Afghanistan Recovery Fund refers to not less than 1000 tonnes of Depleted and undepleted Uranium being used.

On 16th January 2002 , the Secretary for Defense, Mr.Rumsfeld in a briefing confirmed that "high levels of radioactive count" had been confirmed due to the result of "Depleted Uranium shells on some warheads"-Prosecution Document Ex . E-122. Mr. Philip Coyle Senior Adviser of the Centre for Defense Information in Washington DC , admitted that DU weapons had been used in Afghanistan.

The documented reports of Marc Herold and Dai Williams , Prosecution documents at Ex . E-118 and E-119; the Survey of the Uranium Medical Research Centre, Washington DC ; Prosecution Document - E 120; the reports of Dr Mohammed Daud Miraki , Afghan Recovery Fund, referred to above , Prosecution Documents Ex. E-137 and E -138, among other documents; refer in detail to the widespread use and effects of DU weapons on the people in Afghanistan inflicting slow and painful death , termed the "silent genocide "; affecting the unborn , altering irreversibly the genetic code of all those exposed.

Testimonies of fathers and mother , made to the field teams of the Uranium Medical Research Centre (UMRC ) are horrifying :

" What else do the Americans want ?They killed us , they turned our new borns into horrific deformations , and they turned our farm lands into grave yards and destroyed our homes. On top of all this their planes fly over and spray us with bullets……we have nothing to lose …….we will fight them the same way we fought the previous invaders …….( Sayed Gharib at Tora Bora ).

Ms Leuren Moret gave vital evidence of United States military policy , on the use of DU weapons, tracing the history of its creation and the politics of its use - Prosecution document Ex .E 156 .Ms Leuren Moret deposed that - after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki , an international outcry and taboo against nuclear weapons, prevented the further use of nuclear and radioactive weapons ;this policy was abandoned in 1991;a decision was made by the Strategic Command in the USA to blur the distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons by introducing DU into the battlefield ; this witness has aptly described DU as the "Trojan horse " of nuclear weapons ; with similar effects.

The witness maintained that it was the cost factor which made DU weaponry an attractive weapon for the arms industry ; though on the other hand the cost to humanity ,was an unacceptable cost ; deposing further, that DU being a byproduct from nuclear weapons and nuclear power industries; a "radioactive" hazard , a liability to the Department of Energy ; millions of tons were passed on to the "military -industrial " complex for the manufacture of weapons . By selling depleted uranium weapons to more than 20 countries , the DOE has made a profitable business for the arms industry.

The documents produced by this witness, handed over to her by Major Doug Rokke ; prove conclusively that the United States government and military were aware from 1943 , of the genocidal and omnicidal nature of DU weapons .A memorandum dated 30th October 1943 , received by General Groves in charge of the Manhattan Project ( nuclear weapons project ) from three physicians working under him , Prosecution document Ex -E 126, recommends that radiological materials be developed for use as a military weapon on the battlefield .It was a blueprint for depleted uranium weaponry.

The aforesaid memorandum describing the property of DU weapons describes that

"…. The material … ground into particles of microscopic size …..would be distributed in the form of dust and smoke by ground fired projectiles , land vehicles and bombs…. inhaled by personnel ….it is estimated that one millionth of a gram accumulating in a persons body would be fatal .There are no known methods of treatment for such casualty…areas so contaminated by radioactive dusts and smokes would be dangerous as long as high concentration of metal was maintained .…reservoirs or wells would be contaminated….. food poisoned ….particles larger than I micron would be deposited in the nose ,trachea and bronchi…particles smaller than 1 micron are more likely to be deposited in alveoli where they will remain ….or be absorbed into the lymphatics or blood…….Beta and gamma emitting fission products ……may be absorbed by the blood and distributed to the whole body."

In the second document produced , memorandum dated 1ST March 1991 addressed by Lt.Col.M.V.Zeiman (after the first Gulf War of 1991 ) to Major Larsson of the Studies and Analysis Branch on the subject of " The Effectiveness of Depleted Uranium Penetrators , Prosecution Document Ex. E-127 ,emphasizes that …" the impact of DU penetrators were very effective against Iraqi armor ...there has been and continues to be concern regarding the impact of DU on the environment……DU rounds may become politically unacceptable…and thus be deleted from the arsenal …we should ensure their future existence …I believe we should keep this in mind when after action reports are written".

The interpretation of this memorandum ,by the witness Leuren Moret , that this memorandum in fact directed ,that after action reports should be falsified , to conceal the real effects of DU weaponry , is correct.

The third significant document produced by this witness , is the communication dated 19th August 1993, Prosecution Document Ex . E -128, by Brigadier Eric .K.Shinskei ,at the relevant time Brigadier General ,GS , Director of Training forwarded to the Assistant Secretary of the Army ( Installation , logistics and Environment ) on the subject : Review of Draft Report to Congress -Health and Environmental Consequences of Depleted Uranium in the US army .This communication states that after Operation Desert Storm ( the first Gulf War ) the GAO examined the Army's ability to contend with Depleted Uranium contamination .The GAO published a draft memorandum which was accepted by the Department of Defense on 15th January 1993 which was a tasking memorandum directing the Secretary of Army to –

A. Provide adequate training for personnel who may come in contact with DU contaminated equipment ;

B. Complete medical testing of all personnel exposed to DU contamination.

C. Develop a plan for DU contaminated equipment recovery during future operation .

Leuren Moret ,concluding her testimony deposed ,that from the properties of DU weapons ; its radioactive particles travelling through air ,water and food sources ; it is not only countries where these weapons are used which are in the affected zone ,but all countries within a radius of approximately 1000 miles of the use of DU weapons ;due to the wind factor and atmospheric dusts ; a map was displayed indicating the countries in the DU affected zone from the use of the weaponry in Afghanistan and Iraq , placed on record of this Tribunal which indicates that Iran, Pakistan , Turkey , Turkmenistan , Uzbekistan , Russia , Georgia , Azerbaijan , Kazakhstan, China and India, are among the countries affected by the use of DU weaponry in Afghanistan ; and Saudi Arabia , Syria , Lebanon , Palestine , Israel , Turkey , Iran are among the countries affected by the use DU weapons in Iraq during both the military attacks against Iraq.

Major Doug Rokke Director of the DU project from 1994 to 1995 , himself a victim of the DU weapons, clean up operations after the first Gulf War ; was interviewed at the Hamburg Conference on DU in October 2003 , by Prosecutor Kazuko Ito ;the video of interview is Prosecution document Ex. E 124 ; amicus curiae who has seen the interview has raised no objections to its production .Major Doug Rokke commenting on his attempts to focus on the risks of DU weapons while in charge of the DU program of the US army stated:

"...military officers from the UK , Australia , Canada and Germany participated in the project to study the risk of DU weapons and I was directed by the Army to direct the team…we submitted recommendations which were completely ignored ...the US army has not taken any measures to protect soldiers .Although we made a proposal that clean-up is essential , complete clean up is impossible .Therefore we proposed, not to use DU weapons any longer .However our proposal was ignored by the upper level of the government and completely ignored by NATO, UK , Australia and others"

Referring to the videos which had been made for the Pentagon about DU weapons ; on risks , clean up measures , method of measuring radioactivity etc. for the US army ; the witness emphasized that these videos were never used and the U.S decided to seal this DU project ,because the results revealed that DU weapons were extremely risky and its use would be prohibited by international pressure. The United States government the witness stated , continues to use these weapons because they are inexpensive and effective , and also because it is a milestone to make fourth generation nuclear ordnance acceptable , by advancing the proposition that contamination of fourth generation nuclear weapons ,would not exceed the levels of radioactive contamination of DU .

The evidence of Major Doug Rokke , has to be assessed in the light of the report on Gulf War Veterans .By now half of all the 697, 000 soldiers involved in the 1991 Gulf War have reported serious illnesses. According to the Gulf War Veterans Association ,more than 30% are chronically ill .Children born to soldiers of coalition personnel after the Gulf War were born deformed or with serious birth defects; including those who had healthy babies earlier .Recently a soldier in the UK has succeeded after several years of struggle, in obtaining a judgment which recognizes the DU weapons had caused serious physiological effects .

The third witness before the Tribunal on the issue of the use of DU weapons as a War Crime , Professor Katsuma Yagasaki , Prosecution documents Ex. E 158 and 159 presented oral and documentary evidence clarifying that the term "depleted "seems to convey the incorrect impression that DU is uranium that does not contain radioactivity any more , which is not the case ; as DU ammunition causes radioactive contamination and is no less serious than nuclear weapons.

Even one DU particle has adequate capacity to cause cancer and once absorbed into the body can transform genes , cells and affect all the organs and lymph nodes . Professor Yakasaki deposed that the total amount of 235U dispersed in Hiroshima was 61.2 kilograms ; since it was estimated that about 500-600 tons of DU weapons were used in Afghanistan , DU pollution in Afghanistan is 8,170 tons more than in Hiroshima ; that the adverse effects of radioactive contamination in Afghanistan and the internal radiation risk is beyond our imagination, as the alpha ray from the DU damages the DNA irreversibly and that the entire concept of low radiation risk was misleading with respect to internal exposure, as DU is absorbed by inhalation and internal contamination.

Professor Yagasaki in the paper on record before this Tribunal presented at the ‘World Uranium Conference Weapons Conference’ in October 2003 ; calculated that 800 tons of DU is the atomicity equivalent to 83,000 Nagasaki bombs. The amount of DU used in Iraq is equivalent to 250,000 Nagasaki bombs. Professor Yagasaki affirmed that DU shells are atrocious radioactive weapons which should not be used ; and that DU has a long life of 4.5 billion years remaining in the soil , air ,water in all affected zones .

The Tribunal on an issue vital for this trial had to deal with the ambiguity of the WHO report ; this report Prosecution document Ex. E-123 was placed before Professor Yagasaki by the Tribunal, to elicit his scientific response to the document , since it was relied on by amicus curiae to defend the use of this weapons system by the Defendant ;stating that the WHO report did not refer to such horrific consequences ;the WHO report was found to be vague and evasive, partly admitting , partly in denial , not in conformity with the overwhelming and authoritative evidence from 1943 , deposed to by the witnesses; moreover the WHO report was not signed ; no scientist or panel of scientists had authenticated this report.

In his paper on 'Undiagnosed Illnesses and Radioactive Warfare ' Dr.Asaf Durakovik who first identified the "Gulf War Syndrome" caused by exposure to DU ordnance , Prosecution document Ex. E-120 ; has on the basis of investigations carried out on Gulf War Veterans in Canada and elsewhere ; reported that DU accumulates in the bone ,kidney, reproductive systems ,brain and lung , with verified genotoxic ,mutagenic and carcinogenic properties, as well as reproductive and teratogenic alterations even 10 years after inhalation exposure or receiving of shrapnel wounds; this contradicts the WHO report.

Professor Yagasaki gave details to the Tribunal on the unscientific nature of the WHO report on material particulars, in particular on the inability of the report to analyze the properties of DU . On reading the unsigned report of the WHO report on DU munitions , I find that while concealing the serious effects of the weapons system ; it attempts to take a safe and evasive position ,in the eventuality of the report being faulted by the on the ground situation , by mentioning that:

…."following conflict ,levels of DU contamination in food and water may be detected in affected areas after a few years .This should be monitored…."

" where possible , clean up operations in impact zones should be undertaken , if there are substantial number of radioactive projectiles remaining and where qualified experts deem contaminated levels to be unacceptable ….."

.The WHO is contradicted by its own scientist ,Dr.Michael H.Repacholi of the WHO who is quoted by Dr. Mohammed Daud Miraki in his report ‘Silent Genocide from America’ Prosecution document Ex. E –137 , as having reported that :

" DU is released from fired weapons in the form of small particles which may be inhaled ,ingested or remain in the environment…..children may be at greater risk of DU exposure …within a war zone …through contaminated food and water …

A recent BBC Television report of February 2004 quoted Dr.Keith Baverstock , Senior Radiation Specialist to the WHO ,who stated that he was the co-author of a WHO Report 2001 , on the affects of DU on health which was classified as "Secret" by WHO to prevent its release to the public.

On October 20, 2002 Dr Asaf Durakovik, Professor of nuclear medicine at George Town University whose report has been submitted to the Tribunal ; reported preliminary test results on sick civilians from Southern Afghanistan at Qatar .Specimens contained 100 times the normal level of uranium concentration. Curiously this was undepleted and not depleted uranium…….Dr Asaf said in an interview to Al-Jazeera television in November 2002 , that the US forces had used more DU in Afghanistan than they had in the first Gulf War and the Balkans."

" A large number of health specialists in Afghanistan……regard the increasing birth defects to be the result of the dropping DU munitions on Afghanistan …children were born with no eyes , no limbs ,tumors protruding from their mouth …. with deformed genitalia".

It was noticed that soldiers, birds in large numbers died after bleeding from their mouths , noses and ears ; many people died without any physical injuries after having developed unusual symptoms .

Marc. W Herold of the University of New Hampshire in the detailed study titled " Uranium Wars : The Pentagon Steps Up Its Use of Radioactive Munitions" has reported that –

" in the Afghan campaign , a new generation of uranium weapons is suspected to have been used extensively for targeting underground facilities and caves……" Intensely bombed hard target zones ………..may now be heavily contaminated with DU oxide ……..During the course of the operation ,US planes conducted 950 sorties and dropped more than 3,450 bombs."

" … risks to US and Afghan troops being sent out to check out bombed cave systems are horrendous…… even more serious are … densely populated target zones like Kabul….."

"…. Given the heavy US bombing of the mountains of eastern Afghanistan ‘ it seems probable that large amounts of DU have found their way into the rivers of the Hindu basin whose source is precisely in the mountains of the Hindu –Kush. For example heading east from Kabul …. the Kabul river crosses into Pakistan and feeds the Indus river .In arid areas like Southern Afghanistan , most of the uranium oxide would remain as surface dust where it will have been widely dispersed by wind and vehicle movements ….".

"….In mid-December , the Pentagon announced the development of another new , high –tech bunker busting bomb in Afghanistan .The laser –guided bomb is a thermobaric weapon , a high pressure explosive that destroys underground caves and tunnels ….."

14.The Use of Cluster Bombs {CBU 87 and CBU 103 } & Daisy Cutters {Fuel Air Explosive } War Crimes

Apart from using DU weapons with the full knowledge of the Defendant , the Commander-in-Chief of the military forces of the United States, Cluster Bombs and Fuel-Air Explosives ( Daisy Cutters ) were used by the United States military.

The report of Human Rights Watch has in a report titled "Fatally Flawed: Cluster bombs and Their Use by the United States in Afghanistan" reported that –

"……the US arsenal included cluster bombs , large bombs that release hundreds of smaller ammunitions or bomblets …, they also have serious civilian side effects …( the areas over which the bomblets disperse ) as well as the fact that they leave behind large numbers of unexploded sub-munitions, that they become de facto land mines.

The United States dropped about 1,228 cluster bombs containing 248,056 bomblets between October 2001 and March 2002…..the United States primarily used two models , the CBU –87 , a veteran of the Gulf War and the NATO bombing campaign in Yugoslavia , and the new……CBU –103 …..Navy CBU –99s, CBU –100S and JSOW were also used ."

In a three and a half week mission to Afghanistan in March 2001, Human Rights found ample evidence that cluster bombs caused civilians harm.

"….Cluster bombs also left unexploded bomblets , or live duds which continue to injure and kill innocent civilians long after the attack….common post –strike victims in Afghanistan include shepherds grazing their flocks, farmers plowing their fields, and children gathering wood ."

In the report by Laura Flanders titled , Weapons of Mass Destruction ( US is dropping World’s Biggest Non-Nuclear Weapons in Afghanistan ) on record before this Tribunal describes , that BLU –82 is named "Daisy Cutter " because of the nature of crater it leaves .That it has the ability –

" to clear a 3 mile long path .Dropped from a huge transport aircraft "Big Blue " releases a cloud of inflammable ammonium nitrate , aluminum dust , and polystyrene slurry which is then ignited by a detonator .The result is a firestorm that incinerates an area the size of five football fields , consumes oxygen , and creates a shock –wave and a vacuum pressure that destroys internal organs of anyone in range".

None of these weapons systems used in Afghanistan satisfy the tests of International Humanitarian Law; the use of these weapons are war crimes . Humanity cannot evade or avoid the question , as to the nature of criminality of an individual and system , which seeks to destroy not only existing life , but to mutilate the life to come.

15. War Crimes committed by the Defendant on of Prisoners of War : The relevant details from the Fact Sheet on Status of Detainees at Guantanamo Bay ,released by the office of the Press Secretary on February 7 ,2002 Prosecution document Ex- 31 states :

"…. The President has determined that the Geneva Convention applies to the Taliban detainees but not to the al Qaeda detainees.

Al Qaeda is not a State party to the Geneva Convention ; it is a foreign terrorist group .As such its members are not entitled to POW status.

Although we have never recognized the Taliban as the legitimate Afghan government , Afghanistan is a party to the Convention , and the President has determined that the Taliban are covered by the Convention , however the Taliban detainees do not qualify as POWs……."

The official stand of the United States government that the Taliban fighters are not entitled to POW status is in violation of Article 4 of the Geneva Convention 1949 (III ) on Prisoners of War which defines a POW as follows :

"Prisoners of war , in the sense of the present Convention , are persons belonging to one of the following categories , who have fallen into the power of the enemy :

1. Members of the armed forces of a party to the conflict as well as the members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

The United States government had dealt with the de facto government of the Taliban directly and through Unocal ;prisoner of war status cannot be denied to the Taliban combatants; even though the United States had not recognized the Taliban , which was recognized only by Pakistan , Saudi Arabia and the UAE with the United Nations continuing to recognize the previous government .The Geneva Convention 1949 (III ) Article 4, does not mandate that a party to the conflict should be recognized as a government , before members of its armed forces are entitled to POW status .

The status of Al Qaeda or "foreign fighters " differs as admittedly they belonged to various countries, not parties to the conflict and it is not conclusively established that they were "volunteers" or " mercenaries" ;Yet the "foreign fighters " are entitled to humane treatment , under the Martens Clause of the Additional Protocol 1 of 1977 , a rule of customary law..

The issue is far more complicated than it appears ; and the facts however distasteful to concerned countries , are that the "foreign fighters" were recruited , from several countries ; the US , UK , Saudi Arabia , Australia , Canada, Pakistan ,Morocco , Saudi Arabia and others ; trained on the Pakistan /Afghanistan border by special forces of the United States , Pakistan and other countries in furtherance of the strategic interest of the United State and of those countries , who were close allies ; a fact admitted to by Mr.Brerzinski , former National Security Advisor and former Director of the CIA Director Robert Gates;

The legal issue which arises for determination is can the United States government deny the " foreign fighters’ POW status, having recruited , financed , trained and supported "foreign fighters" through friendly intelligence agencies, and agreed to their assisting the Taliban in a supporting role for regime change; or is the POW status of "foreign fighters" to be strictly determined , by the people and government of Afghanistan, who for more than two decades have been torn apart ,by countries waging a civil war through hired "foreign fighters" within its territories ; and in pursuit of resources of the region which extends from Central Asia across to Eastern Europe, to former Yugoslavia , referred to by Zbigniew Brerzinski , former National Security Adviser as Eurasia ; a region where the "foreign fighters" trained on the Pakistan -Afghanistan border , have been actively engaged.

Despite the serious and illegal use of these "foreign fighters" ; their status would have be first to ascertained by a competent Tribunal ; not by a secret military commission or a secret military tribunal ; in accordance with Article 5 of the Geneva Convention which stipulates that:

"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy , belong to any one of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal . "

Until their status is ascertained by competent tribunals those who are suspected of being foreign fighters , are entitled to POW status.

Article 13 of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War 1949 mandates that :

" Prisoners of War must at all times be humanely treated .Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited …….no prisoner of war must be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments which are unjustified .

Likewise prisoners of war must at all times be protected , particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity ."

The Indictment has charged the Defendant, as Commander-in -Chief of United States military forces for serious war crimes against prisoners of war .The policy of the Defendant and the United States government , as reflected in the reports of humanitarian organizations ; supported by circumstantial evidence ; leads to the conclusion that the objective appears to have been to eliminate in particular "foreign fighters"; probably to suppress evidence of the use of "Arab and other foreign fighters", in Afghanistan and different regions .

News paper reports and articles before the Tribunal have quoted the Secretary of Defense , Mr. Donald Rumsfeld to this effect; however it would be unsafe to rely on these reports without corroboration . In this context a similar approach was adopted for different reasons in the Boer War ; the informal communication of Lord Kitchner to field commanders was that "no prisoners " were to be taken; this resulted in the killing of surrendering Boer prisoners of the British forces ; and an uproar in Europe; as a consequence , officers of a Australian contingent then serving the British Imperial forces in South Africa , were made scapegoats and faced a court martial for killing surrendering prisoners of war; at the highest level no responsibility was taken .

The documentary evidence presented , including the film of Jamie Doran the Irish film maker " Afghan Massacre : The Convoy of Death " Prosecution document -1; supported by actual incidents, investigated and reported by correspondents and individuals ; reports of humanitarian organizations including the Red Cross ; of Amnesty International ; confirm that war crimes were committed by US military forces under the overall command of the Defendant as Commander-in-Chief.

There is however difficulty in attributing criminal responsibility to the Defendant ,as Commander-in Chief of US forces , for Taliban prisoners and foreign fighters , where there is a lacuna in the evidence , and differing versions have been presented by the prosecution in respect of two issues relating to the prisoners of war ; whether the decision to transport prisoners in containers was that of US forces or the Northern Alliance ; and whether the prison at Sheberghan was in the overall control of US forces .

The International Tribunal of the Far East constituted after the Second World War held that :

"In general the responsibility of prisoners held in Japan may be stated to have rested upon:

1. Members of the Government ;

2. Military or Naval Officers in command of formations having prisoner in their


3. Officials in those departments which were concerned with the well being of prisoners;

4. Officials , whether civilian ,military , or naval having direct and immediate

Control of the prisoners ".

These were the officials who were responsible for Prisoners of War or detainees .The incidents relating to culpability before the Tribunal are :

A. Bombing of Detainees and POW at Qala-I-Janghi.

The United States special forces directed the bombing by warplanes and helicopter gunships of 4000 Taliban soldiers and foreign fighters , including hundreds of civilians and paramilitary personnel from Pakistan ; who had surrendered after negotiations at Kunduz and were detained in the Qala-i-Janghi under the pretext that there had been a prison uprising ; triggered by the presence of CIA interrogators . Hundreds of prisoners were killed and maimed ; for which the Defendant has direct responsibility, as the Commander-in-Chief of US forces ; the decision to bomb the prisoners was taken by special forces and Intelligence teams. This is borne out by factual , visual and circumstantial evidence.

B. Torture of Prisoners at Baghram and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean

Prisoners were shackled and tortured , at the prison camp at Baghram airport Prosecution document 62 OCS NEWS 17TH January ,2003 , exclusively under the control of US forces; blindfolded , beaten ,illuminated with strong halogen lights for 24 hours , continuously deprived of sleep ; left standing and kneeling for hours on end ; brutalities , inhumane treatment and insults were inflicted on these prisoners; detained for interrogation in a cluster of metal shipping containers guarded by wires with no access to the outside world and during interrogation with no exposure to daylight ; the Defendant as Commander-in -Chief of United States Military forces was responsible for the treatment of prisoners and detainees in the custody of the United States.

National Security Officials in Washington according to the Washington post , defended the use of violence and torture against detainees and POW saying that -"if you don't violate someone's human rights some of the time , you probably aren't doing your job…." Prisoners and detainees at Diego Garcia also received similar treatment.

C. Guantanamo Bay

Prisoners and detainees were transported shackled and hooded , denied adequate food and water while being illegally transported from Afghanistan to the US military base at Guantanamo Bay on Cuban territory , which is Cuban territory under illegal occupation ; with the knowledge and assent of the Defendant; the detainees were held incommunicado , in constructed open cages ; tortured , subject to interrogation with deprival of sleep ; kept in solitary confinement, beaten . In the early period of their detention , the International Committee of the Red Cross was denied access to these prisoners ; eventually the Red Cross was permitted access and publicly condemned the conditions under which the detainees and POW had been held .. It is documented that about 649 persons are known to be incarcerated and denied access to lawyers any legal system to prove their innocence or status .No Tribunal has been constituted in accordance with the Geneva Convention to ascertain their status.

The inhuman conditions, the interrogation by "stress and duress " techniques ,and torture have led to suicides and attempts at suicide . In violation of article 12 and article 13 of the Geneva Convention (III) 1949 , these detainees have been transferred to other countries for interrogation , not parties to the war .The details about Guantanamo and Baghram have been incorporated in a memorandum to the Inter-American Commission On Human Rights Organization of American States by the Centre for Constitutional Rights and the International Human Rights Law Group , New York submitted on 13 February 2003 .

D. Transporting of Prisoners in Containers

The prosecution has in its indictment referred to the serious war crime of transporting hundreds of prisoners who were captured ;the Taliban and foreign fighters who had surrendered at Kunduz in Cargo containers, and the death of these prisoners from suffocation due to lack of access to air and water .

The prosecution submits that one hundred to two hundred men were placed in each container , which was about 40 feet long .The prisoners were transported to Sheberghan Prison, without air or water and majority of them suffocated to death. During transportation of these prisoners , rifle shots were fired at the containers by soldiers , for creation of ventilation holes which killed some of the prisoners.

The documents relied on by the Prosecution is Prosecution document Ex. P-1 Jamie Doran ' s report in the film "Afghan Massacre :the Convoy of death " and the article of Newsweek Prosecution document -K -61 .

However, whereas the incident is established beyond doubt , there are contradictions as to who took the decision to transport prisoners in this manner ; whether this was an on the spot decision of commander of the Northern Alliance , or a pre-planned conspiracy involving US forces ; in view of the lacuna in the evidence which requires further proof ,if it is to be attributed to the Defendant , there is difficulty in attributing criminal responsibility to the Defendant in respect of this extremely serious incident leading to the mass murder of Taliban soldiers and foreign fighters from Pakistan and other countries without conclusive evidence.

.An officer of the Northern alliance has been quoted by the prosecution as stating in Prosecution document P - 1 on prisoners of war:

" We took charge of transferring detainees .In Qala Zeini we got hold of 25 containers on the way to Sheberghan prison and put 200 or so prisoners into each container ."

The subsequent evidence relied on by the prosecution from Prosecution document -K 61 ( as told to a correspondent of Newsweek ) is by a person under an assumed name of Mohammed ,who states that he drove one of the Containers ,in compliance with the request of a soldier under General Dostum ; the prisoners in the containers struck at the wall of the container and shouted for water stating that they were dying ; the driver made holes with a hammer in the container; when a soldier under General Dostum heard the sound ; he pretended that he was merely sealing holes.

Mr. Mohammed Ikram , a well known Advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, while deposing on instructions given to him by his client , on the treatment of Prisoners of war ;mentioned that there was gross internal interference by the Intelligence agencies of the United States in Pakistan, including in matters of internal investigation ; and that his client was unable to remain present to depose on aspects of treatment of prisoners of war by US troops , before the Tribunal, in view of delay in the issue of his travel documents ; as a consequence, vital evidence on war crimes against detainees and POW was not made available, which would have been conclusive on the transfer of prisoners in containers and other issues.

Mr. Mohammed Ikram Chaudhary , Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan , gave details of the instructions given to him by his client on the treatment of detainees by the United States Occupation forces, even though he stated that his client had not been involved in hostilities ; and informed the Tribunal of the interference of the Intelligence Agencies of Pakistan in the criminal investigation and administration in Pakistan , violation of Pakistan's sovereignty ; deposing that he had filed a suit for damages against the government of the United States , against the illegal detention and torture of his client , Mr. Mohammed Sagheer, resident of Pattan in the North Western Frontier Province of Pakistan , by US forces in Afghanistan ; his ill treatment , torture, denial of adequate nutrition , medical assistance within Afghanistan , and illegal transportation to Cuba in shackles and hooded and subsequent incarceration at the US military base Guantanamo Bay ; .Mr. Mohammed Ikram Chaudhary , advocate , produced before the Tribunal, the legal notice sent on behalf of his client to the Government of the United States .

The Tribunal in view of the difficulties faced by Mohammed Sagheer in attending the trial a travel documents were not issued to him on time by the Government of Pakistan, could not address questions on the incidents directly relating to the affected individual ; though the fact of detention and treatment of Mohammed Sagheer is part of the same pattern .

The Prosecution in respect of serious incident of transporting prisoners in containers , has submitted, that both the Northern alliance and the Taliban militia had used "Containers" to inflict mass murder , on prisoners taken from each other in the past ; and this had happened at Mazaar-e-Sharif on both sides; even before the military attack by United States military forces.

In this context the evidence of the Revolutionary Association of Afghan Women , Prosecution witness D, on the brutalities committed by both political groups , trained to misuse religion and carry out violent attacks , by outside powers, to devastate Afghanistan , is relevant and requires investigation even within Afghanistan . In view of the lack of conclusive evidence of the involvement of military forces of the United States , it is not possible to arrive at a conclusive finding , to hold the Defendant guilty of this serious episode of transportation of prisoners in sealed containers ; as a consequence of which hundreds , some claim thousands , lost their lives due to suffocation and the firing of rifle shots to create holes for ventilation when the prisoners were inside the containers ; the incident needs further investigation and inquiry by obtaining direct evidence of survivors.

E. Conditions at Sheberghan Prison

The Physicians for Human Rights have given a report on the unsatisfactory conditions in Sheberghan prison , the risk of gastrointestinal illness ,respiratory diseases caused by overcrowding ,scanty clothing and lack of protection against cold weather , the inadequate diet , lack of hygiene , and adequate medical supplies. However there are contradictions in the prosecution case as to who was in control of prison conditions and prisoners at Sheberghan prison .

In the Indictment presented to the Tribunal , at part III , War Crimes Against Prisoners of War , paragraph 4 , the prosecution has stated that " 3000 prisoners thus transported as above described were held in the Sheberghan camp where soldiers of the Northern Alliance were keeping guard ….this particular prison is known for its poor conditions …the walls are weather beaten …inmates were virtually unattended …Northern alliance was primarily in charge of keeping the prison under control …however as CIA personnel interrogated prisoners here and made arrangements for sending them to Kandahar airport and then to Guantanamo Bay ; US forces were practically the major administrator of the prison…Bush was in a position to make the prison guards aware of appropriate procedure …."

This evidence is not conclusive to hold the Defendant guilty of conditions in the prison and of treatment of Prisoners in this prison ; the evidence indicates that the prison was earlier in a state of neglect and as per the prosecution case , the Northern alliance controlled this prison and the prison guards ; whereas the CIA interrogated prisoners and made arrangements for transporting them .Further and precise particulars and investigation will be required of the nature of involvement of US troops at the Sheberghan prison to attribute criminality to the Defendant in respect of this prison .

F.Killing of unconscious and seriously wounded prisoners at Dashte-e-Leili

At Dasht-e-Leili , seriously injured and unconscious 500-600 Taliban prisoners and foreign fighters were killed by shooting , their hands were bound ; the evidence in Prosecution document Ex–1 not been contradicted ; it is established that there were 30 to 40 US soldiers present who observed the shooting and execution of these prisoners ; this evidence conclusively proves that the Defendant as Commander-in-Chief of US forces , was guilty for the execution of prisoners of war at Dashte-e-Leili who had surrendered and were seriously injured and that US soldier were present when the shooting took place ; against all rules and norms of warfare of the Geneva Convention (III ) of 1949 and the Additional Protocol I of 1977

16. Crimes Against Humanity

Afghanistan, known to the International Community , had been subjected to a brutal civil war for more than two decades ; .From 1979 the Afghan people had constantly buried their dead ; famine conditions prevailed from 1999; as a consequence hundreds of thousands were dying and turning into refugees , searching for food , in and around three International frontiers .It was a defenseless country , when the Defendant ordered the military attack and merciless carpet bombing ;despite warnings by UN and other humanitarian agencies that the effect of war on the Afghan people would be catastrophic.

US-UK Coalition forces recklessly fired thousands of bombs and missiles including radioactive DU weapons against a country which was not the enemy.

Customary International Law over centuries reflected in the St.Petersburg Declaration of 1868 , the Hague Convention of 1899 , Hague Convention of 1907 , the Geneva Convention IV of 1949 and the Additional protocol 1 of 1977 ; on the laws of warfare have enjoined that civilian populations are to be protected in times of War ; The common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions provides that persons taking no part in the hostilities , including those who have laid down their arms , the sick and wounded …."shall in all circumstances be treated humanely , without adverse distinction .Violence to the life and person of the above categories is prohibited .Weapons deployed against military targets and combatants should not therefore be of indiscriminate effect as to affect civilians and those who have laid down their arms "

Article 48 of Protocol I of 1977 , Additional to the Geneva Conventions promulgates the basic rule of customary International Law applicable to all States whether signatories or not to the Additional Protocol 1 ; as these customary laws of warfare have been in existence for over a century and a half and reflect the provisions of multilateral treaties already in existence and reads as follows:

" In order to ensure respect for and protection of civilian population and civilian objects , the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objects and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objects"

The Defendant , the President of the United States of America , who has made impassioned pleas for bringing "democracy" and "freedom " to Afghanistan , Iraq to several other States ; concepts which presuppose deep concern for the human condition, failed to observe the basic rule of warfare and committed crimes against humanity .

According to UNCHR report, people escaping the bombings were not in a position to carry personal belongings or food and were rendered completely destitute .The foreign ministry spokesmen of Pakistan stated that " Pakistan was not in a position to deal with mass flows of Afghan refugees into Pakistan ."Consequently thousands were turned away from the Pakistan border.

Despite 10 million land mines being buried into Afghan soil , people were fleeing in different directions displaced from their hearth and home , by aerial bombings , unaware that even the ground was unsafe .The UNCHR estimated that after 7th October 2001 air strikes, the number of new refugees from Afghanistan into Pakistan alone "exceeded one million" not including those who fled towards Iran and north of Afghanistan.

On October 10, 2001 , Abdul Rasheed , the representative and Deputy Manager ,of the Social and Economic Department, of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, discussing the situation in Afghanistan warned that -"several million people are facing starvation and the food situation is very serious", inviting world attention to the fact, that the World Food Program and FAO had predicted a shortage of one million ton of food in Afghanistan due to severe drought for several years ; he added that the situation "would be worse" because of the air strikes .

On 1st November 2001 , UN Special Envoy Brahimi warned that stored food with the onset of cold weather would only last four months for 400,000 people ; there were another 900,000 facing the food crisis .On November 20 ,2001 the local representative of UNICEF pointed out, that there were 2 million people weakened from hunger in and around Mazare -e-Sharif and without food aid while warehouses storing grains were being bombed across Afghanistan .

As the bombings continued, people died from the bombs ,from hunger ,cold and malnutrition apart from lethal radioactive DU weapons contaminating the environment through , air ,water ,and food with radioactive particles .The organization of ‘Doctors without Borders’ reported in February 2002, that one out of six children suffered severe malnutrition which would result in death without treatment . The death rate of children ,as reported by Doctors without Borders went up to 3.2, as against the earlier 1.4 .The International Committee of the Red Cross reported children being sold for food .

Even refugee camps were not spared the bombings .The deliberately fostered divide by more than one Intelligence Agency to divide the people , resulted in different ethnic groups fleeing areas ,worried about reprisals from rival forces ; all of whom whether Northern Warlords or the Taliban had been assisted at one time or another by the United States ; ethnic strife was a policy to control the people of Afghanistan and ensure continuance of the civil war to effect regime change ; devastating peoples lives as armed bands roamed the countryside .

The "extermination" of people by creating catastrophic humanitarian conditions arising out of acts of aggression ; subjecting people to displacement from their hearth and homes by bombings resulted in more than a million refugees crowding into camps ; subjecting people to death from starvation , disease , cold and exposure ; polluting water sources ; destroying homes and infrastructure all "Crimes Against Humanity"; hundreds of thousands died from the catastrophe of war , without health care with hospitals , schools , hydroelectric and irrigation dams and food warehouses all bombed ; millions were affected , and continue to be by the consequences of weapons systems used ; the Defendant and his administration were indifferent to the warnings of Humanitarian Agencies that Afghanistan faced a catastrophe .

The military occupation and bombing of the Afghan people continues till date though President Karzai has stated that there are no Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

17.Verdict :

I find the Defendant , George Walker Bush , President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief of United States Armed Forces guilty

1. Under Article 2 of the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan and under International Criminal Law ,for waging a war of aggression against Afghanistan and the Afghan people ;

2.Under Article 3, Part I , clause (a) , (b), (c) ,(d), (f),(g) and Article 3, Part II, clause (a),(b),(c)(d),(e),(f), (h)(i),(k),(l),(n),(o),(p),(q) of the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan, under International Criminal Law and International Humanitarian Law , in respect of War Crimes committed against the people of Afghanistan by the use of weapons prohibited by the laws of warfare causing death and destruction to the Afghan people ; maiming men , women and children;

3.Under Article 4 , clause (a) ,(b),(d ),(e),(f) ,(h) and (i ) of the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal and International Humanitarian Law , for Crimes Against Humanity committed against the people of Afghanistan; resulting in inhumane acts affecting large sections of the population cause by the military invasion , bombing , and lack of humanitarian relief ;

4. Under Article 3, Part I , clause (a),(b),(c),(f),(g) and Article 3 , Part II clause (f),(k),(p), and (q) of the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan , under International Criminal Law and the Hague Convention and Geneva Convention (III ) of 1949 in respect of the torture and killings of Talban and other prisoners of war who had surrendered and their torture and inhumane conditions of detention and deportation of innocent civilians;

In respect of the transport of prisoners in sealed Containers and their death due to suffocation and filing of rifle shots at the Container for creating holes for ventilation with the prisoners inside ; and for conditions at Sheberghan prison; the Defendant is entitled to benefit of doubt at this trial however the issues are left open for trial, before any other court /Tribunal ; as the evidence before the Tribunal is not conclusive on the involvement of United States forces ;

5. Under Article 3, Part I (c ) and ( g ); Article 3 Part 2 ( a), (b) ,(c) ,(d ) ( e) (h) ( i) ( l) and Article 4 (b) ,(l) of (n) ,( p),(q) of the ICTA in respect of the serious humanitarian situation resulting from the refugee exodus in Afghanistan due to the bombing of civilian population and civilian infrastructure in a country already affected by serious famine resulting in mass exodus of people and death from bombing , hunger ,displacement, disease ; and absence of humanitarian relief ;

6. Under Article 3 , Part II ,clause(o) (p) and under Article 4 clause (a) ,(b) and (l) of the statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan , and under International Criminal Law and International Humanitarian Law ; in respect of the DU weapons used on the people of Afghanistan to exterminate the population ; and for the crime of "Omnicide " the extermination of life , contamination of air ,water and food resources ; and the irreversible alteration of the genetic code of all living organisms including plant life ; as a direct consequence of the use of radioactive munitions in Afghanistan ; affecting countries in the entire region ;

7. Under Article 3, Part II ,clause(o) (p) and under Article 4(a) and ( i) of the Statute of the International Tribunal for Afghanistan , under International Criminal Law , for exposing soldiers and other personnel of the United States ,UK and other soldiers of coalition forces to radioactive contamination by the use of DU weapons , hazarding their lives, their physiology , and that of their future progeny by irreversible alteration of the genetic code .

18. Direction :

1.The Defendant is a convicted war criminal consequently unfit to hold public office ; citizens ,soldiers and all civil personnel of the United States would be constitutionally and otherwise , justified in withdrawing all co-operation from the Defendant and his government ; and in declining to obey illegal orders of the Defendant and his administration ;including military orders threatening other nations or the people of the United States on the basis of the Nuremberg Principle, that illegal orders of Superior must not be obeyed.

19. Recommendations :

A.Immediate cessation of the use of Depleted Uranium Munitions-Moratorium on production , stockpiling and manufacture .

i. It has been conclusively proved that DU Weapons are Radioactive , Omnicidal nuclear weapons( the by product of the uranium enrichment process of manufacture of nuclear weapons and nuclear fuel ) used as weapons of "silent genocide " in Afghanistan ,Iraq and the Balkans and destructive of all life on earth ; irreversibly altering the genetic code of all exposed .The manufacture , stockpiling and use of such weapons is strictly prohibited by existing Conventions of International Humanitarian Law and must cease immediately .Corporations producing these weapons , heads of State , heads and personnel of Defense departments , military officers and others involved in decisions for its use, are liable to be criminally prosecuted before the International Criminal Court , or within national legal systems , and /or face suits for compensation .

ii..The manufacture ,stockpiling, and use of Cluster bombs and Fuel -air explosives also known as Daisy Cutters , to immediately cease as these weapons systems are also prohibited by existing Conventions of International Humanitarian Law and those manufacturing ,purchasing,
stockpiling and permitting such weapons for military use ; including those using these weapons systems are liable to be prosecuted for war crimes and face liability for claims of compensation.

B. Payment of Reparations to the people of Afghanistan

The people of Afghanistan individually and collectively are entitled to reparations for the war of aggression , war crimes , crimes against humanity , and the use of DU weapons ; in keeping with International historical and legal precedent of the payment of compensation Lockerbie victims; the compensation paid to the Jewish people and the government of Israel, after the holocaust, by the German Government and Corporations ;the compensation paid to Japanese citizens wrongfully interred during the Second World War and in accordance with the legal principles of the Theo Boven Report , adopted by the UN Committee in April 2000 , "On the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Violations of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law ‘.

Reparations to be paid by Unocal company and Centgas consortium , the Defendant , the Government of the United States, UK , NATO countries , Pakistan , and other countries who offered bases or logistic facilities . The valuation of reparation to be based on the Lockerbie Award paid by Libya and to the to the victims of the French Airlines crash also paid by Libya , even though Libya did not accept guilt .The life of an Afghan man, woman and child is not less than the worth of a life of a citizen of the United States , of Europe or Israel as the planet earth is the common home of all races. Afghanistan must be reconstructed.

C. Revoke the Charter of the Unocal Corporation based in California.

In 1998 several citizens groups in the United States had filed a complaint to the Attorney General of California ,for cancellation of the Charter of the Unocal , for serious violations of human rights of citizens , within the United States and in countries such as Afghanistan and in Myanmar . It is recommended that a Complaint/Petition be filed again to revoke the Charter of Unocal and against companies of the Centgas consortium wherever liable ; as records of this trial and the earlier complaint ,establish that the Unocal Company and Centgas have used the military forces of the Republic of the United States ,UK and other forces , paid for by citizens , in conspiracy with the Defendant ,to wage a war of aggression in Afghanistan, to establish direct political and economic control .

D.To complete the Unfinished Task of the Nuremberg Trial and Far East Trials - and analyze the real reasons for the wars of the 20th and 21st Century for citizens .

As citizens, jurists, law makers , we have to complete the unfinished task of the Trials at Nuremberg and the Trials of the Far East ; to lift the " Corporate Veil" on wars of aggression which the world has been subjected to.

It has been concealed from citizens and soldiers alike , that decisions even for war and peace have vested in conglomerates, financial , Banking interests , Corporations and their political allies and lobbies ; manipulating resources and institutions of the state , created of millions of people , even in systems we have termed as democracies and Republics .

The reasons for the First and Second World War , was not because the German or Japanese people were inclined towards war ; the Axis and Allied nations with a few exceptions ,were in the crucible of the same system with difference of degrees; oppressing other peoples and nations for economic resources ;which they succeeded in camouflaging at the Nuremberg and Far East Trials.

The nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ,and of German towns which had no military targets , were also war crimes. Despite the contribution of outstanding Investigators and Prosecutors these realities were swept away, and even as US soldiers were landing on Normandy Beach , certain US Corporations were still dealing with the Nazi Party, some US Corporations had used slave labor , held stocks and were partners in German plants ; a continuation of the capital accumulation from the slavery of African people caught and sold across the Atlantic by Companies .

E. Assert Public/State control through legislation and autonomous bodies over Armament Industries and Major Corporations in all countries -in the interregnum prevent National Budgets from being hemorrhaged by the Military-Industrial Complex referred to by President Eisenhower- within and across nations -a major cause of wars.

i.)To prevent wars every national budgets has to be protected from the International Arms Industries, diverting scarce resources to armaments with a vested interest in wars, armed conflicts and terrorism .. The continuation of these Industries in private hands ,is itself a threat as the issue of DU weapons has shown .The connection between Krupps ,the Arms Corporation and the Nazi Party cannot be forgotten ; such alliances existed at the relevant time in both countries of the Axis and Allied powers ; such alliances still exist between Corporations and governments as we have seen in this trial not only within nations but globally.

ii )It was a President of the United States, General Dwight Eisenhower who stressed among other eminent leaders of the world that-

" Every gun that is made , every warship launched , every rocket fired signifies in the final sense , a theft from those who hunger and are not fed ; those who are cold and not clothed .This World in Arms is not spending money alone .It is spending the sweat of its laborers , the genius of its Scientists , the hopes of its children".

iii)The economy of the United States in respect of which the IMF has sounded an alarm ; the infrastructure of health , housing , education does not reflect the status of a "super power" ;the people of the United States have paid the price of the subsidies given by its citizens to armament and other corporations , in whose interests these wars have been waged ; with adverse affects on other economies linked or dependent on the US economy.

iv) In this context Article XXI of the GATT , provides freedom for military spending for any reason related to national security…to maintain order, so that national defense and security budgets are not subject to scrutiny by International Financial and Bretton Woods Institutions ( World Bank & IMF ) , as an incentive to the Arms industry; whereas social and development budgets of national governments regulated by Structural Adjustment Loans, are strictly controlled by the aid/loan agencies. This must be revoked.

F. Revise the concept of permanent membership of the Security Council not in the interest of peaceful solution of disputes ,with the rotational principle; and enhance the powers of the General Assembly of the UN.

The Security Council , continues to reflect the historically outdated principle of 'balance of power' among the Permanent members ; the legacy of the Second World War; giving disproportionate status to certain governments ;this no longer reflects the real world and its democratic aspirations; as a consequence the Security Council at crucial moments has either been paralyzed ; or has been utilized to camouflage military occupations of countries , in private interests . The General Assembly of the United Nations , where the democratic principle prevails, must assume its rightful role in the resolution of conflicts .The Security Council should function on a rotational principle, and the concept of permanent membership abolished ,to restore democracy to the world body , reflecting 21st Century realities.

G. Adherence to the letter and spirit of Article 33

Article 33 of the United Nations Charter provides for mediation, conciliation , arbitration and adjudication prior to resort to war ; any legal defense or justification by any government of waging a "just" war ; must be subject to the test of Article 33 as to whether these alternative dispute mechanisms were resorted to .The Security Council and General Assembly must secure compliance.

It is necessary for me to place on record , the invaluable assistance rendered for this trial ,by organizations working for peace in Japan and the support of humanitarian and other organizations and individuals who came forward to testify from all over the world .In the final analysis the acceptance of a decision in any legal system , is dependent on the confidence of vast numbers of people in the independence , integrity and juridical wisdom of a Court or Tribunal ,and its capacity to reflect the collective conscience of humanity in trials as serious as this one ; all higher forms of social organization have evolved directly out of mankind's yearning for a "just and harmonious society " and for the realization of the worth of every human being.

This judgment is the result of the legal dialogue during hearings , with attorneys from Japan, the United States and Germany appearing for the Prosecution and the amicus curiae team of lawyers , who spared no effort to assist the Tribunal ; and legal discussions with my colleagues , the Judges at this trial ; representing different legal systems discovering principles common to all our legal systems.

Without the assistance of the ICTA Executive and Secretariat based in Japan ,the painstaking task of compilation of documents , translations , interpretation for witnesses and coordination of work across continents would have been impossible .

I believe that "Truth " is a weapon on the side of humanity . If truth is known tyranny and injustice will be defeated. The Tribunal has performed its Judicial task . It is now for people to ensure the implementation of this verdict.

Professor Ms Niloufer Bhagwat J.
Tokyo , 13TH March 2004


Presiding Judge Professor Osamu Niikura (Japan) , Professor Dr. Asaho Mizushima( Japan ), Professor Dr. R.I .Akroyd ( UK), Professor Peter Erlinder,(USA) Professor Ms. Niloufer Bhagwat ( India ).

Judgment of Professor Ms Niloufer Bhagwat J.

For the Prosecution :

Attorneys :

( Japan )

Kohken Tsuchiya

Hiroshi Yamaguchi

Uyema Tsutomu

Kazuko Ito

Kenta Hagio

Hajime Kanbara

Kanae Doi

Chieko Tabe

Akiko Narumi

Sayo Saruta

Aruta Kagami

Akio Tabe

Ryosuke Kuboki

Gyoergy Szell ( Germany)

Anya Mukharji (USA)

Michael Warren ( USA)

Amicus Curiae

Akira Obori

Ken-ichi Okobo

Fumito Morikawa

Email this article to a friend

To express your opinion on this article, join the discussion at Global Research's News and Discussion Forum , at

The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at grants permission to cross-post original Global Research (Canada) articles in their entirety, or any portions thereof, on community internet sites, as long as the text & title of the article are not modified. The source must be acknowledged as follows: Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at . For cross-postings, kindly use the active URL hyperlink address of the original CRG article. The author's copyright note must be displayed. (For articles from other news sources, check with the original copyright holder, where applicable.). For publication of Global Research (Canada) articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: .

© Copyright IWCT AFGHANISTAN 2004. For fair use only/ pour usage equitable settlement.

June 2007

Still think Bush isn't guilty of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"? Think again. Here are the most provable charges against the "Commander In Chief", along with possible legal consequences.

High Crimes: The Indictment of George W. Bush By Mark Johnson

OFFENSE: Abuse of power by claiming the authority to ignore 750 laws, including military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, immigration disclosure requirements, whistleblower protections and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.

IN VIOLATION OF: Presidential Oath of Office; U.S. Constitution, Article II—grounds for impeachment.

EVIDENCE: Presidential “signing statements” that declare intention to disregard laws signed.

PENALTIES: Congressional censure; impeachment; removal from office.

OFFENSE: Authorizing the National Security Agency (NSA) wiretapping program.

IN VIOLATION OF: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA); Presidential Oath of Office; U.S. Constitution: Amendment IV—right to privacy and condition of probable cause.

EVIDENCE: Admissions by Bush and administration officials, including the Attorney General.

PENALTIES: Impeachment; removal from office.

OFFENSE: Willfully lying and misleading the American people regarding alleged threats to the nation and reasons for invasion of Iraq; falsification of evidence; conspiracy (with highest-ranking members of the administration) to defraud the American people; authorizing wars of aggression.

IN VIOLATION OF: Presidential Oath of Office; U.S. Constitution; Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 371—conspiracy to defraud United States; Executive Orders 12674 and 12731—principles of ethical conduct and fulfillment of the public trust; international laws against war crimes and crimes against humanity (U.N. and Nuremberg Charters); U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 3—faithful execution of law as Presidential duty.

EVIDENCE: Intelligence analyses and estimates; Pentagon assessments; testimony by intelligence and military officials; Downing Street Memo, stating evidence was being “fixed around the policy”; Presidential statements regarding doctrine of preemptive war; stated intention by Bush Administration appointees and advisers prior to 9/11 attacks to “rebuild America’s defenses,” facilitate “regime change” in Iraq and establish American dominance; false claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

PENALTIES: Impeachment; removal from office; indictment by international tribunal.

OFFENSE: Authorizing illegal war conduct and occupation of foreign countries; commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity (including torture and illegal treatment of prisoners); deaths of civilians.

IN VIOLATION OF: Geneva Conventions; War Crimes Act; international human rights law.

EVIDENCE: Historical record; photographic evidence of torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere; photographic evidence of illegal war conduct in Iraq and Afghanistan; hundreds of thousands of dead civilians; victim testimony; administration disclosures regarding interrogation methods and treatment of prisoners.

PENALTIES: Indictment by international tribunal; compensation to victims; impeachment; removal from office; imprisonment. (Note: Congress has granted Bush retroactive immunity—which may prove unconstitutional—by passing the Military Commissions Act.)

OFFENSE: Authorizing indefinite detention and transfer of persons in U.S. custody to foreign countries for torture; using military forces to seize and detain U.S. citizens and immigrants indefinitely and without charge.

IN VIOLATION OF: International human rights law; Geneva Conventions; U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9—right of habeas corpus; Amendment IV—right to privacy and condition of probable cause; Civil Rights Act; Presidential Oath of Office.

EVIDENCE: Bush Administration and European Parliament disclosures regarding “rendition” practices and secret CIA prisons; victim testimony.

PENALTIES: Indictment by international tribunal; impeachment; removal from office; compensation to individual victims; imprisonment.

OFFENSE: Authorizing the leak of classified information relating to the status and identity of a CIA agent.

IN VIOLATION OF: Title 50, U.S. Code, Section 421; Presidential Oath of Office; U.S. Constitution, Article II—high crimes and misdemeanors.

EVIDENCE: Leaked White House details on NOC (non-official cover) agent Valerie Plame; evidence resulting from Fitzgerald investigation.

PENALTIES: Impeachment; removal from office; imprisonment.

OFFENSE: Conspiracy to commit manslaughter and/or murder by allowing, facilitating or failing to prevent the 9/11 attacks.

IN VIOLATION OF: Statutory laws against murder; U.S. Constitution, Article III—treason; Title 18, U.S. Code, Chapter 51—homicide.

EVIDENCE: Failure to respond to warnings of impending attacks; negligence and delayed action on 9/11; evidence of possible government involvement (excluded from official investigation); historical and media record of 9/11.

PENALTIES: Impeachment; removal from office; imprisonment.

OFFENSE: Violation of separation of Church and State, resulting in harmful and discriminatory policies, including obstruction of attempts to fight HIV/AIDS, promotion of unproven methods such as abstinence and faith-based sex education, and discriminatory policies on marriage and abortion.

IN VIOLATION OF: U.S. Constitution, Amendment I—separation of Church and State; Presidential Oath of Office.

EVIDENCE: Historical record; Presidential policy statements; religion-influenced legislation.

PENALTIES: Impeachment; removal from office.

OFFENSE: Willful misrepresentation of evidence and rejection of scientific consensus regarding global warming; refusal to curb greenhouse gas emissions; withdrawal from international climate agreements.

IN VIOLATION OF: The public trust and the interests of the American people.

EVIDENCE: International scientific consensus; Presidential statements; evidence that government scientific documents were edited by White House officials to downplay threat.

PENALTIES: Congressional censure; international censure.

OFFENSE: Failure to prevent suffering and loss of life prior to, during and following Hurricane Katrina; negligent homicide and/or manslaughter.

IN VIOLATION OF: Presidential Oath of Office; Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 1112—manslaughter; statutory laws in the affected states.

EVIDENCE: Historical record of inadequate response; photographic record; victim testimony; Presidential admission.

PENALTIES: Impeachment; removal from office; imprisonment.

ADDITIONAL NOTE: One of the most egregious misdeeds of the Bush Administration’s, the passage of the unconstitutional legislation known as USA PATRIOT Act and Military Commissions Act, was done with the approval of Congress.

These laws violate the U.S. Constitution, Amendments I, IV and VI (rights to freedom of speech, privacy and due process, respectively) and Article I, Section 9 (right to habeas corpus). That these laws are unconstitutional has been confirmed by numerous assessments from Constitutional and civil-rights lawyers and experts. The historical record and the testimony of victims are evidence that these laws are being abused and clearly violate civil rights.

For more information, see; the House Judiciary Committee’s report “The Constitution in Crisis” and Elizabeth de la Vega’s book, United States v. George W. Bush et al.


Sign the petition compendium of war crimes

We, the undersigned, believe George Bush and Dick Cheney should be prosecuted for the following war crimes:

1. George Bush and Dick Cheney ordered a War of Aggression against Iraq. This constitutes a Crime Against Peace - for which Nazi leaders were prosecuted at the Nuremberg Trials - and violates the UN Charter.

Iraq never attacked the US or threatened an attack, so the US was not acting legally in self-defense, which is permitted under the UN Charter.

Iraq played no role in the September 11, 2001 attack on the US and never provided material support to any terrorist group that attacked the US, so even the non-legal Bush doctrine of pre-emptive attack did not apply.

At the time of the US attack, Iraq was nearing full compliance with UN Resolution 1441 and prior resolutions requiring disarmament, and the majority of the Security Council believed UN inspectors should be given more time, so the US was not enforcing UN resolutions, as it claims.

George Bush and Dick Cheney ordered the invasion of Iraq in order to bring about a regime change, which was never authorized by a UN resolution, and violates the UN Charter.

A Crime Against Peace is defined as "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing." By invading Iraq, Bush has committed a Crime Against Peace.

2. George Bush and Dick Cheney ordered the bombing of civilian areas like Baghdad (with 5 million innocent civilians) and Basra. This resulted in the deaths of hundreds of non-combatants, in violation of Geneva Convention (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949.

Article 3(1): The following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to [non-combatants]: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture.

The independent Web site is documenting each Iraqi civilian death, based on reports from at least two mainstream Western media organizations (AP, Reuters, CNN, etc.)

3. George Bush and Dick Cheney are ultimately responsible for the torture and murder of Iraqi prisoners, which resulted from policies that were approved by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, and Vice President Cheney himself. These policies were adopted with full knowledge that they could result in war crimes, which persuaded Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee to urge Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to appoint a special prosecutor.

The photos below depict some of the war crimes involving the torture and murder of Iraqi prisoners. These are the "milder" photos - the most horrific photos of torture and rape have only been seen by Congress.

To punish these crimes - and, of equal importance, to prevent future crimes - we call upon all responsible US and international bodies to indict, convict, and punish George Bush and Dick Cheney for their War Crimes, along with everyone who participated in those crimes.

Sponsored by: War Crimes Petition c/o Democrats.comPO Box 721066New York, NY

Powered by:Democrats.comPrivacy Policy




The Constitution brought into existence the most unusual government in history. It was a government whose powers were limited to those enumerated in the document itself. I f the power wasn’t enumerated, the government could not exercise it. Fearful that the newly formed government might try to break free of that enumerated-powers straitjacket, the American people, through their duly authorized representatives, enacted the Bill of Rights.

The first eight amendments to the Constitution expressly prohibit the federal government from denying people fundamental rights and important procedural protections. To ensure that federal officials would not later claim that the list of such rights was exclusive, the Ninth Amendment was enacted.

Then, to ensure that powers not expressly delegated to the federal government could still be exercised by the states, the Tenth Amendment was enacted. It reads as follows:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The issue of power — and the potential for conflict of power between the federal and the state governments — was of critical importance to our forefathers. Don’t forget that our ancestors severely distrusted government power and that the last thing they wanted was to bring into existence a federal government with the same amount of power that the British government had had over the British colonists.

In delegating certain powers to the federal government, the states, with some exceptions, were free to continue exercising their sovereign powers.

Notice the difference: Under the Constitution, the federal government is a government of express enumerated powers rather than a government of general powers.

Federal versus state powers

The state governments, on the other hand, are governments of general powers, but with two exceptions.

One exception comes in the form of the Constitution’s specific restrictions on state powers. For example, the Constitution expressly prohibits the states from entering into treaties, coining money, making anything but gold and silver coin legal tender, passing bills of attainder, and enacting ex post facto laws and laws impairing the obligation of contracts.

The other exception comes in the form of powers delegated and exercised by the federal government that the federal government prohibits the states from exercising concurrently. For example, suppose the federal government exercises its delegated power to regulate commerce among the several states. It can bar the states from concurrently exercising such power even though the Constitution does not expressly bar the states from doing so.

This system of federal and state powers is known as “federalism.” By dividing power in that way, the idea was to keep the central government weak and keep political power closer to the people. Compare that to a country that has one central, national government, which is responsible for governing the entire nation.

Obviously, it is not always easy to delineate clearly the line between federal jurisdiction and state jurisdiction, but federalism has always been a core element of America’s political system. As the authors of American Jurisprudence 2nd (1979) put it, “The distinctive operation of the state and federal governments within their respective spheres is basic to a federal constitutional system, however complicated and difficult the practical accommodation to it may be.”

There’s something else important to note here: The Bill of Rights, by its own terms, applies only to the federal government, not to the state governments. For example, the First Amendment prohibits the Congress, not the state legislatures, from depriving people of freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and the right to peaceably assemble. By the same token, although it doesn’t expressly mention the federal government, the Second Amendment operates to protect the right to keep and bear arms from federal infringement but not from infringement by the states.

Therefore, when the Constitution came into existence the state governments, being governments of general powers, theoretically had the power to deprive people of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and other such rights.

So why didn’t the states exercise such general powers? Because the concepts of fundamental rights and procedural protections were so ingrained in the hearts and minds of the citizenry, evidenced by the fact that the states had bills of rights in their own constitutions. In fact, given that state constitutions predated the Bill of Rights, the latter was actually modeled on them.

It’s important to note though that if there wasn’t an express restriction in the state constitution, there was nothing to prevent a state government from abridging fundamental rights of the people — except, of course, by electing a new legislature with the intent of having the offending law repealed.

Ultimately, after the post–Civil War adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court held that the Due Process clause of that amendment effectively incorporated the rights and guarantees in the federal Bill of Rights and applied them to the states.

Thus, before the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, when a state abridged a person’s rights, the person was limited to filing suit in state court seeking a declaration that the state’s action violated the state constitution.

After the Supreme Court adopted the incorporation doctrine associated with the Fourteenth Amendment, a person could sue in either state or federal court seeking a declaration that the state’s action violated both the state and the federal constitutions.

Therefore, the operative effect of the Fourteenth Amendment on the Tenth Amendment is that while the states retain reserved powers under the Tenth Amendment, any exercise of those powers that abridge fundamental rights and liberties is prohibited under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The 1937 constitutional revolution

Prior to the 1930s, the concept of federalism was fairly well understood. People knew that the federal government could not exercise general powers, not even when federal officials believed it was in the best interests of the people to do so. If Congress enacted a law, it was the job of the judiciary to compare that law with the enumerated powers of the federal government in the Constitution. If the law fell outside those enumerated powers, the judiciary would find it unconstitutional.

If a state law was enacted and someone questioned its validity under the U.S. Constitution, the judiciary’s analysis would be different. Instead of looking for enumerated powers and comparing the law with them, the judiciary would look for express restrictions on state power — or federal exercise of such power — and compare the state law with them. If there was an express restriction or if the federal government had exercised the power and barred the states from concurrently exercising it, the state law would be declared unconstitutional; otherwise, it would be declared constitutional.

In the 1930s everything changed — in a revolutionary way.

In fact, it is impossible to overstate the magnitude of that change. With the advent of the Great Depression, the push on the part of federal officials to break free of their enumerated-powers straitjacket with respect to government welfare and economic regulation became too powerful, even for the federal courts.

The argument was that since people were suffering all over the country from an “economic emergency,” only the federal government could provide the necessary relief and, therefore, not even the Constitution should stand in the way of such an aim.

For a while, a majority of the justices on the Supreme Court held fast, correctly holding that under the Constitution an emergency does not give rise to new powers on the part of the federal government. In fact, the Court noted that it is during emergencies that people’s liberties are most in peril at the hands of their own government and, therefore, that is when they most need the protections of the Constitution. Economic Liberty and the Constitution” [June 2002–May 2003 Freedom Daily.])

A good example involved the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which was administered by the National Recovery Administration (NRA). Symbolized by stickers displaying a “Blue Eagle,” this congressionally enacted law radically transformed the nation by bringing businesses and industries all over America under the direct control of the federal government. Anyone who resisted the law was branded a traitor to America and was ostracized, criticized, and condemned.

Ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court declared the NIRA unconstitutional, partly on the ground that under the U.S. Constitution the federal government did not have the authority to regulate intrastate enterprises.

In 1937, as a result of a shift in personnel on the Court, everything changed. The Supreme Court effectively held that from then on, in the area of economic activity the federal government would have the omnipotent power to control any economic enterprise anywhere in the nation.

Thus, without even the semblance of a constitutional amendment, the federal government effectively became a government of general powers with respect to welfare programs and regulation of economic activity. The federal government’s New Deal power became so extensive that its regulation of a farmer who did nothing more than grow wheat on his own farm for his own consumption was upheld by the Court in the famous case of Wickard v. Filburn.

The same type of thing occurred with respect to state legislation. Prior to the late 1930s, the Supreme Court was holding that state legislation that regulated economic activity violated the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

A good example involved state minimum-wage laws. Holding that a voluntary contract between an employer and employee was an essential aspect of human liberty, the Court had previously held that state laws that took away such liberty were a violation of “substantive due process.”

After 1937, however, the Court’s protection of economic liberty from state infringement became a thing of the past, again as a result of the ideological realignment on the Court. As long as it was strictly economic activity that was at issue (as opposed to, say, freedom of speech), the post–1937 Court effectively held that the states could exercise whatever powers they wanted.

Today there is hardly any part of people’s economic lives that is not subject to control and regulation by government, both federal and state. When asked to cite the constitutional justification for such federal power, federal officials inevitably cite the “general welfare” clause of the Constitution, ignoring that, by setting up a government of enumerated powers, the last thing the Framers intended was to set up a federal government with such general powers over the citizenry.

By the same token, the state governments are free to regulate the most minute aspects of people’s economic activities. The powers are upheld under the traditional “police powers” of the states. The federal judiciary simply ignores the clause in the Fourteenth Amendment that expressly prohibits a state from depriving a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

While the purpose of the Constitution was to call the federal government into existence, its simultaneous aim, along with that of the Bill of Rights, was to protect the American people from an elected despotism.

To accomplish such dual purposes — the establishment of a national government and the protection of liberty — our forefathers integrated a complex system of enumerated powers, guaranteed rights and freedoms, remainder powers, separation of powers, and federalism.

As our forefathers understood so well, the greatest threat to people’s freedom and well-being lies with their own government, and express constitutional restrictions on the exercise of government power are necessary to protect the fundamental rights and liberties of the people.

It is clear that in the absence of any expressed prohibition of the people’s rights to cause the indictment of the President of The United States, that, the right is reserved unto We The People for our full and legal exercise. This Court has rendered its’ decision in the affirmative in favor of the Plaintiff Ron Fisher!

No comments: