It has been said in the past that the Bush administration is not only reckless but lawless.  The extent of this lawlessness was made abundantly clear yesterday.

In what we could only wish had been an April Fool's Day joke, the Department of Justice declassified and released a 2003 Office of Legal Counsel memo advising the Pentagon that laws and treaties forbidding torture and other forms of abuse did not apply to U.S. interrogators because of the president's wartime power.

What kind of harm, you might ask, would be prohibited under the standard established by this memo?  Very little, it turns out.  It declared that an interrogation technique must "shock the conscience" in order for it to be illegal.  But it gets even worse.  The memo also asserted, "Whether conduct is conscience-shocking turns in part on whether it is without any justification." 

Just because one lawyer at the Justice Department wrote a memo asserting that certain conscience-shocking actions were justified and therefore legal does not change the real truth here:  The Bush administration has flagrantly violated domestic law and international treaties.

The only question now is what should be done.

Prosecutions may be appropriate.  Impeachment should not be out of the question.  But what is needed immediately is a thorough investigation into the Bush administration's understanding of the extent of the president's power as commander-in-chief.

Please send an email to your representatives in Congress, urging them to support wide-ranging hearings into the abuses of executive power that have occurred over the past seven years.  Just click here to get started:

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2165/t/1027/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=23997

At this point in history, we must be concerned not only with punishing Bush administration officials for wrongdoing, but also with setting standards for the next administration.  We must establish now that the "war on terror" has NOT created a "wartime president" with unlimited powers.  If we do not, then we can only expect executive power to expand in the future.

Tell your representatives in Congress you are concerned about excessive executive power by sending an email today:

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2165/t/1027/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=23997

And after you have sent your email, please use our Tell-A-Friend option to encourage others to do the same.

Thank you for taking action.

Best,
Steve

Steve Fox
Campaign Director
American Freedom Campaign Action Fund

What an amazing trip this has been! After months and months of hard work, This Brave Nation wraps with its thrilling fifth episode: Tom Hayden in conversation with Naomi Klein. Hayden is, of course, the legendary activist who was a member of the Chicago 7 and who also spent 18 years in the California Legislature. Klein is the author of two best-selling books, the anti-globalization manifesto No Logo, and the recent hit, The Shock Doctrine.

Together, they cover everything from the tumult of the 1960's to protests in Seattle to what it means to be a true witness of the events around you. Spirited and lively, Hayden and Klein have one of the most compelling conversations of this series, one you won't want to miss.

Watch the entire episode.

If you've missed one episode of This Brave Nation, you've missed too many! For a $15 donation to This Brave Nation, you'll receive 2 DVDs of the first five episodes. Remember that the most important part of this series is the ability to share it with everyone you know, including a local school or library! We've already started shipping DVDs of This Brave Nation, so now is the time to get yours.

And don't forget to vote in our Brave Nation Young Activist Award contest. We've narrowed the list of incredible nominees down to just five contestants for you to choose from. On July 13th, when we bring you LIVE the final episode of This Brave Nation featuring 2 very special guests, we will announce the winner of the award.

Vote today and decide who the next Tom Hayden or Naomi Klein could be.

Sincerely,
Robert Greenwald and Katrina vanden Heuvel
Brave New Foundation and The Nation

"Print married with film. Film and print married with the internet. Internet married with text, audio and video. Text, audio and video married with ACTION. You don't need a user's manual to get the beauty of all this integration." - The Agitator review of This Brave Nation.

----
Brave New Foundation is supported by members like you, please consider making a donation. Our videos are available via email, RSS, YouTube and iTunes here.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP!! Ron G.

• An Attack could be Imminent
• We Can't Afford to Wait
• Take It to the Streets This Summer
• U.S. out of Iraq, Money for human needs, not war!

Scalia Used False Information in Gitmo Dissent

By Marjorie Cohn, AlterNet. Posted June 24, 2008.

To bolster his argument that the Guantánamo detainees should be denied the right to prove their innocence in federal courts, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his dissent in Boumediene v. Bush: "At least 30 of those prisoners hitherto released from Guantánamo have returned to the battlefield." It turns out that statement is false.

According to a new report by Seton Hall Law Center for Policy and Research, "The statistic was endorsed by a Senate Minority Report issued June 26, 2007, which cites a media outlet, CNN. CNN, in turn, named the DoD as its source. The '30' number, however, was corrected in a DoD press release issued in July 2007, and a DoD document submitted to the House Foreign Relations Committee on May 20, 2008 abandons the claim entirely."

The largest possible number of detainees who could have "returned to the fight" is 12; however, the Department of Defense has no system for tracking the whereabouts of released detainees. The only one who has undisputedly taken up arms against the United States or its allies, "ISN 220," was released by political officers of the DoD against the recommendations of military officers.

Scalia bolstered his hysterical claim that the Boumediene decision "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed" with stale information that was proven to be false one year ago. Professor Mark Denbeaux, director of the Seton Hall Center, said, Scalia "was relying uncritically on information that originated with a party in the case before him."

The Supreme Court decided in a 5-4 decision that the Guantánamo detainees were entitled to file petitions for writ of habeas corpus to challenge their detention. More than 200 men who have been held for up to six years and have never been charged with a crime, will now have their day in court. Many were snatched from their homes, picked up off the street or in airports, or sold to the U.S. military by warlords for bounty.

Scalia, who sits on the highest court in the land, has acted as a loyal foot soldier for the executive branch of government.

This article first appeared at www.marjoriecohn.com.

Retired General: "The Current Administration Has Committed War Crimes"

By Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez, Democracy Now!. Posted June 23, 2008.

Last Tuesday, the Senate Armed Services Committee held an eight-hour hearing that exposed the role of top Bush administration officials in authorizing the use of harsh interrogation techniques. Meanwhile, Retired Major General Antonio Taguba, the Army general who first investigated the abuse at Abu Ghraib, has accused the Bush administration of committing war crimes. "The commander in chief and those under him authorized a systematic regime of torture," Taguba said.

Juan Gonzalez: Retired General Antonio Taguba, who led the U.S. Army's investigation into the Abu Ghraib abuses, has accused the Bush administration of "a systematic regime of torture" and war crimes. Taguba's accusations appear in the preface to a new report released by Physicians for Human Rights. The report uses medical evidence to confirm first-hand accounts of eleven former prisoners who endured torture by U.S. personnel in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay.

Taguba writes, "There is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account."

Amy Goodman: The report was published in the midst of two days of congressional hearings on Capitol Hill. On Tuesday, the Senate Armed Services Committee held an eight-hour hearing that exposed the role of top Bush administration officials in authorizing the use of harsh interrogation techniques. The committee released a series of previously classified documents detailing how the Pentagon and the CIA transformed the military's SERE resistance training program into a blueprint for interrogating terrorist suspects. Committee Chair Senator Carl Levin explained the timeline of implementing the SERE, or Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape, techniques and the role of military psychologists in devising these routines.

Sen. Carl Levin: On October 2, 2002, a week after John Rizzo, the acting CIA general counsel, visited Gitmo, a second senior CIA lawyer, Jonathan Fredman, who was chief counsel to the CIA's Counterterrorism Center, went to Guantanamo, attended a meeting of Gitmo staff and discussed a memo proposing the use of aggressive interrogation techniques. That memo had been drafted by a psychologist and psychiatrist from Gitmo, who a couple of weeks earlier had attended that training given at Fort Bragg by instructors by the SERE school.

While the training -- excuse me, while the memo remains classified, minutes from the meeting where it was discussed are not. Those minutes clearly show that the focus of the discussion was aggressive techniques for use against detainees.

When the Gitmo chief of staff suggested at the meeting that Gitmo "can't do sleep deprivation," Lieutenant Colonel Beaver, Gitmo's senior lawyer, responded, "Yes, we can -- with approval." Lieutenant Beaver added that Gitmo, quote, "may need to curb the harsher operations while the International Committee of the Red Cross is around."

Mr. Fredman, the senior CIA lawyer, suggested that it's, quote, "very effective to identify detainee phobias and to use them" and described for the group the so-called "wet towel" technique, which we know as waterboarding. Mr. Fredman said, quote, "It can feel like you're drowning. The lymphatic system will react as if you're suffocating, but your body will not cease to function," close-quote.

And Mr. Fredman presented the following disturbing perspective of our legal obligations under our anti-torture laws, saying, quote, "It is basically subject to perception. If the detainee dies, you're doing it wrong."

"If the detainee dies, you're doing it wrong." How on earth did we get to the point where a senior U.S. government lawyer would say that whether or not an interrogation technique is torture is, quote, "subject to perception" and that if, quote, "the detainee dies, you're doing it wrong"? The Gitmo senior JAG officer Lieutenant Colonel Beaver's response was: "We will need documentation to protect us."

Juan Gonzalez: The Pentagon's former general counsel William Haynes was repeatedly questioned at Tuesday's hearing about his role in authorizing the interrogation techniques. During two hours of testimony, Haynes responded to dozens of questions by saying he could not recall or remember details about the process of approving the interrogation techniques. Democratic Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island blasted Haynes's role in authorizing torture.

Sen. Jack Reed: You said the Geneva Convention doesn't apply, and they honestly ask, "What does apply?" And the only thing you sent them was: these techniques apply -- no conditions, nothing. So don't go around with this attitude of you're protecting the integrity of the military. You degraded the integrity of the United States military.

Juan Gonzalez: A major McClatchy newspaper series investigating the detention of terrorist suspects names Haynes as one of a group of five lawyers at the White House, Pentagon and Justice Department who called themselves the "War Council" and reinterpreted U.S. and international laws about accountability and the treatment of prisoners. Other members of the War Council included Vice President Cheney's former legal adviser and current chief of staff, David Addington; former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales; former Justice Department lawyer John Yoo; and former deputy to Gonzales, Timothy Flanigan.

MUCH MORE TO READ HERE:  http://www.alternet.org/rights/89141/

The New Surveillance Bill: The Worst of Both Worlds

By Aziz Huq, The Nation. Posted June 21, 2008.

Months of troubled negotiations over new surveillance legislation ended in the House of Representatives today, with the approval of the so-called FISA Amendments Act of 2008. Hailed in some quarters as a "compromise" after the capitulation of the Protect America Act of 2006, the new surveillance bill is nothing of the kind: on core issues of privacy and accountability, there is no compromise, since little in the measure honors those two values.

Since the New York Times's revelation of massive illegal surveillance by the NSA, electronic privacy has been a battlefield for claims of executive power and civil liberties. In 2006, the Administration used the shadow of midterm Congressional elections to stampede both Houses into temporary authorization of sweeping new powers in the Protect America Act (PAA). The measure's grants of new authority had sunset clauses, which expire either immediately before or after the 2008 elections.

The PAA set the scene for another legislative bait-and-switch: On the cusp of national election contests, the Administration rang alarms of crisis, claiming the nation is losing spying capabilities. Legislators inclined to protect civil liberties weighed their exposure to soft-on-security attacks against their allegiance to constitutional values. Either way -- in terms of raw power or partisan advantage -- the Administration and its supporters win.

House Democratic leadership agreed to support the measure -- seemingly out of fear of losing conservative Democrats to an even weaker proposal. But it is the worst of both worlds. It contains just enough of a pretense of accountability to allow the legislators to claim a victory for civil liberties, as it sells out core principles of accountability and privacy.

Begin with accountability. Since the enactment of the PAA, the Administration and its allies have pushed for legislative immunity for the telecommunications companies that aided the NSA's illegal spying from 2001 until 2005. (Those companies are the defendants in multiple suits, presently consolidated before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, challenging their complicity in past illegal wiretapping).

They argue that protection is necessary to ensure future cooperation, even though the telecoms were not deterred by the fact their past actions were clearly in violation of federal law.

In fact, immunity is on the White House front burner for wholly different reasons: pending lawsuits against the telecoms are the best opportunity for the American public to learn what kind of illegal surveillance occurred under Bush's watch, and how existing law against warrantless wiretapping was circumvented. As bad as the telecoms will look, the Administration will look worse as more of its cynical and results-oriented reasoning and contempt for constitutional rights is fully aired.

At first blush, the new bill seems to be a fair compromise. Under Section 802, pending lawsuits are not automatically dismissed. They are not even moved to the secretive FISA court, as an earlier proposal would have done. Rather, the district court in each case is required to dismiss a case provided that a defendant telecom can show that it acted with the "authorization" of the President and also with a certain kind of "written request or directive." The bill then provides an elaborate description of that directive: it can be from the Attorney General, or the head of "an element of the intelligence community" (or from their deputy), and must say simply that the surveillance was determined to be lawful. The bill does not say who must have made this determination.

According to a report in the Washington Post, this provision would give courts "the chance to evaluate whether telecommunications companies deserve retroactive protection from lawsuits." But the provision does nothing of the kind. Rather, the court can only look to see if the defendant has the piece of paper described in the law, and if it does, the court must dismiss the case. By interposing a certification requirement, and directing judicial attention to a piece of paper, the bill fends off judicial scrutiny of what in fact occurred.

And there is every reason to believe that the telecom defendants will have the necessary piece of paper. Indeed, there is every reason to believe that the bill has been carefully written to track the precise piece of paper the telecoms have -- otherwise, why list both the Attorney General and the heads of intelligence community elements? And why include the weird codicil about the deputies of one but not the other?

MORE HERE:   http://www.alternet.org/rights/88973/

Urge Your Senators to Support Landmark Climate Bill

Dear friends,

This week, as the U.S. Senate finally begins debate on comprehensive global warming legislation, the Union of Concerned Scientists released a landmark statement, signed by more than 1,700 prominent U.S. scientists and economists that calls for swift and deep reductions in our nation's global warming pollution.

The Senate bill currently under consideration includes a strong framework for reducing the pollution that causes global warming. However, the bill needs improvements to ensure it will reduce our oil dependence, promote clean energy, and avoid the worst consequences of climate change. Please urge your senators to support amendments that strengthen the bill and oppose attempts to weaken it.

Sincerely,

Kate Abend
National Field Organizer
UCS Climate Program

TAKE ACTION HERE:   http://ucsaction.org/campaign/6_2_08_climate_bill?rk=Hdw%5f%2dIFq3NqUE

Subject: Support and Strengthen Climate Security Act (S. 3036)

Dear Senator,

As the Senate begins debate on the landmark Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 3036), more than 1,700 U.S. scientists and economists have released a statement calling on policy makers to protect against dangerous warming by ensuring U.S. emission reductions on the order of 15 to 20 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050.

The Climate Security Act is a strong, comprehensive bill that takes the kind of actions called for in this letter and establishes a good framework for reducing the pollution that causes global warming.

To ensure the bill is strong enough to be effective, please support any efforts to strengthen the bill by:

• establishing a mechanism for rapid adjustment of the bill's targets and timetables if emerging science shows that we are not on track to avoid dangerous warming, using the long-term 80 percent target called for by scientists and economists as a starting point;
• adding a renewable electricity standard requiring utilities to obtain 20 percent of their power from clean, renewable energy sources-like the wind and sun-by 2020 and shifting allowance revenues from polluters to energy efficiency and renewable energy programs; and
• increasing funding for international forest protection, which is needed to support tropical nations in reducing their emissions.

In addition, please oppose weakening amendments. For instance:

• The bill should not include a "safety-valve" that would stall emission reductions when carbon prices exceed a threshold level and discourage investments in clean energy solutions. 
• The bill should not preempt states from implementing stronger global warming, vehicles, and energy policies that go beyond the targets created in this bill.
• Coal and nuclear power should not be given any further subsidies as they already receive substantial benefits under this bill.

Please help pass a strong global warming bill that will protect our children from dangerous climate change and set us on the path to a stronger, cleaner energy.

PLEASE TAKE ACTION HERE:   http://ucsaction.org/campaign/6_2_08_climate_bill?rk=Hdw%5f%2dIFq3NqUE

McCain on Iraq's Human Toll: "That's Not Too Important"

By Laila Al-Arian, Huffington Post. Posted June 12, 2008.

Sen. John McCain was asked in an interview yesterday when U.S. forces should begin withdrawing from Iraq. "That's not too important," McCain responded dismissively. "What's important is the casualties in Iraq," he continued, referring to the more than 4,000 American troops killed since the invasion. While the Republican nominee has said he would maintain the U.S. occupation of Iraq for 100 years if necessary, he now seeks to soothe a war-weary American public by pledging to keep U.S. casualties at a minimum if he becomes commander-in-chief.

In an interview with David Letterman last April, McCain conceded that the Iraqi death toll was "in the hundreds of thousands." In fact, according to a survey by the well-regarded British polling agency, Opinion Research Business, more than 1 million Iraqi civilians have been killed since the occupation began, a figure significantly higher than previously reported. Even after acknowledging the horrendous toll the occupation has exacted on Iraqi civil society, McCain insists that withdrawal is "not too important." The only factor that McCain deems worthy of concern is American military casualties -- and even the prospect of more dead troops has not deterred him from his war cheerleading.

The impact of the occupation on Iraqi society is a subject that has been overlooked by not only McCain, but by most of his peers as well. The topic of US atrocities against Iraqi civilians is too sensitive, meanwhile, for the mainstream American media to touch. Thus essential questions remain largely unexamined: What do ordinary Iraqis whose lives have been upended by the violence of the occupation want? Do they want American soldiers to remain garrisoned in their cities, indiscriminately raiding their homes, and manning dangerous checkpoints in their neighborhoods? Perhaps the withdrawal of our troops from their country is important, after all.

Six months ago, veteran war reporter Chris Hedges and I embarked on an intensive project to answer these questions. We wanted to document and reveal the ugly, under-acknowledged underbelly of the occupation. To do this, we interviewed more than 50 Iraq war combat veterans on the record about their experiences with Iraqi civilians. Many of them described witnessing, and even participating in, atrocities against unarmed Iraqis. Chris and I discovered that war crimes against Iraqi non-combatants have been far more widespread than is commonly known.

We reported our findings in a new book, Collateral Damage: America's War Against Iraqi Civilians. Our sources comprised the largest number of named eyewitnesses from within the U.S. military to have spoken on the record. In vivid detail, they revealed to us that the U.S. military is not the stabilizing force politicians like McCain have insisted it is. The Iraqis they encountered came to see our military as simply another armed group among many beating a path of bloodshed and misery everywhere it goes to advance its own narrow mission.

MORE HERE:  http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/88008/

The Internet is the last true unregulated outpost of freedom of speech but moves are afoot to stifle, suffocate, control and eventually pull the plug on the world wide web as we know it. These threats are not hidden nor are they hard to deduce and yet a significant number of Internet users remain naive as to their scope.

Despite many questioning the authenticity of a report that claimed ISP's had resolved to restrict the Internet to a TV-like subscription model where users will be forced to pay to visit selected corporate websites by 2012, while others will be blocked, the march towards regulation of the web is clear and documented.

We have been warning about the plan to let the old Internet die and replace it with a restricted and controlled Internet 2 for years. In 2006, we published an article about how the RIAA were attempting to broaden intellectual property distinctions to a point whereby merely linking to external content is judged as copyright infringement.

At the time, the article was met with a mixed response. Many were aware of the imminent dangers that threaten to change the face of the Internet but others were more hostile to the supposition that the world wide web could be devastated by landmark copyright case rulings as well as plans to develop "Internet 2."

Some accused us of yellow journalism and scaremongering yet the warning that the Elektra vs. Barker case could criminalize the very mechanism that characterizes the Internet was not concocted by Alex Jones or Paul Joseph Watson, it was a statement made by the very lawyer fighting the case, Ray Beckerman.

It was a danger also reported on by one of the UK's biggest technology news websites, the Inquirer, which also highlighted the frightening development in an article entitled, RIAA wants the Internet shut down.

MIAMI — From “Scarface” to “Miami Vice,” Florida’s drug problem has been portrayed as the story of a single narcotic: cocaine. But for Floridians, prescription drugs are increasingly a far more lethal habit.

An analysis of autopsies in 2007 released this week by the Florida Medical Examiners Commission found that the rate of deaths caused by prescription drugs was three times the rate of deaths caused by all illicit drugs combined.

Law enforcement officials said that the shift toward prescription-drug abuse, which began here about eight years ago, showed no sign of letting up and that the state must do more to control it.

“You have health care providers involved, you have doctor shoppers, and then there are crimes like robbing drug shipments,” said Jeff Beasley, a drug intelligence inspector for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, which co-sponsored the study. “There is a multitude of ways to get these drugs, and that’s what makes things complicated.”

The report’s findings track with similar studies by the federal Drug Enforcement Administration, which has found that roughly seven million Americans are abusing prescription drugs. If accurate, that would be an increase of 80 percent in six years and more than the total abusing cocaine, heroin, hallucinogens, Ecstasy and inhalants.

The Florida report analyzed 168,900 deaths statewide. Cocaine, heroin and all methamphetamines caused 989 deaths, it found, while legal opioids — strong painkillers in brand-name drugs like Vicodin and OxyContin — caused 2,328.

Drugs with benzodiazepine, mainly depressants like Valium and Xanax, led to 743 deaths. Alcohol was the most commonly occurring drug, appearing in the bodies of 4,179 of the dead and judged the cause of death of 466 — fewer than cocaine (843) but more than methamphetamine (25) and marijuana (0).

The study also found that while the number of people who died with heroin in their bodies increased 14 percent in 2007, to 110, deaths related to the opioid oxycodone increased 36 percent, to 1,253.

Florida scrutinizes drug-related deaths more closely than do other states, and so there is little basis for comparison with them.

It has also witnessed several highly publicized cases in recent years that have highlighted the problem. Only last year, an accidental prescription drug overdose killed Anna Nicole Smith in Broward County.

Still, the state has lagged in enforcement. Thirty-eight other states have approved prescription drug monitoring programs that track sales. Florida lawmakers have repeatedly considered similar legislation, but privacy concerns have kept it from passing.

As a result, federal, state and local law enforcement officials say, Florida has become a source of prescription drugs that are illegally sold across the country.

“The monitoring plan is our priority effort, but that is not enough,” William H. Janes, the Florida director of drug control, said in a statement accompanying the study. He said Florida was also looking at ways to curb illegal Internet sales and to encourage doctors and pharmacists to identify potential abusers.

Some local police departments have taken a more novel approach.

In Broward County on May 31, deputies completed a “drug takeback” in which $5 Wal-Mart, CVS or Walgreens gift cards were distributed to 150 people who cleaned out their medicine cabinets and turned in unused drugs in an effort to keep them out of young people’s hands.

“The abuse has reached epidemic proportions,” said Lisa McElhaney, a sergeant in the pharmaceutical drug diversion unit of the Broward County Sheriff’s Office. “It’s just explosive.”

Link to story: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/14/us/14florida.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss 

The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder By Vincent Bugliosi, Vanguard Press Why do so many in the liberal media simply move on to another topic after stating that Bush took the nation to

The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder

By Vincent Bugliosi, Vanguard Press. Posted May 24, 2008.

The following is an excerpt from Vincent Bugliosi's new book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder.

With respect to the position I take about the crimes of George Bush, I want to state at the outset that my motivation is not political. Although I've been a longtime Democrat (primarily because, unless there is some very compelling reason to be otherwise, I am always for "the little guy"), my political orientation is not rigid. For instance, I supported John McCain's run for the presidency in 2000. More to the point, whether I'm giving a final summation to the jury or writing one of my true crime books, credibility has always meant everything to me. Therefore, my only master and my only mistress are the facts and objectivity. I have no others. This is why I can give you, the reader, a 100 percent guarantee that if a Democratic president had done what Bush did, I would be writing the same, identical piece you are about to read.

Perhaps the most amazing thing to me about the belief of many that George Bush lied to the American public in starting his war with Iraq is that the liberal columnists who have accused him of doing this merely make this point, and then go on to the next paragraph in their columns. Only very infrequently does a columnist add that because of it Bush should be impeached. If the charges are true, of course Bush should have been impeached, convicted, and removed from office. That's almost too self-evident to state. But he deserves much more than impeachment. I mean, in America, we apparently impeach presidents for having consensual sex outside of marriage and trying to cover it up. If we impeach presidents for that, then if the president takes the country to war on a lie where thousands of American soldiers die horrible, violent deaths and over 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians, including women and children, even babies are killed, the punishment obviously has to be much, much more severe. That's just common sense. If Bush were impeached, convicted in the Senate, and removed from office, he'd still be a free man, still be able to wake up in the morning with his cup of coffee and freshly squeezed orange juice and read the morning paper, still travel widely and lead a life of privilege, still belong to his country club and get standing ovations whenever he chose to speak to the Republican faithful. This, for being responsible for over 100,000 horrible deaths?* For anyone interested in true justice, impeachment alone would be a joke for what Bush did.

MORE ARTICLE HERE:  [MUST READ]   http://www.alternet.org/rights/86232/

Please consider taking action on these issues.