I heard about an event at my local bookstore [Robin’s Books] about The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office, a newish book by journalist Dave Lindorff and lawyer for the Center for Constitutional Rights Barbara Olshansky. It very much piqued my interest and as an added bonus, it was to be filmed for C-SPAN’s BookTV [geeked out]. The following is my recount of the nearly two hour talk and discussion with the authors from last night’s event. There were lots of things I was already aware of, but there were plenty of new things learned. Above is a shot of the book which you can find at your local bookseller or by copying and pasting the title into the book searches down on the left pane of this site. And if the title, subject matter and existence of this book is news to you, well, you’re not alone as not a single major publication has reviewed it. If they’re coming to a town near you, I very much recommend heading over to listen in. Pictured above is Lindorff before the talk, unfortunately, I didn’t get any good shots with Olshansky to include in this report.
Larry Robin [the owner of Robin’s] got up to speak for a bit and introduce the two speakers. He told the crowd of forty-five or so that this was the 60th Anniversary of Robin’s Books being open in Philly. Taking a look at the history page of their website, I read that the original store, opened by his grandfather David, was at 21 N. 11th St, just a few blocks from the current site on 13th and Sansom Sts. He handed off to Dave who went straight into the book.
Dave started off by saying that originally, the book was only supposed to be 60K words [he said that was a short book], but as they were writing, events kept on happening and the book ended up having several chapters added on to it and now weighs in at 288 pages. He explained to the crowd some similarities between the current state of affairs here in American and 1930s Germany. A fire in the Reichstag in 1933 prompted Hitler to ask for and receive dictatorial powers. Here in the U.S., after several sites are hit by hijacked planes, BushCo unraveled a shitstorm on the American public grabbing anything that wasn’t bolted down and if it was bolted down, they put a wire on it just in case. Then Hitler went and invaded Poland in 1939 [67th Anniversary on September 1st] without any warning or declaration of war. A few years ago BushCo started drawing up plans to invade Iraq and roll through there and make Dubya a war hero. We invaded, unprovoked and without declaring war, Iraq. Then Dave went into some of the impeachable offenses this president has committed.
Crime against peace – Article 6(a) of the Nuremberg Charter. We attacked a country with no provocation or threat. It doesn’t matter what we thought or perceived, there was no actual threat nor provocation as we’ve found out after destroying cities all over Iraq.
Conspiracy to enter into a crime against peace – Article 6(a) as well. The doctored documents laundered through British agencies claiming the purchase of yellowcake via Niger.
The concerted efforts to obstruct the investigation of the bi-partisan 9/11 tribunal.
The outing of an undercover C.I.A. agent with Valerie Plame. Sources of the leak point directly to the top. And those sources can easily be served with a subpoena by a Judiciary Committee, Lindorff explained that it is harder to bring them in front of a judge in a normal trial proceeding; subpoena power’s a bitch yo.
The warrantless NSA wiretapping/spying violates the a federal statute dealing with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the Fourth Amendment which states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The usage of signing statements effectively making Congress a vestigial branch of government and broadening the powers of the executive branch, part of expanding upon the unitary executive. John Dean wrote a wonderful column on Dubya’s use of signing statements here.
Criminal negligence: see Hurricane Katrina.
The refusal to accept the global warming models put forth by every single scientists worth their weight in Bunsen burners agrees that it is real and it is a problem that we must deal with. But it’s not just the issues within our borders. This administration has tthreatened [and followed through on?] trade sanctions against nations signing onto the Kyoto Protocol.
Lindorff handed off the to Olshansky who got right into the history of impeachment. She said that impeachment dates back to Great Britain defending itself against the monarchy and was intended as a sort of balance of power. The “injuries” incurred are always political. The only two impeachments in American history have been highly partisan/political affairs with Andrew Johnson impeached over the president’s powers over Cabinet members and Bill Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice [Nixon would’ve been impeached, but took the easy way out and resigned].
Olshansky is a lawyer representing Guantánamo Bay detainees most notably Jose Padilla. She told of how the CCR was contacted by people who had friends and relatives disappear without a trace. Faceless officers supplying only a first name came by at all hours removing what would later be termed as “enemy combatants” seemingly at will. The CCR went door to door contacting various police precincts to see if they had the people in their custody. Then it went up the ranks to the C.I.A. and the F.B.I. and nadda. Then they started going to jails and prisons in search for the people and after three months, they got lucky and found one person. That person had no idea why he was imprisoned. He had not spoken to an attorney. He had not known that people were actively looking for him for three months. After that, the CCR filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests in conjunction with the A.C.L.U. to see how many people were plucked from their daily lives, their race, their ethnicity, if their consulates had been informed… Then Attorney General John Ashcroft [the one with the lovely singing voice] basically did away with FOIA during this War on Terror, pesky people wanting to know what the government was up to.
The CCR found more detainees by word of mouth. Inmates finding other inmates. Telling their lawyers. Getting more lawyers. Finding more inmates… The CCR found that people were held in solitary confinement all across the U.S., shackled, strip searched every time they entered and left their cells, consulates were either not informed or lied to, guards were ordered to lie to people inquiring about said inmates. The CCR was asking for Article 5 (of the Geneva Conventions) battlefield hearings for these people. With a battlefield tribunal, the detainee’s status would be determined – whether they were actively fighting for the enemy, whether they were a rogue fighter or if they were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Instead, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales dismisses the Geneva Conventions. With the U.S. no longer abiding by the Geneva Conventions, they didn’t commit human rights violations, woohoo!
Olshansky told us of Camp Iguana. A section of Guantánamo Bay holding juvenile enemy combatants. She said that there were kids there as young as seven years old. What the hell are we doing taking in seven year olds? If they’re there long enough, once Camp Iguana detainees reach sixteen, they’re transferred to the larger Guantánamo population. She also reminded us that the administration has no definite definition of “enemy combatant” and they won’t do so enabling them to basically take whomever they want whenever they want wherever they want.
During the Q&A sesssion, it was revealed that this book, which has sold over 30,000 copies since it was published in May 2006, has not been reviewed by a single major publication. Lindorff agreed that there was a reluctance by the media to cover this topic.
One question was raised about the recent suicides at Guantánamo. Olshansky answered the question starting off by telling the crowd that she was the person who was to be representing one of them. A technicality of incorrect name spelling had prevented her from ever meeting with the detainee. Had she had a chance to meet with him, she would’ve been able to tell him that he’d be freed very soon – three days after he committed suicide.
Lindorff spoke about how a recent Zogby poll revealed that 80% of Democrats polled believed that the president should be impeached. This poll has not been reported on by the MSM or anywhere that I’ve seen. He noted how Karl Rove took the news of rising amounts of Americans seemingly in favor of impeachment – he said that it would be great for Republicans come election time as the base would be motivated and get out to the polls. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (CA-05) took the bait and stopped talking impeachment not wanting to engage the base of the Right. Lindorff chastised the move and asked why the Democratic leadership doesn’t ignite its base [which I think is the correct move and the only move that will save the party].
The 94% white crowd [three out of about forty-five, this is a problem] listened intentively for almost two hours before the signing of the books began. Lady and I jetted stepping over camera wires down the stairs. We were both very glad we went. No idea when this will be on BookTV.
the post is cut off Alberto. Missing some text-yo.
righto, dunno what happened. just fixed it all.
Thanks for the valuable (tho truncated) heads up. I looked at the Cspan site, but a search for Lindorff turned up nothing. I hope it’s just too early to announce, not self-censorship.
people asked the camera operators when this would be on, they didn’t know. i guess it takes a couple days to schedule it in?
[truncated corrected, sorry dunno what happened]
Nice writing Albert! Where’s the rest of it? I’m waiting…
Great job covering the book (I’ll be on the lookout for it) and the event and the issues.
Let’s include a possible criminal conspiracy to cover up what actually happened on 9/11, the “precipitating event” leading up to the Bush Regime’s takeover and systematic dismantling of democracy as we know it.
And yesterday on KPFK they were talking about legislation the WH introduced that would basically set judicial procedures dealing with prisoners of war back 400 years to the Salem witch hunts or even 500 years to something akin to the Spanish Inquisition. People could be convicted in absentia based on evidence obtained while being tortured, and that includes anyone denounced by someone being tortured.
WTF? Where do they get off? Where?
thanks! i had a wonderful time. they’re both very thoughtful people.
and once again, sorry about the truncating, dunno what happened
Happens to tbe best of us. I went back and read the rest. All good stuff.
I just can’t think of anything bad enough to punish Bush for what he has done to this country, to Iraq, and to the planet. Impeachment would be a good start, but if there’s a special hell where they sent Hitler, I hope they’ll send Bush there, too.
Hitler did come up a couple times during the talk, not necessarily in regards to the atrocities committed, but the manner in which dictatorial powers were being used and how nowadays in the US, it’s actually easier to do so.
Yes, yes, Goodwin’s Law, but they bring up Hitler very seriously and not arbitrarily throwing around comparisons.
I can’t remember who it was during the “run up to the war,” but someone was already making the comparison between Bush and Hitler tactics for taking over a country and turning it into a dictatorship. Someone fairly well-known, progressive of course, I heard it on KPFK. This was back in February of 2003.
I looked at the publisher’s site (st martin’s) but couldn’t find anything about author tours. Anybody know about a schedule or where to look for one?
I think this book, with its apparently rational, realistic case for impeachment, could provide the spark to begin serious discussion of impeachment in at least some political campaigns. I think the negative to such a strategy is not the anger it would arouse on the wackjob right, but the reluctance of the “middle” to go through the impeachment trauma again. In that respect, the Clinton impeachment farce was brilliant preemption.
Nonetheless, this book gives us the hook to put impeachment in the middle of the political debate. I wonder what would happen if the Green guy in PA made it the main platform of his campaign? Sure would be fun to watch both his opponents squirm.
I have no idea as to a full tour schedule. I’m hoping that by the time it’s up on BookTV, there will be something on the publisher’s or C-SPAN’s site about further events.
Lindorff hypothesized that Ned Lamont’s campaign is getting so much traction isn’t necessarily because LIEberman has a boner for war, but that so many Dems [80% nationwide] want impeachment and that clip of W kissing LIEberman on the floor of Congress is being played non-stop.
The race here in PA definitely just got more interesting. If the Dems lose, it’s the party’s own damn fault from the top down. I doubt I’ll be giving my time to any candidate.
I believe the general public could be convinced that impeachment is a path worth taking. One need only look at recent history to see that failing to take the necessary actions in the past has led us directly to where we find ourselves today.
Read KagroX’s excellent essays on this topic at The Next Hurrah. That link takes to you Part 1 of a 5-part series.
Democratic leaders don’t want to stir up their base because they are just as likely to be thrown out as their Republican opponents [The Crash of Joementum in CT]. They are Whigs trying to keep their perks and power; ignoring the rebellion in brewing below.
Lindorff talked about how ideologically similar the Dems and Repugs are in regards to industry and war. The only differences being which set of friends get the perks when either party is in office. With BushCo, Halliburton’s stock goes up a billion percent. With Dems in office, trial lawyers get the windfall.
He said that the only real motivation to get into office is to reward those friends and to do so, they may just get their act together and agree on something if only to oust the Repugs from office to make their friends, and in turn themselves, richer – not for ideological reasons.
Wasn’t this reviewed somewhere on TV when it first came out in May? I seem to recall this not being the first time I’ve seen reference to it.
But thanks very much for bringing it up and attending for us. Great work here everywhere I look.
I don’t recall hearing about it when it first came out. I’m not the biggest reader though, so I could’ve easily missed it. But both authors and a couple audience members noted that it hadn’t been reviewed by a major publication to date. Perhaps you’re confusing what you saw with another book?
And thank you! I’ve been in a bit of a rut lately. Brain’s fried. The near 100° heat here in Philly ain’t helping a bit either.