Vermont Town Seeks Bush, Cheney Arrests

[ViolaLee]

Vermont Town Seeks Bush, Cheney Arrests
By DAVE GRAM – 8 hours ago

MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) — President Bush may soon have a new reason to avoid left-leaning Vermont: In one town, activists want him subject to arrest for war crimes.

A group in Brattleboro is petitioning to put an item on a town meeting agenda in March that would make Bush and Vice President Cheney subject to arrest and indictment if they visit the southeastern Vermont community.

"This petition is as radical as the Declaration of Independence, and it draws on that tradition in claiming a universal jurisdiction when governments fail to do what they're supposed to do," said Kurt Daims, 54, a retired machinist leading the drive.

As president, Bush has visited every state except Vermont.

The town meeting, an annual exercise in which residents gather to vote on everything from fire department budgets to municipal policy, requires about 1,000 signatures to place a binding item on the agenda.

The measure asks: "Shall the Selectboard instruct the Town Attorney to draft indictments against President Bush and Vice President Cheney for crimes against our Constitution, and publish said indictment for consideration by other municipalities?"

The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment Friday. The press office did not immediately respond to an e-mail.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g7elze7lqKFMbYm3sgvVDdidqjQgD8TQN2I00

If the weather were better, I'd love to live in Vermont!

New England is so radical and cool. I love it.

[Kyi Yo]

Kudos Montpelier! This administration isn't going to respond. They're frantically on the phone trying to get one of the GOP'rs who owe them a favor to lead an attack. Or maybe we'll get to see another two week debate in Congress over a stupid resolution condemning Montpelier. Our tax dollars at "work". Yeah, lovely sight that was.

[AlanC]

What is going to happen is exactly nothing. No one will pay any attention to this because it is yet another meaningless pissing in the wind moment. It will get the response it deserves.

[jafar00]

Another fine moment in the history of Democracy. More power to them :)

[BoogyMan]

Another fools errand by the symbolism over substance crowd in Vermont.

[December]

Sooner or later there WILL be a trial of Zionist America.

Today we collect the evidence of the crimes commited by the American Zionists.
Tomorow they will answer for everything they did.

[Pookie]

Zionists?
I'm a liberal, and this is MY s**t?
How dare you. You have just now insulted me and God help you if you do it again. Take a nice negative rep for that poo.
Back to the topic, they won't get anywhere and not only that, but they will look like fools.
December, what crimes from Zionists? Please elaborate. It would be helpful.
Pookie

[December]

Zionists?
December, what crimes from Zionists? Please elaborate. It would be helpful.

Research the files of UN - www.un.org and read www.rense.com just to begin. :)
In 2001 the world conference in South Africa condemned Zionism and compared it to Nazism.

On 10 November 1975, the General Assembly adopted resolution 3379 (XXX), which “determine(d) that zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination”.

[Trish]

Ah, yes. The lovely State of Vermont. So nice to see that its citizens have their priorities in the proper order. Freedom for convicted child molestors and charging the President and Vice-President with war crimes. Yep....those folks certainly have the right take on things.

[December]

Ah, yes. The lovely State of Vermont. So nice to see that its citizens have their priorities in the proper order. Freedom for convicted child molestors and charging the President and Vice-President with war crimes. Yep....those folks certainly have the right take on things.


Translation of what Trish said:

1. The Citizens of Vermont are full of sh*t and must shot up or else.
2. God bless George W. Bush and the war on terror.


Bush's Crimes

Since George W. Bush came to power, he has systematically flouted international agreements that the US had previously signed up to.

While previous US administrations might not be able to claim much better records, it is clear that Bush is not even making an attempt to stick to these numerous treaties, laws and obligations.


Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol 1)
Adopted on 8 June 1977 by the Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law applicable in Armed Conflicts; entered into force 7 December 1979

Article 35 paragraph 3
It is prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment.

Article 51 paragraphs 1, 2, 4 and 5 (excerpts)
The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations.

[C]ivilians shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.

Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited, [including an] attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.


Charter of the United Nations
Signed June 26, 1945; came into force October 24, 1945

Article 2 paragraph 3
All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

Article 2 paragraph 4
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 other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Article 92
The International Court of Justice shall be the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. It shall function in accordance with the annexed Statute, which is based upon the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice and forms and integral part of the present Charter.

Article 93 paragraph 1
All Members of the United Nations are ipso facto parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice.

Article 96 paragraph 1
The General Assembly or the Security Council may request the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on any legal question.

READ MORE -
http://www.motherearth.org/bushwanted/laws.php

http://www.motherearth.org/bushwanted/wanted_en.gif

[ViolaLee]

Trish, I don't think you can compare one judge to the people of a town.

But then again, you're pretending to be a Democrat, so I guess you can make that stretch.

Credibility is hard to come by once it's lost.

[apdst]

The charges are, what? Exactly. The lack of actual charges seems to be the downfall of every one of these Liberal Manifestos.

[Trish]

Ah, yes. The lovely State of Vermont. So nice to see that its citizens have their priorities in the proper order. Freedom for convicted child molestors and charging the President and Vice-President with war crimes. Yep....those folks certainly have the right take on things.


Translation of what Trish said:

1. The Citizens of Vermont are full of sh*t and must shot up or else.
2. God bless George W. Bush and the war on terror.




In order to offer a translation one has to actually be able to speak the language being translated. You and I do not speak the same language politically.


Trish, I don't think you can compare one judge to the people of a town.

But then again, you're pretending to be a Democrat, so I guess you can make that stretch.

Credibility is hard to come by once it's lost.


My, my Viola, you certainly seem bereft of the Christmas spirit this week!

First of all, although I certainly had Judge Cashman in mind when I made my earlier post, he was not the only one to come to mind. I also was referring to Judge Jerome Niedermeier and others. Specifically, I was referring to the bleeding-heart feel sorry for the sex offender mentality that seems so prevalent in Vermont. I quote Mark Hulett's attorney regarding Judge Cashman's sentence of his client: "Mark Kaplan, Hulett's lawyer, argued that the sentence, which included a long period of probation and parole, is in line with other sentences given out by Vermont courts..." http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-01-26-judge-assault_x.htm Mr. Kaplan is of course referring to the infamous 60-day prison sentence Judge Cashman gave a convicted serial child rapist. Please take note, "..the sentence, which included a long period of probation and parole, is in line with other sentences given out by Vermont courts..." The plural use of sentences and courts would certainly indicate a pattern, a mind-set, a tendency and not something that was a one-time, one-judge incident. Hence, my snide little comment about the priorities of Vermont citizens.

I do not pretend to be anything other than I am. I am a registered Democrat and have been for more years than I care to count as I'm getting rather long in the tooth. I am proud to be a Democrat and have no plans to change my political affiliation. Being a proud Democrat however does not make me blind, deaf, and dumb to what happens around me. Nor does it equate with me having no damn common sense. It also doesn't mean that I have to follow someone else's beliefs, assume their political positions simply because they are also Democrat.

I think it was lily who posted a few weeks back that in her opinion impeaching Bush and Cheney would be a stupid move. She was right. This town-hall crap in Vermont is equally stupid. Both would HURT the Democrats more than it would hurt the Republicans or Bush and Cheney. What's the use of making a stand on principle when that very stand helps ensure the continuation of exactly the thing you're taking a stand against? A good dose of plain common sense would go a long way in Vermont.

People, regardless of political affiliation, should be able to think for themselves and not blindly swallow what is fed to them or play follow the leader simply because of a party line. Being a Democrat or a liberal doesn't make one infallible nor does it automatically impart credibility. Credibility is determined by a person's character, not their political affiliation. I'm sorry you don't seem to understand that.

[ViolaLee]

People who believe that Bush and Cheney should be impeached are not blindly swallowing or playing follow the leader. We believe they should be impeached because they are criminals who are ruining our country and violating the constitution in many ways.

I've been reading your posts for months now and I've never seen you post anything close to the Democratic ideals. Your posts are always siding with Republicans against Democrats or with big war machine corporations against gang rape victims or like here, for Bush and Cheney against a town in Vermont just because a judge in Vermont, in a totally unconnected trial, let a criminal go free......You bring up something that has nothing to do with this topic, just to put down Vermont because they want justice for our country.

Sorry, but that's what I see.

[ECW]

I do not pretend to be anything other than I am. I am a registered Democrat and have been for more years than I care to count as I'm getting rather long in the tooth. I am proud to be a Democrat and have no plans to change my political affiliation. Being a proud Democrat however does not make me blind, deaf, and dumb to what happens around me. Nor does it equate with me having no damn common sense. It also doesn't mean that I have to follow someone else's beliefs, assume their political positions simply because they are also Democrat.

True. You don't have to follow anyone else's beliefs simply because they are a Democrat. THAT much we have seen from you. Yet to imply that those who disagree with you lack common sense because they disagree with you smells of something else that we usually associate with those on the other side of the aisle. There is a lack of basic respect for those differences that we all cherish and it fits what Hillary said a while back after one of the debates that some of this mudslinging "comes right from the Republican playbook."

I think it was lily who posted a few weeks back that in her opinion impeaching Bush and Cheney would be a stupid move. She was right. This town-hall crap in Vermont is equally stupid. Both would HURT the Democrats more than it would hurt the Republicans or Bush and Cheney. What's the use of making a stand on principle when that very stand helps ensure the continuation of exactly the thing you're taking a stand against? A good dose of plain common sense would go a long way in Vermont.

So, speaking out against the massive abuse of power, legal principles and illegal actions that this administration has engaged in means that the people of Vermont have lost their common sense, in your opinion? OMG! The people of Vermont seem to be the only ones WITH any common sense. If you are not outraged at the countless abuses that these people have perpetrated and perpetuated against the body politic then you may not be paying close enough attention. For someone such as yourself to come on these boards and state point blank that you have never seen George Bush lie speaks volumes to the issue of common sense.

People, regardless of political affiliation, should be able to think for themselves and not blindly swallow what is fed to them or play follow the leader simply because of a party line. Being a Democrat or a liberal doesn't make one infallible nor does it automatically impart credibility. Credibility is determined by a person's character, not their political affiliation. I'm sorry you don't seem to understand that.

We understand it perfectly. Conversely, speaking out on an issue that you do not think should be discussed does not automatically mean they have lost their mental facilities, as you have implied on numerous occasions. Bringing facts and citations to an argument gives one credibility. From what I have seen, the people of Vermont have done that. The opinion you hold that calling for impeachment is not politically expedient or plausible might appear to the people of Vermont as lacking in common sense as well.


People who believe that Bush and Cheney should be impeached are not blindly swallowing or playing follow the leader. We believe they should be impeached because they are criminals who are ruining our country and violating the constitution in many ways.

From what I recall, the "leaders" of the Democratic party have taken impeachment off the table so that charge is bogus on it's face. This charge comes from the rank and file, NOT the leadership.

I've been reading your posts for months now and I've never seen you post anything close to the Democratic ideals. Your posts are always siding with Republicans against Democrats or with big war machine corporations against gang rape victims or like here, for Bush and Cheney against a town in Vermont just because a judge in Vermont, in a totally unconnected trial, let a criminal go free......You bring up something that has nothing to do with this topic, just to put down Vermont because they want justice for our country.

Sorry, but that's what I see.


I've seen an impassioned defense of Rush Limbaugh completely out of proportion to one's so-called political affiliation despite evidence that clearly implicates him in some of the lowest demagoguery in the last two decades in addition to the other damnations listed. I've seen personal attacks and smears. I've seen allegations of "braying" and other such accusations that Democrats have never made to other Democrats no matter what the situation.

Impeachment is a justifiable legal process that the people of Vermont ought to be allowed to call for if they see fit. Were you this vocal, Trish, in Bill Clinton's defense against impeachment and did you accuse the Republicans of having no common sense when they broached the subject nine or so years ago? I wonder...

[Trish]

People who believe that Bush and Cheney should be impeached are not blindly swallowing or playing follow the leader. We believe they should be impeached because they are criminals who are ruining our country and violating the constitution in many ways.

I've been reading your posts for months now and I've never seen you post anything close to the Democratic ideals. Your posts are always siding with Republicans against Democrats or with big war machine corporations against gang rape victims or like here, for Bush and Cheney against a town in Vermont just because a judge in Vermont, in a totally unconnected trial, let a criminal go free......You bring up something that has nothing to do with this topic, just to put down Vermont because they want justice for our country.

Sorry, but that's what I see.


Impeachment is a very serious action and well it should be. I did not agree with the Clinton impeachment and I do not agree with the call for Bush and Cheny to be impeached. Impeachment, in my opinion, should be reserved as a last ditch measure in the most egregious situations. If impeachment is used too often, or even if the threat is used too often, it loses its power. Even the threat of impeachment should carry weight - and used at the drop of the hat it becomes simply one more slap on the wrist and ceases to mean anything.

When I first joined this forum I included in my intro the fact that on some issues I am ultra conservative, and in other issues I am ultra liberal. It was a true statement and hasn't changed. If you have not read any of my posts that "live up to Democratic ideals" then you haven't read all my posts. Or perhaps because my position does live up to those ideals, they are unremarkable. I will give you an example of one issue where my beliefs and opinions are right down the middle of the "Democratic ideals" - reproductive rights. In any matter dealing with reproductive rights you will find me solidly lined up on the Pro Choice side.

As for me siding with "with big war machine corporations against gang rape victims" that has never, and will never happen in this forum or anywhere else. What I DO side with is knowing the facts and giving our system time to work before we summarily impose sentence upon anyone or rushing to condemn someone based solely on what we read in the newspapers. We are a nation of laws. EVERY American citizen is entitled to due process from the lowliest individual to the highest. Simply being accused of wrongdoing is not sufficient, or should not be sufficient, to decide a person's fate. And that belief is front and center of the Democratic ideal - the American ideal.

Regarding your statement that I am siding with "Bush and Cheney against a town in Vermont just because a judge in Vermont, in a totally unconnected trial, let a criminal go free......You bring up something that has nothing to do with this topic, just to put down Vermont because they want justice for our country" you are looking at the trees and missing the forest. If the citizens of Vermont "want justice" then why do they put the welfare of the most helpless of their citizens at risk by continuing to allow judges like Cashman to sit on the bench? Decisions such as the one rendered by Judge Cashman seem to indicate that this hunger for justice is not all encompassing. It is that mindset to which I referred. Justice for "our country" should include all our citizens - espeically those most vulnerable. If the one is not important enough to warrant outrage and action then how in the world can a person take the other seriously?

[Trish]

I do not pretend to be anything other than I am. I am a registered Democrat and have been for more years than I care to count as I'm getting rather long in the tooth. I am proud to be a Democrat and have no plans to change my political affiliation. Being a proud Democrat however does not make me blind, deaf, and dumb to what happens around me. Nor does it equate with me having no damn common sense. It also doesn't mean that I have to follow someone else's beliefs, assume their political positions simply because they are also Democrat.

True. You don't have to follow anyone else's beliefs simply because they are a Democrat. THAT much we have seen from you. Yet to imply that those who disagree with you lack common sense because they disagree with you smells of something else that we usually associate with those on the other side of the aisle. There is a lack of basic respect for those differences that we all cherish and it fits what Hillary said a while back after one of the debates that some of this mudslinging "comes right from the Republican playbook."

I made no such implication. I implied that they lacked common sense in proposing a measure that will do absolutely nothing to correct the situation they see as a problem, and instead will cause harm to the Democratic Party. And that is an accurate statement of my opinion. Whether Vermont citizens agree with me or not has no bearing on that. As for that basic respect you speak of - why is it that I am not deserving of that respect as the citizens of Vermont? I am told that I am not "credible" because I am "pretending" to be a Democrat. Then you come along and claim to cherish and respect "differences." There is a basic disconnect here - you say one thing and then proceed to do exactly what you decry. If differences in opinion are to be cherished and respected, then by definition of those terms, my opinions should be afforded those considerations by you since those are the opinions which are "different" than yours. Otherwise, you are saying that only the opinions that agree with yours are deserving of being respected and cherished by me (and by extension those who agree with me) while you are not bound by the same parameters.

I think it was lily who posted a few weeks back that in her opinion impeaching Bush and Cheney would be a stupid move. She was right. This town-hall crap in Vermont is equally stupid. Both would HURT the Democrats more than it would hurt the Republicans or Bush and Cheney. What's the use of making a stand on principle when that very stand helps ensure the continuation of exactly the thing you're taking a stand against? A good dose of plain common sense would go a long way in Vermont.

So, speaking out against the massive abuse of power, legal principles and illegal actions that this administration has engaged in means that the people of Vermont have lost their common sense, in your opinion? OMG! The people of Vermont seem to be the only ones WITH any common sense. If you are not outraged at the countless abuses that these people have perpetrated and perpetuated against the body politic then you may not be paying close enough attention. For someone such as yourself to come on these boards and state point blank that you have never seen George Bush lie speaks volumes to the issue of common sense.

Good grief. Alright - I'll play along. Please explain to me how charging Bush and Cheney with war crimes in Vermont will rectify anything? What will be accomplished? Even if 1,000 Montpelier citizens sign the proposition and the charges are indeed filed, exactly what will change? What will be the outcome? Who is going to arrest Bush and Cheney, and under what authority will it occur? If by some incredibly bizarre circumstances, Bush and Cheny were arrested on the charges, just what would be the expected outcome? That they would be tried, convicted and sentenced to serve prison time in Vermont? Please! The proposition is an exercise in futility - a case of spitting in the wind. Depending upon one's point of view, the action may be noble on principle, but as it accomplishes nothing and has no hope of accomplishing or changing a blessed thing, what's the point?

People, regardless of political affiliation, should be able to think for themselves and not blindly swallow what is fed to them or play follow the leader simply because of a party line. Being a Democrat or a liberal doesn't make one infallible nor does it automatically impart credibility. Credibility is determined by a person's character, not their political affiliation. I'm sorry you don't seem to understand that.

We understand it perfectly. Conversely, speaking out on an issue that you do not think should be discussed does not automatically mean they have lost their mental facilities, as you have implied on numerous occasions. Bringing facts and citations to an argument gives one credibility. From what I have seen, the people of Vermont have done that. The opinion you hold that calling for impeachment is not politically expedient or plausible might appear to the people of Vermont as lacking in common sense as well.

You misread both Viola Lee's post and my response. Viola Lee asserted that my "pretense" of being a Democrat invalidated my credibility. My response was that my credibility had nothing to do with my political affiliation but rather my character. Speaking out on issues regardless of my own position on those issues is not germane to the exchange between Viola Lee and myself.


People who believe that Bush and Cheney should be impeached are not blindly swallowing or playing follow the leader. We believe they should be impeached because they are criminals who are ruining our country and violating the constitution in many ways.

From what I recall, the "leaders" of the Democratic party have taken impeachment off the table so that charge is bogus on it's face. This charge comes from the rank and file, NOT the leadership.

[quote=ViolaLee]I've been reading your posts for months now and I've never seen you post anything close to the Democratic ideals. Your posts are always siding with Republicans against Democrats or with big war machine corporations against gang rape victims or like here, for Bush and Cheney against a town in Vermont just because a judge in Vermont, in a totally unconnected trial, let a criminal go free......You bring up something that has nothing to do with this topic, just to put down Vermont because they want justice for our country.

Sorry, but that's what I see.


I've seen an impassioned defense of Rush Limbaugh completely out of proportion to one's so-called political affiliation despite evidence that clearly implicates him in some of the lowest demagoguery in the last two decades in addition to the other damnations listed. I've seen personal attacks and smears. I've seen allegations of "braying" and other such accusations that Democrats have never made to other Democrats no matter what the situation.

Impeachment is a justifiable legal process that the people of Vermont ought to be allowed to call for if they see fit. Were you this vocal, Trish, in Bill Clinton's defense against impeachment and did you accuse the Republicans of having no common sense when they broached the subject nine or so years ago? I wonder...


When have you ever see me defend Limbaugh? The answer is never. I defended a fabricated attack against Limbaugh. I would do the same for anyone. If I'm not mistaken (and I'm not in this instance) I pointed out that I have no regard for Limbaugh, I don't listen to him, I don't give him much thought one way or another. I DO object to him, or any other person being hung, drawn, and quartered in the court of public opinion when the whole matter was a political fabrication.

I will ask you to point out where I have attacked or smeared anyone personally on any thread in this forum. I have questioned and debated points, I have pointed out what I perceive to be errors in debating tactics, I have corrected interpretations, and I have called into question assumptions and conclusions. Nowhere have I ever attacked a single individual or smeared anyone personally. There have been times I have been unclear or muddled in my posts, initially misread a post, or inadvertently left an impression that I did not intend. In those instances, I have apologized and corrected my mistake.

You don't have to wonder any longer. I was indeed as vocal in my opposition to Clinton's impeachment as I am against the calls for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney. At the time and still today, I viewed Clinton's impeachment as a complete waste of time, money, and energy. I believed and continue to believe that Clinton's impeachment did harm to this country rather than any good. The Republicans in my estimation made a grave mistake with the Clinton impeachment. I do not, however, have any citations to back up my opinion or that this is in fact my opinion. You're just going to have to accept my word in this instance - credible or not.

[apdst]

We believe they should be impeached because they are criminals who are ruining our country and violating the constitution in many ways.

You can't impeach someone because you don't like their politics.

[ViolaLee]

It's not about disliking their politics. It's about their constitutional violations. Illegal wiretapping, suspending habeas corpus, torture, lying for war, etc...

You don't need a proven crime to impeach. You only need a vote from the House.

[Trish]

It's not about disliking their politics. It's about their constitutional violations. Illegal wiretapping, suspending habeas corpus, torture, lying for war, etc...

You don't need a proven crime to impeach. You only need a vote from the House.


If there is not evidence of a crime then there is no reason to impeach. Impeachment for government officials is like an indictment from a grand jury for us regular folks. There has to be sufficient evidence that an impeachable crime has been committed for there to be a vote to impeach just as there has to be sufficient evidence presented to a grand jury in order for it to hand down an indictment. Article 2, Section 4 of The Constitution states:

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

Clinton was charged with 4 different "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" originally, but the charges were reduced to 2, perjury and obstruction of justice. After a trial, he was acquitted because the Republican controlled Senate did not have the requisite 2/3 majority to convict.

Even with evidence convicting a President is a tall order. If the Democrats can't get a majority vote for run-of-the-mill legislation what makes you think they could get a majority vote for convicting Bush in an impeachment trial? And what would be the "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" that he would be charged with? [/i]

[Shintao]

And what would be the "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" that he would be charged with? [/i]

Well,....Glad you asked, and this doesn't even begin to warm the pan.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/feb2003/afgh-f12.jpg
http://www.acftv.net/

Some 8,000 Taliban fighters had given themselves up to General Abdul Rashid Dostum’s Northern Alliance, which functioned as a proxy army for the US during the Afghan invasion.

Some 3,000 of them were crammed into private container trucks commandeered by Doshtum’s forces. During a 20-hour drive to the Sheberghan prison, most of these prisoners died from suffocation in the airless containers. Witnesses interviewed in the film described how soldiers fired into the containers when the prisoners screamed for air and water. Others reported seeing blood dripping from the trucks.


Witnesses: US forces present at massacre

Several witnesses recounted that US soldiers were present as the prisoners were loaded into the trucks and also when the container doors were opened at Sheberghan and hundreds of dead bodies spilled out. One soldier said that US troops in charge of the operation told their Afghan allies to “get rid of them [the bodies] before satellite pictures could be taken.”

The final stage of this grisly operation was the transport of the dead and wounded prisoners to a barren stretch of desert 10 minutes up the road, called Dasht-i-Leili, where the bodies were unloaded and several hundred prisoners who were still alive were shot to death. Again, witnesses said US Special Forces troops were present during these executions and when bulldozers pushed the corpses into a mass grave.

http://tinyurl.com/yr5the
January 25, 2002

A 2,000-page report on an internal investigation by the US military leaked to The New York Times and published yesterday provides exhaustive detail on how the two were kept chained in excruciating positions and kicked to death.

The harrowing stories of the deaths of Habibullah and Dilawar told in the report could prove as damaging to the US as the photographs of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib jail in Iraq.
In U.S. Report, Brutal Details of 2 Afghan Inmates' Deaths
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/international/asia/20abuse.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0521-01.htm

Several hours passed before an emergency room doctor finally saw Mr. Dilawar. By then he was dead, his body beginning to stiffen. It would be many months before Army investigators learned a final horrific detail: Most of the interrogators had believed Mr. Dilawar was an innocent man who simply drove his taxi past the American base at the wrong time.

The story of Mr. Dilawar's brutal death at the Bagram Collection Point - and that of another detainee, Habibullah, who died there six days earlier in December 2002 - emerge from a nearly 2,000-page confidential file of the Army's criminal investigation into the case, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times.[hr]If there is not evidence of a crime then there is no reason to impeach.

Lets Refresh: Evidence need ONLY BE circumstantial. And Clinton was investigated for a BJ.

[AlanC]

Lets Refresh: Evidence need ONLY BE circumstantial. And Clinton was investigated for a BJ.

Clinton was investigated and impeached for committing perjury.

[ViolaLee]

Lets Refresh: Evidence need ONLY BE circumstantial. And Clinton was investigated for a BJ.

Clinton was investigated and impeached for committing perjury.


Now all we have to do is get Bush and Cheney under oath.