(Go to our Main Page:ImpeachForPeace.org)

RAWSTORY — A group calling itself “Arrest Bush 2009″ has announced its intention to hold a “Yes We Can Arrest Bush” event in front of the FBI Building in Washington, DC during the Inaugural Parade.

However, coordinator Jose Rodriguez insists, “It’s not a protest; it’s a celebratory event.”

Arrest Bush 2009, which is sponsored by the Washington Peace Center, After Downing Street, and Shoes For Bush, is demanding that Bush be arrested for war crimes and for lying to the American people.

Calls for Bush’s arrest began last March, when two Vermont towns approved a measure “that would instruct police to arrest President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for ‘crimes against our Constitution.’” In September, a large “Arrest Bush/Cheney” banner was hung on a ledge at the National Archives by members of Veterans for Peace.

According to the press release from Arrest Bush 2009, “We call for the arrest of George W. Bush for instigating war against a sovereign nation that posed no threat, wanton attacks on civilian populations, use of torture, and violations of the U.N. Charter. We call for the arrest of George W. Bush for lying to Congress and the American people about the reasons for invading Iraq, for the deaths of US service members and Iraqi civilians, and for the abuse of the United States Constitution.”

Shoes for Bush also plans a separate “shoe hurling action” on January 19 to protest what they anticipate will be Bush’s “unprecedented pardoning of crimes he authorized.” Veterans are encouraged to bring their combat boots to hurl.

During Bush’s second inauguration in January 2005, an estimated 10,000 antiwar protesters showed up in Washington, and there were protests in other cities as well. However, it is not clear how much attention anti-Bush protests will garner on a day when most Americans may simply be glad to see him leaving town.

Original Publication

[Editor's Note: Yet another attempt by Conyers to appear as if he's not ignoring Bush's abuses by putting forward a bill that he knows has no chance of succeeding. He's broken his promise to impeach post-election, don't let him get away with aiding and abetting Bush's crimes.]
RawStory, Andrew McLemore – House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) unveiled a bill on Tuesday that would create a commission to investigate questionable policies of the Bush administration, including torture and wiretapping programs.

Named the National Commission on Presidential War Powers and Civil Liberties, the panel comprise “experts outside government service” who would review the Bush administration’s “claims of unreviewable war powers.”

The panel would have subpoena power and a budget of $3 million.

Talking Points Memo said it “sounds like a great idea,” but asks why the bill has only 10 co-sponsors, including Conyers, and wonders why it has garnered little support so far from Congressional leadership.

“I’d wager that it has a lot to do with the Democratic majority’s desire to turn the page on the Bush years and begin pressing on with an Obama agenda designed to showcase its ability to govern,” the article states.

President-elect Barack Obama has also revealed a plan for investigating President Bush’s alleged abuses of power that has already gained currency in Washington.

Obama’s plan does not rule out prosecution, but delays it until all facts can be ascertained.

Some in the Obama camp feel the commission would amount to “bullshit” and that Bush officials should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

As for Conyers’ attempt to hold Bush accountable, there is a constituency for it in the Senate and among Obama’s team, but it is unclear if that will result in approval.

“Does anybody think that this sleeper bill will get so much as a hearing in any of the three separate committees it’s been referred to?” TPM wrote.

Original Article

A small group of anti-war activists gathered outside the White House Wednesday to show solidarity with the Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at President Bush last weekend.

Members of the theatrical protest brigade Code Pink left several dozen pairs of shoes in front of the White House to represent some of the hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians killed during the war in Iraq, and they called for the release of Muntadar al-Zaidi. It was Bush, they said, who should be in jail.

“It’s not enough to throw a shoe at him, he needs to be hauled before an international court and charged for war crimes,” Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin said.

Continue Reading

RAW STORY


Anti-war protesters plan to gather outside the Department of Justice next week to urge Attorney General Michael Mukasey to indict President Bush and Vice President Cheney on war crimes charges.

The protesters, being organized by The National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance say they are willing to risk going to jail to urge Bush and Cheney’s indictment. The campaign is gathering signatures for a petition to urge Mukasey to meet with them.

The group has worked closely with Code Pink, Iraq Veterans Against the War and others to protest US involvement in Iraq and urge President Bush’s impeachment at myriad demonstrations over the last several years.

The protest at the Justice Department is scheduled for Monday at noon at the department’s headquarters in downtown Washington.

A copy of the group’s petition is reprinted below.

I am writing on behalf of the National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance (NCNR), concerned citizens who tried to prevent the illegal invasion of Iraq. NCNR members would like to meet with you to discuss the indictment of George W. Bush and Richard Cheney for crimes including the fraudulent case for war, warrantless spying, torture, and denial of due process to prisoners.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, appointed by President Truman to be the Chief Prosecutor at the Nuremberg Tribunals following World War II, stated, “let me make clear that while this law is first applied against German aggressors, the law includes, and if it is to serve a useful purpose it must condemn aggression by any other nations, including those which sit here now in judgment.”

There is a well-established law in our jurisprudence which places an affirmative duty on all of us to expose any treasonous or criminal act which comes to our attention. Failure to do so is defined as “misprision.” As good citizens, we are writing to you out of duty, knowing that if felonies have been committed we are to inform a magistrate. Silently to observe the commission of a felony, without endeavoring to apprehend the offender, is a misprision.

Please schedule a meeting with NCNR at your earliest convenience.

(Source)

thewashingtontimes
Fishwrap

House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, Michigan Democrat, threatened to subpoena Karl Rove, former deputy chief of staff for President Bush, if he continues to refuse to testify before Conyers’ committee about the firing of former U.S. attorneys.

Here is the letter Conyers and several other members of the committee sent to Rove’s attorney, Robert Luskin at Patton Boggs. (You can also view the letter Luskin sent Conyers yesterday here.)
May 1, 2008

Via Fax and U.S. Mail
Mr. Robert D. Luskin
Patton Boggs LLP
2550 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037-1350

Dear Mr. Luskin:

We were very disappointed to receive your April 29 letter declining the invitation to Karl Rove to testify voluntarily before the House Judiciary Committee concerning the politicization of the Department of Justice, including allegations regarding the prosecution of former Governor Don Siegelman. Particularly since your client has made a number of on-the-record comments on this subject to the media, and in light of your (now modified) statement that Mr. Rove would be willing to testify, we can see no justification for his refusal to speak on the record to the Committee. We urge you and your client to reconsider this refusal no later than May 12, or we will have no choice but to consider the use of compulsory process.

Mr. Rove has previously spoken to the media and on the record concerning both the Siegelman case and the firings of U.S. Attorneys in 2006. Your letter, however, offers to make Mr. Rove available only for a non-transcribed staff interview, not under oath, and limited only to the Siegelman matter. This offer is completely unacceptable.

Initially, an interview conducted without a transcript and not under oath would frustrate a full and fair inquiry. An interview without a transcript is an invitation to confusion and will not permit us to obtain a straightforward and clear record, as several of us have explained in response to a similar offer by White House counsel Fred Fielding in the U.S. Attorney matter. As Republican former Congressman Mickey Edwards has written, “[n]o Congress, indeed no lawyer, would ever agree to such an outrageous” proposal. We simply do not understand why anyone who is prepared to tell the truth would object to an oath and a record of what is said. This is particularly true in this case, where Mr. Rove has already spoken on the record on this subject.

Indeed, your proposal is even more restrictive than Mr. Fielding’s offer, since you would explicitly exclude any questioning concerning the U.S. Attorney firings. As your own letter appears to recognize, the Siegelman and other selective prosecution matters and the U. S. Attorney firings are clearly related as part of the concerns our Committee has been investigating on the politicization of the Justice Department under this Administration. It would further impede our inquiry to seek artificially to separate these issues. We can see no reason why Mr. Rove would be willing to testify as to whether he put improper pressure on a federal prosecutor to bring a prosecution, but would not be willing to testify on whether he improperly sought to retaliate against federal prosecutors by having them fired.

Your letter also raises concerns about possible executive privilege claims with respect to Mr. Rove’s testimony. The proper way to address such concerns, however, is on a question-by-question basis as current Administration officials have done in testifying before the Committee, not by a blanket refusal to testify.

We hope you and your client will reconsider the decision not to testify on a voluntary basis. Please direct any questions and your response to the Judiciary Committee office, 2138 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 (tel: 202-225-3951; fax: 202-225-7680).

Sincerely,

John Conyers, Jr.
Chairman
____________________________________
Linda T. Sanchez
Chair, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law
____________________________________
Artur Davis
Member, Committee on the Judiciary
____________________________________
Tammy Baldwin
Member, Committee on the Judiciary

cc: Hon. Lamar S. Smith
Hon. Chris Cannon

“” Carrie Sheffield, Web editor, The Washington Times

(Source)