Pacific Free Press was launched in March 2007 by Dutch-Canadian Richard
Kastelein of V.O.F. Expathos, in the Netherlands along with Chris Cook- CFUV radio journalist and Editor in Chief of Pacific Free Press. Cook is based in , Victoria, British Columbia.
The site is a sister to Atlantic Free Press and Brick Ogden an American Expatriate in Amsterdam has been a key supporter of this project.
The mission of Pacific Free Press is simple: to dig out nuggets of truth from
the slag-heap of lies, ignorance and witless diversion that has buried
public discourse today. Pacific Free Press provides a new venue for
disseminating hard news and insightful, fact-based analysis of the
harsh realities too often ignored or distorted by the mainstream press.
Many well-intentioned and patriotic Americans, including progressives and liberal Democrats, have expressed opposition to the idea of impeaching President Bush, arguing that it is a diversion from more important issues like ending the war in Iraq, or taking effective action on climate change.
Their concern is understandable, as these are indeed important issues, but they are wrong. Fortunately, House Judiciary Chair John Conyers, who knows this, is beginning the impeachment process next week by calling for a hearing to examine one of the president’s crimes: abuse of power. Fortunately too, several state legislatures in places as disparate as New Mexico, Vermont and Washington, are considering passing resolutions calling on the House to initiate impeachment hearings.
There are important reasons why this president must be impeached and they include those very urgent issues that people are afraid will be shunted aside by an impeachment battle.
The key reason this president must be impeached is that his offenses against the Constitution and the nation are so serious that the very survival of Constitutional government and the separation of powers on which it is based are at risk.
Let’s take the war in Iraq. The president clearly lied and tricked both
the Congress and the American people into allowing him to invade that
country. He and Vice President Dick Cheney carefully cherry-picked
half-truths and known falsehoods to lay out as “evidence” that Saddam
Hussein was developing nuclear weapons and that he was in league with
Osama bin Laden. His White House orchestrated a campaign to damage the
reputation of an honest critic, ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had
discovered that a key piece of that “evidence” --some alleged documents
from the country of Niger--had been forged, and even “outed” Wilson’s
CIA-agent wife. These lies have led directly to the pointless deaths of
nearly 3100 American men and women in uniform and to the deaths of
perhaps hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and
children. Bush also illegally pulled American troops and equipment out
of Afghanistan, right at the height of a Congressionally authorized
campaign to capture or kill bin Laden and his Al Qaeda organization
(fatally crippling that effort), and sent them to the border of Iraq in
preparation for his war there.
If this president is allowed to do such things, unchallenged and
unpunished, we can expect subsequent presidents to do so in the future.
Indeed, many experts and members of Congress believe that Bush is
getting close to repeating this criminal behavior himself, this time
with an unprovoked attack on Iran. Clearly, in order to stop such abuse
of presidential authority and such a second national and international
disaster, Congress will have to impeach the president.
Then there’s the so-called “signing statements.” These are the
letters--not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution--which Bush and his
crony attorneys in the White House and Justice Department claim allow
him to invalidate all or part of any bill passed by the Congress. Bush
has used signing statements to do this over 1200 time during his
presidency, for everything from refusing to accept a Congressional ban
on torture to giving himself the power, in clear violation of federal
law, to monitor first- class mail.
Once again, if this president is not impeached for this outrage
assertion of presidential absolute power, all future presidents will
feel free to do the same thing, simply ignoring acts of Congress. The
Constitution is crystal clear on this matter: Article I says “All
legislative powers granted herein shall be vested in Congress of the
United States," and Article II says the president “shall take care that
the laws be faithfully executed.” Note that the Constitution does not
say that “some” legislative powers or “most” legislative powers are
vested in the Congress. It says “all.” Nor does it say that the
president shall execute “some” of the laws. For Congress to let this
blatant abuse of power to go unpunished would be to leave future
Congresses as little more than vestigial debating societies.
As for the warrantless spying which the president has authorized the
National Security Agency to engage in since the fall of 2001, in
blatant violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, here is
a case of the president unapologetically violating federal law and
committing a felony. He is, here, simply daring the Congress to
confront him. So far, they have been too cowardly to stand up to the
challenge. And yet, if Bush is allowed to get away with this crime, all
future presidents will argue that they too are above the law, and that
they may pick and choose what laws they will honor and what laws they
will break. No Constitutional system, no democratic system, can long
endure under such circumstances.
The same can be said for the president’s willful violation of the
Geneva Conventions barring torture. It is clear that the president both
authorized torture, as defined under the Conventions, and failed to
take action to prevent even the most heinous of torture acts, which
reached the point of lethality, when they were brought to his
attention. These, it must be pointed out, are not merely crimes which
violate international law. The US is a signatory (and author) of the
Geneva Conventions, and as these have been adopted by the Senate, under
the Constitution they have full force of law within the U.S.
Furthermore, the Republican Congress in 1996 specifically incorporated
the Geneva Code into the U.S. Criminal Code, making it all the more
clear that the president’s actions—and his inaction—on torture are
criminal acts under U.S. law. As such they must be prosecuted, if the
law is to have any meaning, and that requires, as a first step,
impeachment of the president.
There are many other reasons that the president should be
impeached--his criminal negligence in sending American troops into
battle with inadequate armor, his criminal negligence in failing to
plan for the occupation of Iraq, his extreme criminal negligence in
failing to act to rescue the trapped and drowning citizens of New
Orleans following the landfall of Hurricane Katrina, his refusal to
provide evidence requested by the 9-11 Commission (and his
administration’s lies to that commission), the massive and unchecked
corruption in Iraq which has so extravagantly enriched administration
campaign contributors, White House corruption linked to the Abramoff
and other scandals, illegal use of taxpayer funds for a program of
administration propaganda using government agencies, and perhaps an
orchestrated campaign of stealing elections, etc. These should all be
investigated. Some are easier to document than others, but all deserve
a hearing.
Meanwhile, however, it is essential that the key crimes be introduced
as bills of impeachment in the House as quickly as possible, so that
hearings can begin.
Critics of impeachment have argued that it is pointless to call for
impeachment since removal from office would require a vote by
two-thirds of the Senate, which is 49 percent Republican. That ignores
the impact of truth and fact on a group of politicians who will be
looking at 2008 very anxiously. When impeachment hearings began for
President Richard Nixon, a scant one in four Americans thought he
should be impeached. During the Clinton impeachment farce, support for
the president’s removal from office never topped 36 percent. Yet a
Newsweek poll taken last fall found that a remarkable 51 percent of the
American public felt this president should face impeachment (including
29 percent of Republicans!), and than only 44 percent opposed
impeachment.
The likelihood is that, once impeachment hearings began, they would
have the same impact on Republicans this time around as they had on
Republicans in Congress during the Nixon impeachment. That is, as the
depth of administration perfidy and criminality was exposed on live
television, through the testimony of White House staff talking under
oath, honest Republicans facing re-election soon would feel compelled
to cut their ties and support for Bush and his cronies. Who knows? Some
might even support impeachment for reasons of principle and patriotism
as the facts came out.
The real reason Bush must be impeached, though, is that if he is not
impeached, this usurper will simply ignore any bills passed by
Congress, will act despite any resolutions passed by Congress, and will
break any law that he thinks gets in his way. Furthermore, future
presidents, Democrat and Republican, will use Bush as a precedent to
ignore Congress and break laws themselves.
The real question for impeachment skeptics then, is: “What are you waiting for?”
Total Regime Change written by a guest,
January 26, 2007
I haven't encountered anyone, but House Democrats, who oppose impeachment. What we are looking for is a little more than impeachment - systemic regime change. The system is rotten to the core, and will remain so even if we impeach this one bad apple.
Impeachment, stop the wars, universal health care, media reform, electoral financial reform, the restoration of constitutional law and human rights, the list goes on and on.
Impeachment is necessary, but insufficient. We want more.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Impeach Bush written by a guest,
January 27, 2007
Should have been done before he was elected.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Well said David Lindorf. Some questions and clarifications written by a guest,
January 27, 2007
I have read through your article closely and strongly agree with the thrust of it Mr Lindorf. I thank you for writing it and for your continuing efforts.
I was particularly taken with your statement that "The key reason this president must be impeached is that his offenses against the Constitution and the nation are so serious that the very survival of Constitutional government and the separation of powers on which it is based are at risk".
If in Lincoln's time, during a civil war, Americans could find the time to have an election, and if in the time of the Independence war also taking place on their own continent, Americans could still forge a constitution complete with the prudent provisions for impeaching defaulting President's then, it is hard to see why Americans in these times should find their own responsibilities to themselves, and to their children, and to their friends to uphold the rule of law too onerous or too distracting.
I have some questions which I would like some clarifications on, either from you, if you've the time, or from other readers that may be able to assist me - perhaps these are relevant to your concluding question "what are you waiting for?"
On the matter of the war in Iraq, you say the "president clearly lied", perhaps he did lie, (I personally suspect that he did) but where is that lie most clearly seeable to third-party truthseekers as a lie and as coming from the president himself rather than as a mistake by him? I did not fail to read your fourth paragraph I just hoped that links to evidence demonstrating the lie still more clearly might be provided for truthseekers. The stronger the prima facie case is for impeachment to more people the more likely impeachment will occur I suspect.
Regarding Bush "illegally" pulling out American troops and equipment from Afghanistan, was that really illegal? Doesn't Bush as President and Commander in Chief have the authority to redeploy his forces, isn't he in fact the decider on such matters, irrespective of whether his decision making is sound. I don't see illegality there.
Your argument about Bush's use of signing statements is also very effective but could be still more effective if it were furnished with a particular example of such a signing statement being used to subvert the intent of the constitution. Can you provide such an exemplory example to support your contention?
I am not an American citizen. I am an Australian. Despite my country's inclusion in the so called 'coalition of the willing' I find that I and my countrymen are described, as indeed are all non-Americans, as 'aliens' in the Military Commissions Act of 2006. It is that Act in which your Congress saw fit to give the President the power to determine of his own dubious judgement whether anyone in that class is an "enemy combatant". I have never been an enemy of the United States. Prior to the Bush Presidency I regarded the United States as the greatest country on earth to date. But today on the say so of your President I could be declared an "enemy combatant" and then I like all others in the class of alien would have no habeus corpus rights. I could be picked up whilst travelling either to the US to see friends or indeed anywhere Bush's agents might take me, simply because Bush doesn't like the content of my speech. And then I would be denied even the basic right to contest that I had be picked up in gross error of judgement in a court of law. And all this despite that your constitution says at section 9 that the "privilege of the writ of habeus corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it" - and clearly neither rebellion nor invasion are current facts in the United States of America.
Please do not think as your endeavor to hold your President to his oath to "faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States, and to the best of (his) ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States", that the the only interested parties are the "we the people" of the United States. We the other people, the people with whom the 300 million Americans share the planet and with whom American has made treaties including the United Nations treaties are also acutely interested in seeing that you country and your countrymen are determined to remain a nation of laws.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Reality written by a guest,
January 27, 2007
So, who is going to impeach him?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Extirpate them root and branch written by a guest,
January 28, 2007
Pelosi can't lead an impeachment effort that would appear to end in her taking office. Impeachment goes nowhere if you target the empty suit and leave Cheney in the saddle (where he has been since 2000 anyway). Impeach Cheney first. It will be easier now than ever because he is about to perjure himself in the Scooter Libby trial. THEN go after this ridiculous Preznit after he has appointed a squeaky clean VP acceptable to all to replace Cheney and the Project for the New American Century with some evidence of sanity.
Writings 
Many well-intentioned and patriotic Americans, including progressives and liberal Democrats, have expressed opposition to the idea of impeaching President Bush, arguing that it is a diversion from more important issues like ending the war in Iraq, or taking effective action on climate change. 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Impeachment, stop the wars, universal health care, media reform, electoral financial reform, the restoration of constitutional law and human rights, the list goes on and on.
Impeachment is necessary, but insufficient. We want more.