How serious is it to take a nation to war on lies and deception ?

[kentuck]

Is it just a trivial passing? Or is it something much more serious? What would be the penalty for such a transgression? From a legal standpoint, what would be the charges? Conspiracy?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Not nearly as bad as

lying about a blowjob. :sarcasm:

[ngGale]

19. Yep, did they leave any DNA behind...

on the DSM? :sarcasm:

[Independent_Liberal]

2. Very serious, one would think.

[knowbody0]

3. someone is supposed to say:

"is the world better off with SH no longer in power?"
those words should give you peace of mind, and allow our leaders to continue making us safer.

[JoMama49]

5. i guess only as serious as the repukes want it to be.....

r ther ne sane repukes out ther who mite wake up n realize this is pretty damn serious?
JoMama.

[mike_c]

4. well, since the result is death and destruction of property...

...at the very least, Bush and his advisors should face, oh, maybe 100,000 or so counts of conspiracy, murder, and wanton destruction. Not to mention the more general crimes against humanity charge for a war of aggression.

[Auntie Bush]

11. And stealing billions of dollars from America's Treasury.

Also of endangering our country's security with a depleted worn out military. I could go on and on but it's late.

[Tace]

6. It's Interesting That We Have A Precedent With Roosevelt And Pearl Harbor

In hindsight, few people fault Roosevelt for allowing Pearl Harbor to galvanize the American public for involvement in WWII.

I've always figured that's exactly what BFEE has been thinking with 9/11 MIHOP and the Iraq War lies -- they're figuring history will vindicate their actions... and that they'll be writing the history to ensure that occurs.

[merbex]

25. I've read the books about FDR supposedly "allowing Pearl Harbor"

and I keep coming back to the same place:

What possible benefit did we get from engaging in a war with Japan when nearly all his previous focus was concerned with Europe?

we went to war with Germany because they declared war on us - what was going to happen if Germany DIDN"T declare war on us? He had previously been given the opportunity to escalte conflict with Germany: US merchant ships were being attacked by German U boats and FDR didn't bite

[Lone_Wolf]

28. We established ourselves as the preeminent power in the Pacific...

Japan was seen as a threat to our colonies (a.k.a territorial holdings) which are strategically necessary to control the Pacific. After we defeated Japan, we were the Preminent military power in the Pacific.

[merbex]

31. Right, but who in their right mind wants to fight a 2 front war?

Most of FDR's attention was taken up with events in Europe at that time

[Lone_Wolf]

34. We were forced to...

Japan had attacked Pearl Harbor, our airfield at Manila in the Philippines, and took Guam from us. From a strategic point of view, we had no other choice than to deal with Japan or lose control of the Pacific.

FDR was probably equally concerned by the events in both Europe and in the Pacific. We declared war in Japan on Dec. 8, 1941. Germany honoring it's war pact with Japan, declared war on the US on December 11, 1941. We then responded in kind to Germany.

[merbex]

38. Exactly, we were FORCED to and FDR did not MIHOP or LIHOP

After reading many books on this subject, I do not believe that FDR knowingly created a 2 front war for the US on purpose. I believe his focus was on Europe and we came thisclose to losing in the Pacific if the Japanese had won the Battle of Midway nothing between them and the West Coast.

Quite a gamble, if it was on purpose

[candy]

7. I'm sure any historian would say that many nations have been

led to war on lies and deception. IMHO all wars are started by one side or the other lying or deceiving.

I'm no historian but it would be an interesting research subject.

[geckosfeet]

8. Hold their feet to the fire --> Recall the congress!

Saw Doug Wallace's site Recall the Congress.

Here is some verbiage from the site that explains somewhat:

<snip>
The only assurance to prevent the hijacking of the country in the future is for Americans to assert the power of recall of congress members who refuse to abide by the Constitution and the will of the masses of the people in their inept support of a government gone awry.

Contrary to myth, Congress people can be recalled by their constituents. Any power not enumerated in the Constitution is reserved to the people. Recall is one of those powers.

In those states where there is a law establishing procedure to invoke the recall, it is available to the people to initiate it. In those
states where it is not procedurally established by law, the local state legislatures need to establish a procedural law whereby the people_can initiate it. It has nothing to do with local legislators demanding something of D.C.

As an alternative to a recall procedure against a Congressman, any member of congress can make a private unilateral employment contract with his constituents to pledge a certain conduct with penalties ( a court ordered enforcement of the terms of the breach of contract or fired from job )
<snip>

[xray s]

9. Not the first time its happened

The Spanish American War is another example of a war based on a lie, hyped up by the war mongering press of the day.

Americans don't care how we go to war. They only care if we don't win.

[salib]

10. It is one of the most grievous offenses possible.

Imagine, someone telling you that someone killed your friend and is going to come after you. You have the chance, by some quirk of fate, to "eliminate" the accused. You do so, only to find out that the original person lied.

That person is horrible, possibly beyond redemption.

However, what are you?

[Hand]

12. Hitler tried it and it laid an egg. nt

[gumby]

13. That depends upon what the people think and the courts rule.

Of course, taking this country into a war of aggression based upon a pack of lies is the most serious transgression against humanity that there is.

Unfortunately, your questions seem culturally determinative. If everyone is pumping their fists into the air, hooting 'yeah, yeah, yea,' then that has the effect of eliminating a "transgression."

Legally, that also depends on who is determining the "transgression." Clearly, "judges" like Janice Brown would have no problem with ruling your questions irrelevant.

Guess this is a "relativist" answer?

My point is that BushCo is changing EVERYTHING. No laws, no logic, no justice and no recourse.

[IndianaGreen]

14. Death penalty for sure!

Unless we try the Bush gang at The Hague, which has no death penalty.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

15. Before the war started Tom Friedman said,

"You can't take a country to war on the wings of a lie." Now that that has been done, he supports staying until the Iraqi army is capable of handling it themselves, but he maintains that the chances of winning are not good due to the initial deception.
But from day one the words "Wings of a Lie" have stayed with me, and they just hum in my ear every time I see a news broadcast from Iraq.

[Auntie Bush]

16. The Gulf of Tonkin comes to mind...also

Bush Sr. lied about Iraq's killing babies in the incubators and Cheney claimed falsely that the Iraq troops were massing on the boarder...they are old hat at this kind of deceit. They saw that other presidents had done it and weren't prosecuted...so they could get away with it too. Well...we have to impeach bush* and Cheney and show every president in the future that they CAN'T LIE to the American people or they will be removed from office and prosecuted! Congress should make that the law now!

[libodem]

17. How serious is Halliberton's war profiteering

isn't that illegal? Man, there is so much missing and unaccounted for money. I think we should call for a government audit.

[LibertyorDeath]

18. It's the ultimate sin IMO

[gulliver]

20. Presidential malfeasance may not be against the law.

This may the first time we have ever had this level of presidential malfeasance. Maybe no one ever bothered to make it illegal to essentially lie to Congress about matters of war. No one thought it would ever be a problem. There has never been anything like the Bush crew in terms of sheer folly, negligence, arrogance, secrecy, and duplicity. The corruption of the Republican party has also advanced to a "derivitive" level. The quid pro quo is there in spades, but it is not direct, immediate payola, so it sneaks in under the law.

The sad fact is that once the spirit of the Constitution is betrayed by a president sworn to protect it, the country just doesn't work like it should. It divides. It falls. It loses. It suffers.

[Oversea Visitor]

21. How Serous???

Look at how many had died and those who need to go on living with the scars of war.

Not equating money and lives but ...... seriously the families members need to be compensated.

[LynnTheDem]

22. Treason.

Supreme crime war of aggression.

The penalty for both is well-known.

[magellan]

23. It's an impeachable offense to lie to Congress about the reasons for war.

I just found this memo on Bellacio, from John Bonifaz to John Conyers (sorry if this was posted last month when it first appeared):

The memo: Boston constitutional lawyer seeks Resolution of Inquiry on Iraq

MEMORANDUM
To: Rep. John Conyers, Jr.
From: John C. Bonifaz
Date: May 22, 2005
RE: The President’s Impeachable Offenses

The recent release of the Downing Street Memo provides new and compelling evidence that the President of the United States has been actively engaged in a conspiracy to deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people about the basis for going to war against Iraq. If true, such conduct constitutes a High Crime under Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution: “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.”

In light of the emergence of the Downing Street Memo, Members of Congress should introduce a Resolution of Inquiry directing the House Judiciary Committee to launch a formal investigation into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach George W. Bush, President of the United States.

The Downing Street Memo

On May 1, 2005, The Sunday Times of London published the Downing Street Memo. The document, marked “Secret and strictly personal - UK eyes only,” consists of the official minutes of a briefing by Richard Dearlove, then-director of Britain’s CIA equivalent, MI-6, to British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top national security officials. Dearlove, having just returned from meetings with high U.S. Government officials in Washington, reported to Blair and members of his Cabinet on the Bush administration’s plans to start a preemptive war against Iraq.

The briefing occurred on July 23, 2002, months before President Bush submitted his resolution on Iraq to the United States Congress and months before Bush and Blair asked the United Nations to resume its inspections for alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The document reveals that, by the summer of 2002, President Bush had decided to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein by launching a war which, Dearlove reports, would be “justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD .” Dearlove continues: “But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” Dearlove also states that “(t)here was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.”

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw states that “(i)t seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided.” “But,” he continues, “the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, and Iran.”

British officials do not dispute the document’s authenticity, and, on May 6, 2005, Knight Ridder Newspapers reported that “(a) former senior U.S. official called ‘an absolutely accurate description of what transpired’ during the senior British intelligence officer’s visit to Washington.” “Memo: Bush made intel fit Iraq policy,” The State, Knight Ridder Newspapers, May 6, 2005.

Why a Resolution of Inquiry is Justified

On May 5, 2005, you and 88 other Members of Congress submitted a letter to President Bush, asking the President to answer several questions arising from the Downing Street Memo. On May 17, 2005, White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters that the White House saw “no need” to respond to the letter. “British Memo on U.S. Plans for Iraq War Fuels Critics,” The New York Times, May 20, 2005, A8.

The Framers of the United States Constitution drafted Article II, Section 4 to ensure that the people of the United States, through their representatives in the United States Congress, could hold a President accountable for an abuse of power and an abuse of the public trust. James Madison, speaking at Virginia’s ratification convention stated: “A President is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution.” James Iredell, who later became a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, stated at North Carolina’s ratification convention:

The President must certainly be punishable for giving false information to the Senate. He is to regulate all intercourse with foreign powers, and it is his duty to impart to the Senate every material intelligence he receives. If it should appear that he has not given them full information, but has concealed important intelligence which he ought to have communicated, and by that means induced them to enter into measures injurious to their country, and which they would not have consented to had the true state of things been disclosed to them, - in this case, I ask whether, upon an impeachment for a misdemeanor upon such an account, the Senate would probably favor him.

On July 25, 1974, then-Representative Barbara Jordan spoke to her colleagues on the House Judiciary Committee of the constitutional basis for impeachment. “The powers relating to impeachment,” Jordan said, “are an essential check in the hands of this body, the legislature, against and upon the encroachment of the Executive.”

Impeachment, she added, is chiefly designed for the President and his high ministers to somehow be called into account. It is designed to ‘bridle’ the Executive if he engages in excesses. It is designed as a method of national inquest into the conduct of public men. The framers confined in the Congress the power, if need be, to remove the President in order to strike a delicate balance between a President swollen with power and grown tyrannical and preservation of the independence of the Executive.

The question must now be asked, with the release of the Downing Street Memo, whether the President has committed impeachable offenses. Is it a High Crime to engage in a conspiracy to deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people about the basis for taking the nation into war? Is it a High Crime to manipulate intelligence so as to allege falsely a national security threat posed to the United States as a means of trying to justify a war against another nation based on “preemptive” purposes? Is it a High Crime to commit a felony via the submission of an official report to the United States Congress falsifying the reasons for launching military action?

In his book Worse Than Watergate (Little, Brown and Company-NY, 2004), John W. Dean (Nixon’s Lawyer) writes that “the evidence is overwhelming, certainly sufficient for a prima facie case, that George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney have engaged in deceit and deception over going to war in Iraq. This is an impeachable offense.” Id. at 155. Dean focuses, in particular, on a formal letter and report which the President submitted to the United States Congress within forty-eight hours after having launched the invasion of Iraq. In the letter, dated March 18, 2003, the President makes a formal determination, as required by the Joint Resolution on Iraq passed by the U.S. Congress in October 2002, that military action against Iraq was necessary to “protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq...” Dean states that the report accompanying the letter “is closer to a blatant fraud than to a fulfillment of the president’s constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the law.” Worse Than Watergate at 148.

If the evidence revealed by the Downing Street Memo is true, then the President’s submission of his March 18, 2003 letter and report to the United States Congress would violate federal criminal law, including: the federal anti-conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, which makes it a felony “to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose...”; and The False Statements Accountability Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which makes it a felony to issue knowingly and willfully false statements to the United States Congress.

The United States House of Representatives has a constitutional duty to investigate fully and comprehensively the evidence revealed by the Downing Street Memo and other related evidence and to determine whether there are sufficient grounds to impeach George W. Bush, the President of the United States. A Resolution of Inquiry is the appropriate first step in launching this investigation.

The following is suggested language for this resolution:

Directing the Committee on the Judiciary to undertake an inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist to impeach George W. Bush, the President of the United States.

Whereas considerable evidence has emerged that George W. Bush, President of the United States, has engaged in a conspiracy to deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people as to the basis for taking the nation into war against Iraq, that George W. Bush, President of the United States, has manipulated intelligence so as to allege falsely a national security threat posed to the United States by Iraq, and that George W. Bush, President of the United States, has committed a felony by submitting a false report to the United States Congress on the reasons for launching a first-strike invasion of Iraq: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary is directed to investigate and report to the House of Representatives whether sufficient grounds exist to impeach George W. Bush, President of the United States. Upon completion of such investigation, that Committee shall report thereto, including, if the Committee so determines, articles of impeachment.

Conclusion

The Iraq war has led to the deaths of more than 1,600 United States soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians. Thousands more have been permanently and severely injured on both sides. More than two years after the invasion, Iraq remains unstable and its future unclear. The war has already cost the American people tens of billions of taxpayer dollars at the expense of basic human needs here at home. More than 135,000 U.S. soldiers remain in Iraq without any stated exit plan.

If the President has committed High Crimes in connection with this war, he must be held accountable. The United States Constitution demands no less.

###

The writer is an attorney in Boston specializing in constitutional litigation. In February and March 2003, John C. Bonifaz served as lead counsel for a coalition of United States soldiers, parents of U.S. soldiers, and Members of Congress (led by Representatives John Conyers, Jr. and Dennis Kucinich) in a federal lawsuit challenging President George W. Bush’s authority to wage war against Iraq absent a congressional declaration of war or equivalent action. Bonifaz is the author of Warrior-King: The Case for Impeaching George W. Bush (NationBooks-NY, 2004, foreword by Rep. John Conyers, Jr.), which chronicles that case and its meaning for the United States Constitution.

The full text of the Downing Street Memo can be found at www.downingstreetmemo.com.

J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions on Adoption of the Constitution, As Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia in 1787 (Washington: 1836), vol. 3 at 500. Id., vol. 4 at 127.

The full text of Representative Jordan’s opening statement to the House Judiciary Committee on July 25, 1974, can be found here:

The full text of the President’s March 18, 2003 letter can be found here: As Dean writes:

With one pathetic (yet false) exception, this report explains that the president made his determination by inexplicably relying on alleged congressional findings of fact, which did not exist. Congress made no such findings, and if it had done so, it surely would not have required the president make his determinations. Bush, like a dog chasing his tail who gets ahold of it, relied on information the White House provided Congress for its draft resolution; then he turned around and claimed that this information (his information) came from Congress. From this bit of sophistry, he next stated that these congressional findings were the basis of his “determination.” Worse Than Watergate at 148-149.

With the approval ratings for Congress in the dumper and the majority of Americans now believing we were lied into war by BushCo, the only way the Republicans come out looking good is by doing the right thing. They will have to participate in an inquiry of Bush**, and impeach...then Cheney...and keep plowing straight through the administration. And I don't mean impeach for the sake of it, but because the mountain of evidence against BushCo permits no other conclusion.

Anything less and the Repugs show themselves to be even more complicit in Bush**'s habitual abuse of power than most Americans already believe them to be...and equally at risk of investigation for failing to do their sworn duty by upholding the Constitution.

[Old_Fart]

24. Treason

I think that the whole bunch should be sent to an Iraqi prison and charged with war crimes.

[OneTwentyoNine]

26. If a hummer = a "high crime" for impeachment was does lying for War =??

Jesus,there should be a full blown $60 million dollar investigation RIGHT NOW about Bush and his killing of tens of thousands over a lie.

[Supersedeas]

27. yea, ask the libbraal media--oral sex trumps war dead anytime

[Justpat]

29. Just a tad more serious than a blow job.

[Douglas Carpenter]

30. Let's keep at the media--we're getting somewhere...

:bounce:


Just a reminder of some very, very important links:

To sign Congressman Conyers’ letter

http://www.johnconyers.campaignoffice.com


To put and keep pressure on the Mainstream Media:

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/takeaction.html#awaken


http://www.afterdowningstreet.org


C-SPAN Ask--them to cover the Hearing on Thursday, 16 June:

[e-mail]


Peace
O8)

Here is my standard letter to the Media:


Dear Sir/Madam:

As you know, on May 1 of this year a document now commonly referred to as “|The Downing Street Memo” was released into the British Press. This document raises serious question about how the administration was handling intelligence related to Iraq and appears to suggest that the Bush Administration had already decided on war when publicly it was claiming that no such decision had been made. Now further documents have been released in the British media which cast even further doubts.

These documents and other documents suggest that the Bush administration was determined to “fix intelligence” around a predetermined policy. Some of these documents make it clear that the administration had no credible plan for dealing with the post-war occupation.

It is most disturbing that there has been a virtual media blackout regarding “The Downing Street Minutes” and other disturbing documents.

Even more disturbing is the absence in the America media of any credible in-depth follow-up discussion or coverage regarding strong, credible and independent evidence that the Bush Administration intentionally mislead the U.S. Congress, the media and the American people.

I do hope you will accept the responsibility to address this issue and provide serious investigative journalism into this matter.

Furthermore, on Thursday June 16, 2005, Rep. John Conyers, Jr., ranking minority member of the House Judiciary Committee, and other House members will hold a hearing to consider testimony concerning the Downing Street minutes and questions of possible fixing of prewar intelligence. I do hope you will be giving full coverage to these events.

Sincerely,

[Just Me]

32. A conspiracy to defraud congress & the people is CRIMINAL!!!

Sending Americans off to die in a war based upon a conspiracy to defraud is a VERY egregious criminal act!!!! The profiteering on top of that folds into that conspiracy.

The conspirators (e.g. the whole administration) are subject to prosecution for "high crimes and misdemeanors", federal conspiracy laws and war crimes.

They all should be fully prosecuted for their crimes!!!

[donkeyotay]

33. by every tradition of ethics and law, murder is what cries out for justice

Sure they stole our treasure to do it with. Sure the folks who swore to uphold the Constitution tore it up instead. Sure they have spread misery on an epic scale. They have shamed our military's code of conduct and weakened America. They have stolen our future and our optimism. They are, by many accounts, traitors to the American people.

But they killed thousands of innocent people. Why does America not seem to care or notice that we have killed thousands of innocent Iraqis. Murder cries out for justice; without it there is no rule of law.

[wiggs]

35. A lot depends on the next DSM questions asked

The obvious next question to ask regarding the fixing of intelligence and the headlong rush to war is.....WHY?

We and Conyers have spent the last couple of weeks just getting the info out there that this administration may have tweaked intelligence, created fear, armtwisted other nations, lied to congress, etc in order to get over to Iraq. This will be solidified this week with Conyers hearings and Gold Star families hearings.

The underlying question that has not yet been asked by the media in public is: Why did the adminstration do this?

Post DSM, fewer and fewer people will believe that WMD, ties to Al Queda, and liberation are the real reasons. The media and bloggers will begin to revisit the no bid contracts, post invasion management or lack therefore, protection of oil facilities, missing funds, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, Galloway, etc.

Lying and tweaking intelligence is bad enough. But if the public starts to believe that this administration really could launch a war for the sake of corporatocracy, look out. Then perception of the administration goes from wrongheaded incompetence to corrupt profiteers.

[ComerPerro]

36. Considering he did it for profit and to grab power

I think of it as treason.

[nostalgicaboutmyfutr]

37. Hitler was good at it... EOM

[kodi]

39. it breaks the most sacred bond a leader can avow, to protect the group

leaders watch out for the group and they are entrusted with the security and health of it's members. decisions that cause needless sacrifice alone prove the lack of leadership; causing needless sacrifices based upon lies is a sacrilege before any oath of leadership.

[Lindacooks]

40. I think it's the most serious offense a president can commit.

Just because so many people die and are injured for life.