After 2000, I will not vote for a <5% third party candidate.
Green or otherwise

I like Cynthia too! I hope she runs and look forward to seeing her challenge the Democrap from the left!

I had decided that I was not going to vote in the 2008 election, but I seriously think that Cynthia McKinney is the only person worth voting for (well, maybe Brian Moore, running as the Socialist Party candidate). I've always respected her. I am definitely going to the polls in November 2008 as long as Cynthia is the Green Party nominee.

Nader2000 "but more Green support comes from people who would have voted Democratic than from people who would have voted Republican. Therefore, by running presidential candidates the Greens help elect Republicans."

Well I guess we will be putting up with another republican president. I hope not, but with the current front choices we have to choice from the democratic side It doesn't leave me with much choice. I will either not vote or vote independent/green if Hillary or Obama gets the nomination.

I will not use the excuse of voting for a democrat just to beat a republican. You want to beat a republican with a democrat, nominate somebody worth voting for.

thanks for commenting on my article, perhaps you would like to comment on the original which would help build her campaign the url is here and it is easy to register to comment on the Guardian site

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/derek_wall/2008/01/run_cynthia_run.html

PS ... in the race she lost, she lost because ..

a) the Zell Miller machine and the Dem party in GA got together and got a conservative black lady to run against her.

b) the Atlanta Constitution and Journal and the rest of the media ran a concentrated smear campaign against her. The AJC is consistently horrible to the McKinney family dating back to when Billy McKinney was challenging the white power structure in Atlanta in the late 60's\early 70's. And the Cox family owns the paper, the top radio station and the top TV station in the area. So they can blast their smears widely.

c) GA has open primaries, and there weren't any important races in the Rethug primary that day. So most of the vote that defeated Cynthia in 2002 came from Rethugs crossing over to vote in the Dem primary. My job that day as a white guy working on her campaign was to go to the Rethug districts and check voter turnout during the day. Turn out was huge in those parts of the district, and I was calling in numbers like 400 votes in the Dem primary vs 20 in the Rethug primary all day long. And those were in solid Rethug areas.

All of this combined to create just enough confusion, made just enough of her supporters stay home to swing the race against her.

Two years later, the district corrected the mistake and sent Cynthia back to Congress. Meanwhile, the sucker who served as the black lady who beat her completed her deal with Zell Miller and ran for US Senate. But the machine abandoned her and she finished far down the list in that primary.

PPS ... I liked that article by Mr. Murphy. One key point he makes is that the goal of the Greens, or any group trying to start a serious challenge to our one-corporate-party rule, would be to get 5% of the vote in the 2008 election. That's the line that qualifies for matching federal funds in the next race.

You can't do that if you run as an independent.

I view the Green Party as a vehicle to be build. Join the party, participate, get rid of leaders who don't support grassroots democracy in the party, and generally build the movement you want!

We can call it the Pink Party, or the Purple Party or anything else. We just need to build it. Since the Greens are there, why not build it there?

I'm a fan of Cynthia McKinney and I'm sorry she's not in Congress any more. I don't think anything she said about 9/11 is all that far out, and even if it had been, that could be forgiven for all the great things McKinney did and tried to do.

But this is a fact:

CYNTHIA MCKINNEY WILL NOT BE ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES THIS YEAR.

The next president is going to be the nominee either of the Republican Party or of the Democratic Party.

Unless you think voters choose candidates at random and have no beliefs or no idea what the candidates stand for, you have to admit that the more votes go to the Green Party, the more likely it is the Republicans will win. Maybe the Greens will recruit some voters who would not have voted at all, and even some who would have voted Republican, but more Green support comes from people who would have voted Democratic than from people who would have voted Republican. Therefore, by running presidential candidates the Greens help elect Republicans.

I'm getting real tired of people trying to portray Cynthia McKinney as some sort of 9/11 conspiracy "nut" because she dares ask questions about the conventional wisdom regarding that sad day. Rather than try to speak for Cynthia, I'll quote her from this article in Counterpunch, from an op-ed to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

http://www.counterpunch.org/mckinney08102005.html

"Your recent article....covering a day-long Congressional briefing on July 22 was totally misleading in claiming that it consisted of "conspiracy theories implicating president [Bush]." The actual title was ""The 9/11 Commission Report One Year Later: A Citizens' Response ­ Did They Get it Right?" and not a single panelist at the event, which included 9/11 family members, former intelligence and government workers, whistleblowers and academic experts, raised any allegations that the Bush administration arranged the 9/11 attacks."

Later...

"...Mistakes of fact, intentional or not, have changed and guided America into costly wars and increased insecurity at home. They need to be addressed and scrutinized, not dismissed and used to attack those who discover or raise them."

For those Greens who support Cynthia McKinney for our Party's nomination for President, please be sure to follow up on that desire by becoming a delegate to our national convention in July. Or, if you can't become a delegate yourself, by ensuring your state's delegates know you want them to represent you by choosing Cynthia at the convention. Now is the time to build momentum in the Party!

http://www.runcynthiarun.org/

This Is Good News!

I have been impressed by this wonderful person for many years... gutzy, thoughtful, good humored, intelligent; And very easy on the eyes!! I felt Winona LaDuke was the hope of The Green Party, but she has made her tribal affairs her mission in life (we'll miss her dearly).
I have to say I'm glad Nader has moved on, Greens deserve a better person to lead and inspire... by that I mean, Nader was more into being Nader than truely leading this movement.

"After 2000, I will not vote for a <5% third party candidate.
Green or otherwise"

If you and enough other people vote for McKinney then she won't be a <5% candidate! The only wasted vote is one for someone you don't feel is the best candidate.

As a Green, I am happy to see her running. Go Cynthia!

Thank you CoMarc for pointing out the truth about the smear campaign against Ms. McKinney. I knew about that and am not an American. I truly respect her and would vote for her if I was an American (which at this point in your history, I am extremely glad I am not, but I am working at making sure my country does not continue to follow in the US path).

I'm definitely voting for Cynthia McKinney. She's already been to my town.

Don't bother telling me I "owe" my vote to a Democrat. I am against corporate domination of this country and I have watched the democrats and the republicans hand over my civil rights and my future to the corporations, not to mention the misery they've inflicted on the people of the world and the destruction of the environment. Voting for a kinder, gentler raping is not my idea of a choice.

Only those with short memories and limited information would vote for the anointed Democrat, whoever it may be.

http://www.counterpunch.org/murphy12282007.html

Murphy brings up some outstanding points in the article above.

No matter who is nominated, I would love to see the greens actually get their hands dirty and campaign in every possible state. The David Cobb strategy sucks, and once again will not get my vote.

I would vote Green over the Oligarchy we call a two party system. President McKinney… has a nice ring to it!

Is this the same Cynthia McKinney who lost the 60% black district where she was a two-term incumbent after she enlisted in ranks of 9/11 conspiracy theorists?

Yes. (And redistricting had nothing to do with it. She won twice after redistricting

What a brilliant choice for the Green Party! No wonder they have so much power in the United States!

Maybe they can hand out tin-foil hats at their next convention!

The Green Party is the future. We can help them get there AND keep regressives at bay by voting mixed ballots---Greens where they stand a chance and Prog. Dems when Greens do not.

Progressive Dems with vision like Cynthia see that Greens are THE progressive party. They help Greens instead of sabotaging them as conservative DLC Dems do.

In the contest between liberal and conservative, liberals should win because we are supposedly smarter. Maybe we lose because we are tolerant and diverse when conservatives are intolerant and form a mob. They call it leadership.

Liberal leadership is setting a good democratic example, but chaos gives right and left conservatives the reactionary authoritarian advantage. If and when liberals realize that we have to come together, we may do it as Greens.

I'm definitely voting for Cynthia. And long before then I'll be working on her campaign.

I used to live in GA. And I worked on her congressional campaigns there. She's an amazing person to meet and see live. And she's definitely someone about whom you should ignore just about everything you see in the media.

One thing I started doing in GA was whenever I read a smear piece in the media, I checked out what Cynthia had really said or written. Most of the time the letter or speech could be found online. And ALWAYS, the media reports were severely mis-representing what Cynthia had actually said.

I'd have to go back and check to be sure, but I think most of what Cynthia said about 9-11 turned out to be more accurate than what the official story was at the time.

And pay no attention to the Demo-scum who insist they own your vote and that you have to vote for their pro-war, pro-corporate candidate. The only way to break this cycle is to leave the Dems and build a new movement.

But, the key thing is that when Cynthia comes to your area, get out and see her and listen to her in person. You'll be amazed!

Dr Wall speaks from a European prespective where the Greens are a relatively well-organized force. In the US, they are not. As Dr Wall points out, the US electoral system, such as it is, is horribly biased against alternative politicians of any kind.

Overcoming this structural and institutional (not to mention cultural) bias is a tremendous task that depends on a strong organization to raise money, publicize issues, challenge elections at all levels, etc.

Despite the fact that Ms. McKinney is a brilliant, committed, principled politican with a strong program who knows how to fight and win national elections, the US Greens are not the vehicle that will help her to get the national audience she deserves.

She would be better off running as an independent.

Cynthia recently visited Oregon, receiving excellent turnouts in Portland, Corvallis, Eugene, and Ashland - a very ambitious schedule. It was exciting, sitting down to lunch (breakfast, for her) with an authentic progressive hero.

At the rate she is running, she could have the nomination tied up in a few months (the convention is in July.) Nader just endorsed Edwards, so it seems unlikely that he'll be seeking the Green Party nomination. I think he's getting tired; he's certainly earned the right to lay back a bit. Cynthia can carry the torch very well, I think, and bring out a whole "hip-hop generation" the Greens haven't been able to reach.

Run, Cynthia, Run! (that's her website - www.runcynthiarun.org.)

Well Nader2000 that may well be, but unless you clueless Dimocrats can manage to nominate someone worth voting for your gonna see another Repug president. So far you ain't off to a good start in Iowa. Though I do like to see Billary take a well deserved beating the fact is that Obummer is unelectable in general election.

I will not vote for Billary, no way no how! If she gets the nomination I will vote Green, as will many others, still more will just not vote.

You say "CYNTHIA MCKINNEY WILL NOT BE ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES THIS YEAR"

And I say neither will Barack Hussein Obama! So if I am gonna waste my vote it may as well be on somewone who's politics I agree with.

COMarc - Good points. This is why I registered green in 1999. I supported Nader in 2000 because he ran as a Green, the Green party platform speaks to me on all the right levels. I also knew that my vote in Pennsylvania would not hurt Gore.

Anyway back to the article at hand: "However, the Democrats remain, even compared to Bush, a far-from impressive lesser evil". Well that about sums it up for me, unless the dims can come up with a real alternative I am voting Green!

I would also like to caucus for Congresswoman McKinney.

Independents for Cynthia!

For me - it is either a real peoples' fighter, like Cynthia McKinney, or No Vote. I cannot dignify the sham process monopolized (or rather rigged) by the leaders of both corporate political parties.

Could we dare to dream that an American as eloquent and spirited as Ms. McKinney might debate nationally on real issues and put these huckster politicos from both parties to shame? Is it possible that after decades of non-issue plastic beauty queen millionaires in a choreographed pageant, a real flesh and blood alternative might be presented to our compatriots?

She is impressive. We would be proud to support her.

Yeah! I will have someone on the ballot I can vote for in the General! Go Cynthia!

BTW, www.gorewonflorida.org

so please give Nader and other third party candidates like Cynthia a break.

tj January 3rd, 2008 3:01 pm

"Despite the fact that Ms. McKinney is a brilliant, committed, principled politican with a strong program who knows how to fight and win national elections, the US Greens are not the vehicle that will help her to get the national audience she deserves.

She would be better off running as an independent."

Actually, she starts off with 21 ballot lines (soon to be more) if she runs as a Green, but zero if she runs as an independent.

In California, she would have to come up with 158,372 signantures to get on the ballot as an independent; she would already be on as a Green. In Florida, the Greens are on the ballot, but an independent Presidential candidate needs 104,334 signatures. She would also need 38,024 signatures in Michigan, where the Greens have ballot access.

Cynthia has the green creds, and the courage.
http://www.counterpunch.org/donham10072006.html

As a one of Cynthia McKinney's former constituents, I have one thing to say to Mr. Wall -- stick to British politics, please. Most of the people in my district laugh uncontrollably at the thought of Cynthia McKinney being President of the United States. We endured years of poor representation and embarrassment as a result of her being in Congress. She was elected to so many terms because she is black and few people in her district actually paid attention to the issues and her performance in Congress. Once people began to pay attention, she was out.

If the Green Party wants to show its absolute lack of desire to nominate a candidate who can actually lead the country, then they should nominate Cynthia McKinney. Mr. Wall will be able to hear the laughter while while sipping tea in England.

Cynthia McKinney -- Commander and Chief of the U.S. Military!? Now, that would make a good Saturday Night Live skit but that's about it.

Obviously, many of Cynthia McKinneys former constituents are too dense or apathetic to see through the corporate MSM BS that that brought her down, nor did they see what she tried to do while she was there.

Here's an example of her courage and understanding of the situation in December of 2006 -

Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney Makes the Case for Impeachment
By David Swanson
AfterDowningStreet.org
Friday 05 January 2007
As some people learned from the minimal and abusive media coverage, on December 8, 2006, Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney introduced Articles of Impeachment [http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/16230] against President George W. Bush, making him the 10th president of the United States to face such action. Of course, McKinney was on her way out of office and thus more willing to challenge the Democratic Party leadership by upholding basic Constitutional principles.
Fewer people are aware that Congresswoman McKinney on December 27, 2006, entered into the Congressional Record (pages E2253 - 2255) extended remarks on impeachment that merit our close attention. Why would she do such a thing on her way out the door with no chance of reintroducing her bill in the new Congress? For one thing, she clearly would agree with the response Congressman John Conyers gave to Lewis Lapham when asked what he thought the point was of publishing a lengthy report laying out evidence of Bush's impeachable offenses. Conyers' response was: "to take away the excuse that we didn't know."
Here is McKinney's case for impeachment and for the history books, a case that says to historians, "Look, I knew what needed to be done, and I failed for years but I admitted it on my last day," but a case that says to us: "Here is your mission: awaken currently serving Congress members to this case or kiss your democracy goodbye."

On December 27, 2006
REMARKS ON H. RES. 1106 - (Extensions of Remarks - December 27, 2006)
SPEECH OF HON. CYNTHIA McKINNEY OF GEORGIA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 27, 2006
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I wish to enter the following into the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
ADDENDA TO A RESOLUTION INTRODUCING ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST GEORGE WALKER BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND OTHER OFFICIALS: FURTHER ACTIONS BY THE PRESIDENT THAT WARRANT FURTHER INVESTIGATION AS POSSIBLE GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT AS IDENTIFIED BY MANY SCHOLARS, LAWYERS AND CONCERNED CITIZENS
I. FAILURE TO ENSURE THE LAWS ARE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED
(1) Self-Exemption From Laws Upon Signing.
(2) Suspension of Basic Legal Proceedings.
(3) Promoting Illegal War.
(4) Promoting Torture.
(5) Promoting Kidnappings and Renditions for Torture.
(6) Use of Illegal Weapons.
II. ABUSE OF OFFICE AND OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
(1) Obstructing Inquiry and Detection.
(2) Replacing the Veto With Signing Statements.
III. FAILURE TO PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION
(1) Suspension of Due Process.
(2) Unreasonable Searches and Seizures.
(3) Non-Cooperation With Congress.
(4) Establishment of an Unconstitutional, Parallel Legal System.
I. FAILURE TO ENSURE THE LAWS ARE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED
Under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States of America, the President has a duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." George Walker Bush, during his tenure as President of the United States, has repeatedly violated the letter and spirit of laws and rules of criminal procedure used by civilian and military courts, and has violated or ignored regulatory codes and practices that carry out the law, has contravened the laws governing agencies of the executive and the purposes of these agencies, and in conducting the foreign affairs of the United States of America has proceeded in flagrant violation of the core body of international laws, to which the United States of America is bound by treaty.
With respect to domestic law, this conduct has included one or more of the following:
(1) Self-Exemption from Laws upon Signing. Since assuming the office of President of the United States, George Walker Bush has attached signing statements to more than one hundred bills before signing them, within which he has made over eight hundred challenges to provisions of laws passed by Congress, a figure that exceeds the total number of such challenges by all previous presidents combined, and has used this practice to exempt himself, as President of the United States, from enforcing or from being held accountable to provisions of the said laws.
(2) Suspension of Basic Legal Proceedings. In dereliction of his duty to uphold the law, George Walker Bush has systematically violated basic legal and criminal procedures that require any search, seizure, arrest or detention to be non-discriminatory, based on probable cause and sufficient evidence to warrant a stated charge, that provide access to legal counsel, arraignment and the option of bail within a period of days, and that require reasonable and non-coercive interrogations, rights of silence, as well as privy communications with counsel and with others, pending an outcome of either release or a speedy and public trial, conducted in accord with federal and state statutes on criminal and court process, the provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, applicable international law, or appeals to higher courts that apply. By ordering mass arrests and indefinite detentions based on indiscriminate profiling of specific populations, George Walker Bush has also systematically violated laws prohibiting harmful extraditions, secret arrest and custody, and denial of defined and legal periods of detention or incarceration.
With respect to international law, this conduct has included one or more of the following:
(3) Promoting Illegal War. Abraham Lincoln wrote in 1848, "Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion and you will allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you will allow him to make war at pleasure. If today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, 'I see no probability of the British invading us,' but he will say to you, 'Be silent; I see it, if you don't.'" In direct violation of Articles 41 and 42 of the United Nations Charter, a treaty ratified by the United States Senate in 1945 and therefore the supreme law of the land as according to Article VI of the Constitution, George Walker Bush has advanced and executed a policy based on so-called pre-emptive or preventive war, whereby the United States of America claims the right to unilaterally assault, invade or occupy other nations without first engaging in collective measures with other member states of the United Nations or first gaining the prior assent of the United Nations Security Council, and whereas George Walker Bush did apply this doctrine by launching a war of aggression against the sovereign nation of Iraq, resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians and thousands of United States military personnel, without United Nations Security Council authorization, whereby said George Walker Bush, as President of the United States, by advancing a doctrine of preventive war and initiating and continuing the invasion and occupation of Iraq by United States forces did commit and was guilty of precisely such abuses as Abraham Lincoln foresaw.
(4) Promoting Torture. In direct violation of, and as part of a pattern of consistent attempts through executive orders, legal memoranda and alterations to regulations such as the Army Field Manual, to undermine the Federal Torture Statute [18 USC Sec. 2340A]; the Third Geneva Convention banning torture and abuse of Prisoners of War, as well as non-combatants and unarmed ("enemy") combatants held in detention; and Articles 4 and 32 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which expressly prohibit not merely torture but physical abuse of any kind being inflicted upon "persons protected by the Convention," defined as "those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals," this language being written as a precaution against and in anticipation of alternate definitions of torture, these declarations and treaties being ratified by the United States Senate and therefore the supreme law of the land as according to Article VI of the Constitution, George Walker Bush, as President of the United States of America, has condoned and presided over a vast expansion of the use of torture against unarmed combatants and civilian non-combatants, both foreign and domestic, detained or kidnapped by forces or agents of the United States, leading to extreme pain, psychological trauma, disfigurement and in some cases, death. By signing a legal memorandum on February 7, 2002 (declassified on June 17, 2004), in which he wrote that "The war on terror ushers in a new paradigm," one which requires "new thinking in the law of war," and decreeing that, contrary to all past military practices of an official nature, the United States would no longer be constrained by the laws of war presently in force in its treatment of those captured during its invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and subsequently detained, a legal opinion which the Supreme Court struck down on June 29, 2006 (Hamdan v. Rumsfeld) by its ruling that the Third Geneva Convention did apply to detainees in the custody of the United States, George Walker Bush, President of the United States, by his concerted efforts to undermine any legal limits on the use of torture by United States personnel, did commit and was guilty of high crimes against the United States of America.
(5) Promoting Kidnappings and Renditions for Illegal Torture. In direct violation of the United Nations Convention Against Torture, Article 3, which states that "No State party shall expel, return or extradite a person to another state where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture," and the Fourth Geneva Convention, Articles 31 and 45, the said conventions having been ratified by the United States Senate and therefore the supreme law of the land as according to Article VI of the Constitution, George Walker Bush, as President of the United States of America, did sign, on September 17, 2001, an executive order (still classified) granting unilateral authority to the Central Intelligence Agency to render detainees to countries where torture is routinely practiced for the express purpose of interrogation, thereby subverting an established program of rendering detainees to justice by bringing them to the United States or to a country in which they were wanted to face criminal charges in a court of law. And whereas the Central Intelligence Agency did thereafter carry out this order not only by rendering hundreds of detainees to countries where they were subsequently tortured, but also in many cases first illegally kidnapping the detainees, and did subsequently establish secret detention centers, operating outside any known laws, for the express purpose of circumventing all legal protections to which the said detainees were entitled under international law.
(6) Use of Illegal Weapons. In violation of multiple and diverse tenets of international law, George Walker Bush, as President of the United States, has authorized or sanctioned the use of illegal weapons, including but not limited to the following:
(a) land mines, deployed by United States forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, which indiscriminately injure and kill combatants and innocent civilians alike, and which are therefore illegal under Geneva Conventions Protocol I, Article 85, which states that it is a war crime to launch "an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population in the knowledge that such an attack will cause an excessive loss of life or injury to civilians," and which are banned under the Protocol II of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, which forbids the deployment of any "mine, booby-trap or other device which is designed or of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering;"
(b) cluster bombs, including those which upon explosion project lethal plastic fragments not detectable by X-ray, deployed by United States forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, which leave unexploded ordnance known to maim and kill innocent civilians and which are therefore also illegal under Geneva Conventions Protocol I, Article 85, as well as under Protocol I of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, which bans the use of "the use of any weapon the primary effect of which is to injure by fragments which in the human body escape detection by X-rays," and under Annexed Articles 22 and 23 of the Hague Convention IV, which states that "It is especially forbidden to kill treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;"
(c) depleted uranium munitions, being radiological weapons used extensively by United States Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, in violation of Geneva Conventions Protocol 1, Articles 35.2, 35.3, 48 and 55.1, which prohibit the use of "projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering" or weapons "which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment" or damage to "the health or survival of the population," and which have been classified as "weapons of mass destruction" by the United Nations Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities;
(d) napalm, a weapon widely used in Vietnam, an upgraded kerosene-based version of which has more recently been used by United States forces in Iraq, being dubbed the "Mark 77 firebomb", in violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, Article II.1.b, which expressly prohibits "Munitions and devices, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through the toxic properties" of the device when used as a weapon;
(e) white phosphorous, which Defense Department spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel Barry Venable confirmed on November 15, 2005 was deployed "as an incendiary weapon" in urban areas of Fallujah, Iraq, where there were high concentrations of civilians, during Operation Phantom Fury (November 2004-January 2005), making the said deployment of white phosphorous a violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, Article II.1.b;
(f) BLU-82B/C-130 "daisy cutter" bombs, being massive incendiary bombs deployed by United States forces in Afghanistan, and which upon detonation create a firestorm the size of five football fields or greater, and a vacuum pressure capable of collapsing internal organs, in violation of Geneva Conventions Protocol I, Articles 35, 48, 51 and 55, which expressly forbid such indiscriminate destruction of civilian life and the environment;
In all of this, George Walker Bush's conduct has followed a pattern of not merely failing to uphold the laws he took an oath to defend as President of the United States, but of flouting such laws with the impunity of a dictator. Indeed, on numerous occasions, George Walker Bush has openly expressed his desire to become a dictator, as he did while President-Elect on December 18, 2000, when he stated: "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier.... just as long as I'm the dictator.... "
This arrogant posture has also been typical in foreign affairs where he has made concerted efforts to undermine international law and international treaties, including his termination of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty without the assent of the legislative branch, his decision to rescind the authorizing signature of the United States from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, his willingness to offend the 152 nations who are signatories to the Ottawa Treaty by refusing to sign and continuing the use of land mines by the world's most powerful military rather than asserting America's moral leadership, his willingness to offend the 93 nations who are parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons Protocol III by refusing to sign and continuing the use of incendiary weapons against civilian targets, his defiance of the United Nations Security Council by launching a unilateral war of aggression against the government and the people of Iraq, and in general showing little remorse over or regard for the tens of thousands of innocent civilians and American service personnel who have perished as a direct or indirect result of his foreign policy.
II. ABUSE OF OFFICE AND OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
In taking his oath of office, the President swore to "faithfully execute the office of President of the United States." George Walker Bush, in his conduct while President of the United States, has consistently demonstrated disregard for that oath by obstructing and hindering the work of investigative bodies, by seeking to expand the scope of the powers of his office, by failing to ensure a swift response to a natural disaster where lives were in the balance, and by failing to appoint competent officials or to hold those whom he appoints or those to whom the government grants contracts accountable in cases of dereliction of duty, abuse and outright fraud.
(1) Obstructing Inquiry and Detection. At the Virginia Convention on ratification of the Constitution, George Mason argued that the President might usurp his powers to "pardon crimes which were advised by himself" or prior to indictment or conviction "to stop inquiry and prevent detection," to which James Madison responded that if he did so, "the House of Representatives would impeach him." In an effort to conceal the high crimes and misdemeanors here mentioned, George Walker Bush, in his conduct as President of the United States of America, has presided over the most secretive Presidency in this nation's history, and an administration which actively interferes with the free flow of information by manipulating the press and frustrating its ability to provide an oversight function by being actively hostile to questioning from the press, by placing imposters posing as agents of the press at press conferences, by threatening reporters with prosecution under espionage laws, and by purchasing television segments and placing newspaper stories falsely posing as unbiased reporting in an effort to promote Administration policies. The conduct of this Administration follows a pattern of seeking to hush "whistleblowers" who come forward to share potentially incriminating information with the public, rather than investigating the alleged crime. This Administration has also refused to provide key information to Congressional investigations, and to prosecutors investigating the outing of a Central Intelligence Agency Officer in an apparent act of retribution, or to actively pursue the identity of the guilty informant, despite the President's public pledge to fire the guilty party once discovered, and even after one Administration official was charged in the case with obstruction of justice. George Walker Bush has abused his office by consistently invoking executive privilege in order to shelter his office and his appointees from both Congressional oversight and judicial accountability.
(2) Replacing the Veto with Signing Statements. By declining to veto even one bill, and instead attaching signing statements challenging hundreds of laws passed by Congress, thereby seeking to exempt the executive branch from accountability to said laws,
George Walker Bush has subverted the very nature of his office by seeking to add to his office extraordinary and unconstitutional powers and privileges.
III. FAILURE TO PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION
At the Constitutional Convention, James Madison argued that "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" intentionally included "[a]ttempts to subvert the Constitution." In taking his oath of office, the President swore to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States" to the best of his ability, which includes the duty not to abuse his powers or transgress their limits, the duty not to violate the rights of citizens, including those guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, and not to act in derogation of powers vested elsewhere by the Constitution, George Walker Bush, in his conduct while President of the United States has not only failed in this regard, but has demonstrated a pattern of disregard or contempt for the Constitution itself, as he clearly demonstrated in November 2005 when he shouted at a group of Republican lawmakers, "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It's just a [expletive] piece of paper!"
This conduct has included one or more of the following:
(1) Suspension of Due Process. In direct dereliction of his duty to defend the Constitution, George Walker Bush has systematically deprived citizens and residents of the United States of their constitutional rights to due process under the law, by sanctioning or ordering, at the discretion of the executive, their detention without charge and without trial, a fundamental right to which they are entitled under habeas corpus and the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights; by denying the right to a fair and speedy trial and blocking access to counsel for the defense, both of which are rights guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment in the Bill of Rights; by denying those so illegally detained the opportunity to appear before a judicial officer that they might challenge the legal grounds of their detention; by sanctioning and ordering mass arrests and detentions which inevitably involve all of the above named abuses; and by refusing to disclose the identities and locations of those detained.
(2) Unreasonable Searches and Seizures. In violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, George Walker Bush did clandestinely direct the National Security Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security to conduct electronic surveillance, including a new form of spying using sophisticated software to track internet usage, of citizens of the United States on U.S. soil without seeking to obtain, before or after, a judicial warrant, including spying on groups and individuals who had committed no illegal acts, involving penetration, entrapment and provocation, thereby reviving practices previously discontinued after they were deemed prejudicial to justice by the United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, chaired by Senator Frank Church.
(3) Non-Cooperation with Congress. In derogation of the legislative functions of the Congress, granted under Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution, and the implied power to see that the laws made by Congress are faithfully executed, George Walker Bush, in his conduct as President of the United States, has engaged in a consistent pattern of obstructing and frustrating Congressional investigations. George Walker Bush opposed and delayed the formation of a commission to investigate the attacks of September 11, 2001, and once it was formed, refused to turn over key documents and information in compliance with subpoenas, and also sought and gained exemption from testifying under oath for all but one top administration official. (Condoleezza Rice). He refused requests from the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina and requests from the 9/11 Commission to turn over key documents and information. Under his administration the Justice Department made it official policy to refuse cooperation with Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, to refuse the release of records or testimony, central to informing government decisions, to re-classify previously unclassified records and to withhold even non-secret documents. These actions severely restrict the ability of the people and their representatives in Congress seeking to hold government officials accountable for their decisions to have access to a record of how official decisions were reached, or even to know what the official polices are. Wherefore, George Walker Bush, by obstructing the work of the Congress, did commit and was guilty of high misdemeanors against the United States of America.
(4) Establishment of an Unconstitutional, Parallel Legal System. Edmund Randolph stated at the Constitutional Convention that: "The Executive will have great opportunities [sic] of abusing his power, particularly in time of war when the military force, and in some respects the public money will be in his hands."
In direct dereliction of his duty to defend the Constitution, George Walker Bush has, during his tenure as President of the United States of America, sanctioned the establishment of a parallel legal system operating outside the scope of the Constitution under which the participants would not be bound by due process or basic rights of the accused to speedy and fair trials, access to counsel, or even the right to know the charges and evidence against them, by replacing these measures with a new form of law involving: secret and indefinite detention without trial or hearing; renditions to other countries outside the reach of law and justice; the use of military tribunals to replace civilian courts; detentions outside normal writ of habeas rules and without access to effective counsel, unmonitored conversations or judicial attention and review; exclusion of the accused from portions of the trial and from access to evidence used against them; acceptance of hearsay, including testimony gained under torture or duress; and a lack of independent judiciary or appeal of conviction. An unknown number of individuals, many of whose names the Administration has refused to release, have already been held in undisclosed locations or secret prisons, and mass arrests have been accompanied by deportations. By failing to conduct timely status review hearings, as required under Article 5 of the Geneva Convention, the Bush Administration has made it effectively impossible to determine the status and the rights of those held in secret detention. Although the Supreme Court has ruled that the denial of rights under the Geneva Accords is illegal [Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld], new proposals from the Bush Administration expand the definition of those who can be detained as "enemy combatants" as no longer limited to aliens abroad, and assert that neither the Uniform Code of Military Justice alone, nor federal criminal procedures will guide the functions of these new courts. George Walker Bush, as President of the United States of America, in defiance the Supreme Court, and in keeping with a pattern of conduct seeking to exempt himself from its rulings and from constitutional law, did commit violations of domestic law and was guilty of war crimes.
In all of this, George Walker Bush has sought to arrogate unprecedented power to his executive office and to undermine the system of checks and balances established by the Founders, by using war and national emergency as the basis for his claims in support of a unitary presidency.