Tag(s): ; ; ; , Add Tags
Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

Permalink
View Article Stats      (9 comments)

"The Case for Impeachment" program now available online

Add this Page to Facebook!
Submit to Twitter
Submit to Reddit
Submit to Stumble Upon

Tell A Friend

Become a Fan
Get Embed HTML Code
By (about the author)

Become a Fan Become a Fan  (32 fans)   -- Page 1 of 1 page(s)

opednews.com

Impeachment as an issue, and impeachable crimes themselves, get short shrift in the U.S. Media these days.

Back during the Clinton presidency, when the president was being charged with lying about a marital infidelity, a number of major publications were calling for his resignation or impeachment. Now, when the president is openly undermining the fundamental principles of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, starting wars in violation of the Nuremburg Charter, ignoring acts passed by the Congress, and stripping citizens of their right to a trial, not one paper has called for resignation, much less impeachment.

Stories about the impeachment movement are either rediculed or ignored.

Books about impeachment are simply ignored.

Take "The Case for Impeachment," by Dave Lindorff and Barbara Olshansky (St. Martin's Press, May 2006). There are plenty of reviews of Ann Coulter's screeds, but this serious work has not been reviewe
d by a single mainstream publication.
Despite this, the hardcover book has sold 30,000 copies in two months since its release.

Perhaps more telling, when C-Span Books TV, last Saturday (Aug. 26), aired a one-hour program on the book, featuring the two authors speaking at Robin's Books, an independent bookseller in Philadelphia, the book leapt from 30,000th polace to 42nd overnight on Amazon's best-seller list. Clearly the public is hungry for news and information on impeachment.


Now C-Span has put the same program online, so anyone can access it, at:
http://www.booktv.org/feature/index.asp?segid=7322&schedid=446

It will be interesting to see how the public responds to this.

The program breaks news not available elsewhere. For example, author Olshansky, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights, tells of how one of her clients among the 300 detainees she represents at Guantanamo, who was among the three who committed suicide last June, was just a 17-year old kid--one of the ones captured and brought to Guantanamo by U.S. Forces in Afghanistan as a child back in 2001, when he was only 12.

This unfortunate boy, despairing of ever escaping his capitivity, actually had been found innocent by the government and was scheduled to be released just three days after his suicide, Olshansky reportes on the program, but although she and the other attorneys at CCR had been told this by the U.S., they had been unable to notify him, because the government for two weeks had been blocking them from communicating with him. The government didn't inform him either.

Olshansky reports that there were a number of child captives "some as young as 7," who were held in a special center at Guantanamo called "Camp Iguana." She notes that the Geneva Conventions, to which the U.S. Is a founding signatory, require that children 12 and under be accorded special treatment in wartime, and not be treated as combatants or held as POWs.

Lindorff, in the program, lays out 10 reasons why Bush should be impeached, and lashes into Democratic Party leaders who have claimed impeachment would be "off the table" if the party were to win control of the House in November. He explains not only that members of Congress have an obligation, as part of their oaths to "uphold and defend the Constitution," to impeach for crimes against the Constitution, the Republic and the people of the U.S., but that impeachment is the perfect strategy for the November election, since 80 percent of Democrats, and over 50 percent of all voters, support the idea.

That's another thing you don't hear in the mainstream media.

 

Dave Lindorff is a founding member of the collectively-owned, journalist-run online newspaper www.thiscantbehappening.net. He is a columnist for Counterpunch, is author of several recent books ("This (more...)
 

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

 

Share this page: (what's this?)                   Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend

Add this Page to Facebook!      Submit to Stumble Upon      Submit to Reddit      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Blink List     (More...)

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
9 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

No Subject Entered by Vulture on Thursday, Aug 31, 2006 at 1:13:44 PM
Hocking Book by Dale Hill on Thursday, Aug 31, 2006 at 3:26:25 PM
No Subject Entered by Vulture on Thursday, Aug 31, 2006 at 6:44:15 PM
David, You cannot win an arument with an ignorant man. by Frank J. Ranelli on Thursday, Aug 31, 2006 at 7:53:25 PM
David, You cannot win an argument with an ignorant man. by Frank J. Ranelli on Thursday, Aug 31, 2006 at 7:54:11 PM
fjr1966 NO but I have studied US history by Vulture on Friday, Sep 1, 2006 at 8:33:43 AM
Hypocrisy at its finest example! by Frank J. Ranelli on Friday, Sep 1, 2006 at 5:26:02 PM
The case by pratliff94 on Friday, Sep 1, 2006 at 8:19:36 AM
No Subject Entered by Vulture on Friday, Sep 1, 2006 at 10:10:53 AM