The War Crimes Act of 1996, a federal statute set forth at 18 U.S.C. ' 2441, makes it a federal crime for any U.S. national, whether military or civilian, to violate the Geneva Convention by engaging in murder, torture, or inhuman treatment.

The statute applies not only to those who carry out the acts, but also to those who ORDER IT, know about it, or fail to take steps to stop it. The statute applies to everyone, no matter how high and mighty.

18 U.S.C. ' 2441 has no statute of limitations, which means that a war crimes complaint can be filed at any time.

The penalty may be life imprisonment or -- if a single prisoner dies due to torture -- death. Given that there are numerous, documented cases of prisoners being tortured to death by U.S. soldiers in both Iraq and Afghanistan, that means that the death penalty would be appropriate for anyone found guilty of carrying out, ordering, or sanctioning such conduct.

Here's where it gets interesting. The general in charge of the notorious Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq stated this week that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and other top administration officials ORDERED that inhuman treatment and torture be conducted as part of a deliberate strategy.

It has also recently come out that, even after the torture at Abu Ghraib hit the news, torture still continues at that prison and, indeed, the U.S. is still torturing people worldwide. Even to the casual observer, it is obvious that the administration has no plans to stop, but has instead been working tirelessly to make it easier to carry out torture in the future.

Let's recap. We now know that torture in Iraq was ordered by top officials, and that torture is continuing, notwithstanding the administration's claims that it was only "a couple of bad apples" that were responsible for Abu Ghraib. Making a potential prosecutor's job easier, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales wrote a memo in January 2002 to President Bush saying that America should opt out of the Geneva Convention because top officials have to worry about prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. ' 2441. By attempting to sidestep the Geneva Convention, Gonzales created a document trail that can be used to prove that top administration officials knowingly created a policy of torturing prisoners, and that such a policy could reasonably have been expected to result in the death of some prisoners.

The U.S. did opt out of the Geneva Convention for the Afghanistan war, but we never opted out of the Geneva Convention for Iraq. Indeed, President Bush has repeatedly stated that Geneva applies in Iraq (although he has since claimed that foreign fighters captured in Iraq are not covered). Thus, there would be very little room for fancy footwork by defense lawyers in a prosecution against top officials concerning torture in Iraq.

The Abu Ghraib general's recent statements about torture coming from the top is an important piece of evidence for convicting Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, and a host of other top administration officials for violation of the War Crimes Act of 1996. Upon conviction, they could be sentenced to life in prison, or even death.

Additionally, violation of the war crimes act almost certainly constitutes a "high crime or misdemeanor" which would allow impeachment of such officials.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "People demand freedom of speech, to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid." - Soren

----------------------------------------------

We need to do this in every state NOW!!

~~~ Saturday, October 22, 2005 Jumping From the Sinking Ship of Empire: Vermonters Move to Secede From USA

James Howard Kunstler, author of the book about Peak Oil The Long Emergency, will be the keynote speaker at The Vermont Convention on Independence to be held in the House Chamber of the State House in Montpelier, VT on Friday, October 28th, 2005. Sponsored by the Second Vermont Republic, the convention, which will begin at 9 am and conclude at 5 pm, is open to the public and free of charge. This historic event will be the first statewide convention on secession in the United States since North Carolina voted to secede from the Union on May 20, 1861. http://peakoilanarchy.blogspot.com/

INDEPENDENCE RESOLUTION

Be it resolved that the state of Vermont peacefully and democratically free itself from the United States of America and return to its natural status as an independent republic as it was between January 15, 1777 and March 4, 1791.

" ... governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it ..." -Thomas Jefferson, The Declaration of Independence

A Declaration of Independence by the People of the Sovereign State of Vermont:

(Snipped)

Let the reasons for Vermont independence be submitted openly before the world.

Vermont is small, rural, democratic, peaceful, communitarian, egalitarian, and independent. Vermont has suffered, as have other states, from the debilit and big agriculture. Its people have seen big markets deliver inferior ! goods an d produce. They have been burdened with technology that is inappropriate to their needs.

Since Vermont became the fourteenth state of the Union, the United States government has become too big, too centralized, too powerful, too intrusive, too materialistic, too impersonal, too grasping, too militarized, too imperialistic, too violent, too undemocratic, too corrupt, and too unresponsive to the needs of individual citizens and small communities. National and Congressional elections are sold to the highest bidder. State and local governments assume too little responsibility for the well-being of their citizens - too often abdicating their responsibilities to Washington.

The free people of Vermont have reached a turning point: whether to fight for "liberty and justice" or to trade in their heritage for th progress. It is comfort. It is an illusion.

We, the people, here assembled choose "liberty and justice," and we reject a system of intrusive federal control that is antithetical to a prosperous way of life, and to the well being of a sovereign state. http://www.vermontrepublic.org/writings/vtdeclaration.html

-------------------------------------------

Also see: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39762

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE POWER TO DESTROY Senators plan push to end income tax Lawmakers looking to replace current code with flat-rate levy on business transactions --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted: October 25, 2005 3:28 p.m. Eastern

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C.

A South Carolina senator dissatisfied with the results of a Bush advisory panel's recommendations on tax reform is set to introduce a bill to abolish federal income tax in favor of a levy on business transactions.

Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., told the New York Sun he would put his plan before the Senate tomorrow. The proposal calls for an end to all personal income taxes and the attendant bevy of related taxes, deductions and exemptions, including the estate tax and the alternative minimum tax. The plan would eliminate the need for Americans to file income tax returns.

The president's panel, led by former Sens. Connie Mack and John Breaux, issued two proposals to reform parts of the tax code, but it didn't go far enough for many tax-reform activists.

DeMint told the paper the recommendations were "not the real reform we need."

"With the panel endorsing small changes," DeMint added, "I felt it necessary to get my plan for comprehensive reform out as quickly as possible."

According to the Sun report, the DeMint plan, which is co-sponsored by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., includes an 8.5 percent federal retail sales tax on all new goods and services. Corporate income taxes would be replaced by an 8.5 percent business transfer tax charged during purchases of supplies or equipment.

Senate staff members tell the paper the 8.5 percent figure had been determined after consultation with economists to assure the proposal would remain revenue-neutral.

Under the plan, every American living below the federal poverty level would get a rebate for 8.5 percent of poverty-level income – which, for a family of four, is about $19,000 a year, the paper reported.

"There is a growing urgency and consensus that the tax code is killing our ability to compete in the global economy," DeMint is quoted as saying. "It's as if we have huge signs on our beaches saying, 'Take Your Business Somewhere Else!'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------