Thread: Would a Charge of Treason Stick to George Bush?

from Republicans for Impeachment

There has been discussion within the impeachment movement over whether George Bush can formally be accused of treason, or if such accusations are fanciful and would not meet legal muster. I believe they would. Some pretty smart lawyers I know are discussing this question, and as a layman I can only apply the law as I understand it.

Valerie Plame

The first case for treason centers on Valerie Plame. The definition of treason according to Article 3, Section 3, of the US Constitution:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

On July 12, 2007 George Bush admitted:

"Somebody in his administration leaked the name of that person, Valerie Plame"

In the Dorgan-Waxman Committee Hearings of July 22, 2005, on the damage to the national security done by Plame's identification, an expert witness, Special Forces Col. Patrick Lang said that, as a result of Plame's identification:

"The possibility of penetrating these groups, the possibility of knowing that they're going to carry 10-pound bags of explosive in the subway stations, will go right down the drain."

This was in addition to similar testimony by other expert witnesses, including many former CIA officers. Walter Pincus in the Washington Post, October 4, 2003, quoted a former diplomat as affirming that:

"every foreign intelligence service would run Plame's name through its databases within hours of its publication to determine if she had visited their country and to reconstruct her activities."

"Every foreign intelligence service" would include the Pakistani ISI, the Inter-Intelligence Services, which is riddled with Al Qaeda sympathizers. It was only a matter of time before Al Qaeda knew if you had been passing secrets along to that Plame woman.

Summary: Someone in the Bush administration gave information to our enemies, which constitutes "aid and comfort" which made it easier to attack us. In conventional war, the parallel would be telling the Germans where the main assault would hit on D-Day. Remember, Ike, General Eisenhower, knew it was important to keep them guessing. In the war on terror the serial number of a single cargo container docked at an American port is more important than armies, as this is a HUMINT (spook talk for Human Intelliegence) war. Amounts of hardware (tanks, planes) have sunk to near irrelevance in protecting us, as stealth determination of the enemy's precise actions and intentions, assessed by covert agents, is now most important.

This is exactly what Plame's job was for the 20 years. She was non-official cover, meaning she was set up in a private business as a front to hide any connection with the U.S. government. Many details of her career are still classified, but we know she worked as a clandestine operative in the area of "non-proliferation." Non-proliferation means stopping the spread of unconventional weapons, like bio-weapons and nukes. CBS confirms that part of Plame's job was to keep Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

When the administration blew Plame's cover to Al Qaeda, any potential informants seen with Plame, who as a gorgeous blond stands out and is memorable, were suspect. The shadowy world of trade in weapons of mass destruction was now filled with walking dead men. As a (suddenly) high-profile American officer, Plame herself was probably untouchable, but not so an Algerian banker or a Pakistani technician whom she had encouraged to talk. In Dorgan-Waxman hearings Special Service Forces Colonel Lang, a decorated veteran trained as a Middle East specialist and a professor of Arabic at West Point, said:

HUMINT is about human beings. It's about one person, an American person, a case officer in the parlance of the trade, causing some foreign person to trust him enough and to trust his unit and to trust the United States enough to put his life, his fortune and, indeed, his sacred honor in many cases into the hands of this case officer...

By Bush's own description of this "new kind of war," in which the enemy has no armies, he committed the worst form of treason. It would have been less damaging had he given bin Laden the blueprints for an F-16. Why prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald went with the lighter charge of violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act is a mystery. You can unmask a covert agent and still not do too much damage, if, for example, they are working in a Western diplomatic post charged with spying on officials of an allied nation. In such a case the charge of violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act would be appropriate. But the Bush administration did untold damage, because Plame was working on the non-proliferation of unconventional weapons. Bush poked the eyes out of our ability to know where in the underground world WMD was coming from and where they were going, according to testimony in the Dorgan-Waxman hearings on Plame. [a href=http://polispolis.blogspot.com/2006/04/special-forces-col-patrick-lang-on.html]Col. Lang testified:[/url]

if within a practicing clandestine intelligence unit the case officers believe that their superiors will not protect the identity of their sources or their own identity, in fact, in doing things which are dangerous and difficult, then a, kind of, circle of doubt begins to spread, like throwing a rock into the water.

The White House spin and smear operation which followed the unmasking of Plame of necessity targeted her covert status. With its allies in right-wing radio and television, doubt was cast in the public mind over whether Plame was truly covert or not. They had no choice. Were the public to understand what had just happened, at the street level and beyond the confines of the well-informed, calls for impeachment would have seemed mild.

The irony is that Bush built his career on protecting us from WMD, and that is exactly what he exposed us to when he betrayed Plame. Treason.

Lying Under Oath: The Oath of Office

Bush swore before a joint session of Congress:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." -Presidential Oath of Office.

I assume this oath has the force of law, and is not purely ceremonial. When Bush claimed the wartime powers of the past, by which the president can deprive citizens of constitutional rights, and then said the war on terror is "a task that does not end," he set out to overthrow the constitutional rights of citizens, a violation of his oath to uphold the Constitution. If we apply his own arguments, that Al Qaeda and bin Laden are determined to take away our freedoms, then by doing so himself he has given the "aid and comfort" to the enemy required in Article 3 to fit the definition of treason.

A president may claim wartime powers in a traditional war, as previous presidents have, and know that at some point the war will be over, that people will see someone surrendering on a ship and signing a document, or see an army annihilated like Hitler's which clearly means the war is over. Now give me back my rights. Or a president can recognize that a war lasts "forever" and not claim wartime powers. But to do both, claim wartime powers and declare that the war has no end, is the very definition of tyranny which seeks to make our rights under the Constitution meaningless.

I am the first to admit that this is a novel legal argument, but no president in history has ever made such audacious and novel claims to power. A novel attack requires a novel defense. Further evidence that the intent of the Founders was to never have the military deployed against its own citizens is the prohibition against "standing armies."

Evidence:

War that does not end:

"And I will carry this: It is the police shield of a man named George Howard, who died at the World Trade Center trying to save others. It was given to me by his mom, Arlene, as a proud memorial to her son. This is my reminder of lives that ended, and a task that does not end."
" -GWB,Address to a Joint Session of Congress, Sept. 20, 2001

Bill of Rights:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." -Sixth Amendment of the US Constitution, the "Bill of Rights"

Claim of wartime power to declare American citizens "enemy combatant," overriding the Bill of Rights:

--"I, GEORGE W. BUSH, as President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the U.S. armed forces, hereby DETERMINE for the United States of America that...Jose Padilla, who is under the control of the Department of Justice and who is a U.S. citizen, is, and at the time he entered the United States in May 2002 was, an enemy combatant...Accordingly, you are directed to receive Mr. Padilla from the Department of Justice and to detain him as an enemy combatant. "
--June 9, 2002 Presidential Order to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, to take military custody of Jose Padilla as an "enemy combatant"

Verdict: Impeach for High Treason.

Your congressman
Phone numbers of key congressmen for impeachment, House Judiciary Committee:

Phone numbers:
Smith, Lamar R-TX 202-225-4236
Franks, Trent R-AL 202-225-4576
Gallegly, Elton R-CA 202-225-3065
Lungren, Daniel R-CA 202-225-5716
Issa, Darrell R-CA 202-225-3906
Feeney, Tom R-FL 202-225-2706
Keller, Ric R-FL 202-225-2176
Pence, Mike R-IN 202-225-3021
King, Steve R-IA 202-225-4426
Coble, Howard R-NC 202-225-3065
Chabot, Steve R-OH 202-225-2216
Jordan, Jim R- OH 202-225-2676
Gohmert, Louie R-TX 202-225-3035
Cannon, Chris R-UT 202-225-7751
Forbes, J. Randy R-VA 202-225-6365
Goodlatte, Bob R-VA 202-225-5431
Sensenbrenner Jr., James R-WI 202-225-5101

Pressure congressmen through their campaign contributors

Impeachment from Left to Right

I not only want this fool Impeached, I want him charged with Treason

i want his A$$ in a cell with johnny sutton, debra kanof and alberto gonzalez

The courts upheld the right to declare citizens "enemy combatants". The Supreme Court in 1942 upheld the power of the President to declare "enemy combatants."

Apparently, there is no statute of limitations on high treason, and since it is too late from impeachment from what I can find Googling: US treason statute of limitations.
Found this at ChooseLaw:
http://articles.chooselaw.com/genera...tions.282.html Also found this at the USDA website called Treason 101 http://www.usda.gov/da/ocpm/Security...ason/Intro.htm

CIA officer named prior to column

Originally published 11:54 p.m., July 22, 2004, updated 12:00 a.m., July 23, 2004

The identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame was compromised twice before her name appeared in a news column that triggered a federal illegal-disclosure investigation, U.S. officials say.

Mrs. Plame's identity as an undercover CIA officer was first disclosed to Russia in the mid-1990s by a Moscow spy, said officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

In a second compromise, officials said a more recent inadvertent disclosure resulted in references to Mrs. Plame in confidential documents sent by the CIA to the U.S. Interests Section of the Swiss Embassy in Havana.

The documents were supposed to be sealed from the Cuban government, but intelligence officials said the Cubans read the classified material and learned the secrets contained in them, the officials said.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2004/ju ... 439-4033r/

If she had been undercover, she would not have been casually walking in and out of CIA HQ everyday. That's why she was there because her identity had already been revealed.

Bush's statement "PERHAPS perhaps somebody in the administration did disclose the name of that person"

ralphlopez:

Bushes' times are coming; but let's close our borders, and secure our interior on the journey or we will not have a country to complain in or about.

We are under invasion of 40,000,000 illegals!

What more can I say?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And yes if illegal criminal aliens are in the streets of Denver; believe me there is a time for no name tags on military or police uniforms.

America is under a silent interior attack; see it before you cannot complain.

DEPORT ALL ILLEGAL CRIMINAL ALIENS, NOW ICE.
CONGRESS GIVE US AN ANCHOR BABY LAW.

Originally Posted by gofer

The courts upheld the right to declare citizens "enemy combatants". The Supreme Court in 1942 upheld the power of the President to declare "enemy combatants."

This is true. But these were in the context of wars where you could see armies, airfields, command bunkers, and ships. You knew when the war was over because either a general surrendered or you could see that you had obliterated their forces and their capitol cities were in ruins and there was no one left to fight. In the "war on terror" the enemy is conveniently invisible until he strikes, so you can say the war lasts forever.

Legally a precedent can only apply to a case in which the facts, i.e. the contexts, are similar. There is a radical difference between this kind of war and previous ones, so Bush cannot say "it's been done before" based on the cases you cite, because the context is completely different. As long as there is a kid who'll throw a cherry bomb in a mailbox, the president can declare that the war on terror is still on, and put anyone away anyone he wants to without a jury trial, the way they did Jose Padilla for nearly 4 years before releasing him from military custody to the civilian courts for a trial. Padilla was nothing more than a trial balloon for what they can now do to the rest of us. Say you are protesting the North American Union and you are starting to turn the tide against it, as a very effective organizer. You think all those billions $$$ at stake are just going to back down and say, "Ok"?

Here is a good article: Jose Padilla's Suit Against John Yoo: An Interesting Idea, But Will It Get Far?

Originally Posted by gofer

CIA officer named prior to column

Originally published 11:54 p.m., July 22, 2004, updated 12:00 a.m., July 23, 2004

The identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame was compromised twice before her name appeared in a news column that triggered a federal illegal-disclosure investigation, U.S. officials say.

Mrs. Plame's identity as an undercover CIA officer was first disclosed to Russia in the mid-1990s by a Moscow spy, said officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

In a second compromise, officials said a more recent inadvertent disclosure resulted in references to Mrs. Plame in confidential documents sent by the CIA to the U.S. Interests Section of the Swiss Embassy in Havana.

The documents were supposed to be sealed from the Cuban government, but intelligence officials said the Cubans read the classified material and learned the secrets contained in them, the officials said.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2004/ju ... 439-4033r/

If she had been undercover, she would not have been casually walking in and out of CIA HQ everyday. That's why she was there because her identity had already been revealed.

Bush's statement "PERHAPS perhaps somebody in the administration did disclose the name of that person"

That Washington Times editorial has been pretty well debunked, it said that Plame's neighbors all knew she was a spy when the opposite was true.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200507260005

Remember when all the intelligence agencies around the world started running her name through their databases, that would include the Pakistani ISI, which is shot through with Al Qaeda. It was only a matter of time before Al Qaeda knew who Plame was talking to, and put two-and-two together.
"Pakistani Intelligence Had Links to Al Qaeda, U.S. Officials Say"
http://tiger.berkeley.edu/sohrab/politi ... blems.html

As to Plame walking in and out of CIA HQ, your vehicle goes through some pretty serious security before you get into the lot and anywhere near the front door. I'd say if any Al Qaeda were dumb enough to lay in the grass outside the main gate at Langley with binoculars and cameras, it won't be long before they are looking down they barrels of M-16s, at a K-9 unit!!