United for Peace of Pierce County, WA - We nonviolently oppose the reliance on unilateral military actions rather than cooperative diplomacy.

On Friday, Mark Perry of Tacoma was so outraged by the news of high-level detailed discussion of torture techniques in the White House involving many of the leading figures of the Bush administration that he took a day of vacation to draft a comment.[1] -- He sent what he wrote to Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA), and Rep. Norm Dicks (D-WA 6th), stating: "I believe it is your responsibility as my representative to the United States Congress to publicly demand an open and honest investigation by the Congress into the actions of the Vice President and others named in the AP news article published today in the Tacoma News Tribune, 'Cheney, Others OK'd Harsh Interrogations,' and if warranted, pursue an impeachment trial." -- Mark Perry argued that the clear evidence of a crime made mandatory an investigation of the executive by the legislature, as provided for in the U.S. Constitution: "This is the kind of behavior our Founding Fathers decried in the Declaration of Independence," Perry wrote. "Our first citizens adopted the Constitution of the United States with the explicit intention of preventing a recurrence of such behavior." -- He received a response from Sen. Patty Murray, stating that "I am concerned that progress on health care, education, and veteran's care would all be put on hold and would not be fixed if Congress solely focused on impeachment proceedings."[2] -- Perry replied that this position is "no longer justifiable under the Constitution following the publication today of the news story to which I referred earlier."[3] -- The AP article to which Mark Perry refers is posted below.[4] -- The article quoted ACLU legislative director Caroline Fredrickson, who said: "[I]t is beginning to look like the torture operation was managed and directed out of the White House. This is what we suspected all along." -- "If you share my distress at the continuing inaction of our representatives about the torture issue in particular," writes Perry, "I hope you will send similar notes." ...

I took a day of vacation today to write the comment below and send it to the News Tribune and to Patty Murray, Maria Cantwell and Norm Dicks. If you share my distress at the continuing inaction of our representatives about the torture issue in particular, I hope you will send similar notes. http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/elected_officials.aspx

I believe it is your responsibility as my representative to the United States Congress to publicly demand an open and honest investigation by the congress into the actions of the Vice President and others named in the AP news article published today in the Tacoma News Tribune, "Cheney, others OK'd harsh interrogations", and if warranted, pursue an impeachment trial.

Does conspiring to cover crimes with a secret legal opinion from a lawyer working for the executives intending to commit crimes protect those executives from prosecution?

Are employees of the United States Government not subject to U.S. and international law under the Constitution of the United States?

The CIA admits to waterboarding detainees after the requested legal opinions were issued. The named executives must have known that waterboarding, and other actions they apparently authorized, would be criminal actions under U.S. and international law. The legal opinions were not made public prior to the commission of the crimes, which suggests that the executives knew that publication would make the actions immediately contested as criminal and would probably be prevented in the courts.

If these executives worked for any entity in the United States other than the U.S. Government, these offenses would be publicly acknowledged as indictable for conspiracy to commit a crime and for actually committing the crime. Hopefully, there are complete records of the meetings mentioned in the AP article. If not, that in itself is a crime. Using the fiction of "executive privilege" to deny access to evidence of the commission of a crime is an obstruction of justice.

When the executives committing the crimes are the Executive Branch of the United States Government, the Legislative Branch has the responsibility, clearly stated in the Constitution, to investigate, and if warranted, conduct an impeachment trial. Since the suspects are members of both the executive and judicial branches, the investigation must be led and controlled by the legislative branch. Failure by the legislature to conduct an open and honest investigation can only result in a loss of faith in the government to police itself. This is the kind of behavior our Founding Fathers decried in the Declaration of Independence. Our first citizens adopted the Constitution of the United States with the explicit intention of preventing a recurrence of such behavior.

We can only speculate as to why our elected representatives and the fifth estate, particularly in this state, are continuing to be silent and to not publicly demand that the Congress fulfill its responsibility in this matter. That speculation will be more damaging to our society, and to the perception of our society and government in the world at large, than the consequences of an open and honest investigation could possibly be.

Thank you for contacting me about impeachment proceedings for President Bush or members of his Administration. I appreciate hearing from you about this serious issue.

As you know, Congress may remove the President, Vice President, and any Civil Officer of the United States from office through the impeachment process. According to the Constitution, the House of Representatives may impeach an official on charges of "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors" (Article II, Section 4) to remove the individual from office. Only two sitting Presidents have ever been impeached: Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. No sitting President has been convicted and removed from office.

Recently, Washington state legislators in Olympia introduced resolutions that called for the impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. State Senator Eric Oemig (D-Kirkland) was the sponsor of this resolution, Senate Joint Memorial 8016. However, since State Senator Oemig's resolution was at the state level, it would have had no binding impact on the impeachment proceedings at the federal level. The State Legislature adjourned without taking action on this legislation. In addition, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) has introduced House Resolution 333 (H.Res. 333) in the U.S. House of Representatives, which calls for the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney. The U.S. House of Representatives is the only legislative body with the authority to begin impeachment proceedings of the Executive Branch.

I share your serious concerns and frustrations with the direction that President Bush and his Administration have been taking our country, both at home and overseas. I am troubled that Congress has been denied a chance to hold hearings and to bring accountability to this Administration. Now that Congress is under new leadership, we finally have that opportunity, and Congress is using the oversight process aggressively to get the facts to help our country move forward. We have held more oversight hearings of the Administration's handling of the Iraq war in the first few months of the Democratic control of the Congress than the Republicans did since the war began.

I believe the best way to alter the direction that our country is headed in is to focus on fixing the current problems. At both the state and federal levels, there are many issues that require our attention, discussion, and action, and will require the President's active involvement. I am concerned that progress on health care, education, and veteran's care would all be put on hold and would not be fixed if Congress solely focused on impeachment proceedings.

Be assured, I believe that the Congress must hold the Administration accountable for their actions and decisions, and I look forward to the upcoming hearings and investigations that are occurring in the 110th Congress.

Thank you for sharing your views on this matter with me, and I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind as the actions of President Bush and his administration are reviewed.

"Now that Congress is under new leadership, we finally have that opportunity, and Congress is using the oversight process aggressively to get the facts to help our country move forward. We have held more oversight hearings of the Administration's handling of the Iraq war in the first few months of the Democratic control of the Congress than the Republicans did since the war began.

"I believe the best way to alter the direction that our country is headed in is to focus on fixing the current problems. At both the state and federal levels, there are many issues that require our attention, discussion, and action, and will require the President's active involvement. I am concerned that progress on health care, education, and veteran's care would all be put on hold and would not be fixed if Congress solely focused on impeachment proceedings."

...is no longer justifiable under the Constitution following the publication today of the news story to which I referred earlier. The past year has clearly demonstrated that the "new leadership" to which you make reference is not going to obtain cooperation from this administration that is in any way sufficient to continue to neglect your responsibility to enforce the law and uphold the Constitution. "High crimes and misdemeanors" may be difficult to prove surrounding the Iraq war issues that you cite in defense of your own inaction, however, that is not the case regarding the obvious conspiracy on the part of the Vice President and others to commit crimes as I stated in my original message and have copied below for your consideration.

I believe that you and other members of both houses of the Congress of the United States are legally bound under the Constitution to begin a serious investigation and I remain to be convinced that such an investigation would not require impeachment.

CHENEY, OTHERS OK'S HARSH INTERROGATIONS
By Lara Jakes Jordan and Pamela Hess

[PHOTO CAPTION: Vice President Dick Cheney, speaks at the 50th anniversary celebrations of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Thursday, April 10, 2008, in Washington. Bush administration officials from Vice President Dick Cheney on down signed off on using harsh interrogation techniques against suspected terrorists after asking the Justice Department to endorse their legality, The Associated Press has learned. Photo by Manuel Balce Ceneta.]

WASHINGTON -- Bush administration officials from Vice President Dick Cheney on down signed off on using harsh interrogation techniques against suspected terrorists after asking the Justice Department to endorse their legality, the Associated Press has learned.

The officials also took care to insulate President Bush from a series of meetings where CIA interrogation methods, including waterboarding, which simulates drowning, were discussed and ultimately approved.

A former senior U.S. intelligence official familiar with the meetings described them Thursday to the AP to confirm details first reported by ABC News on Wednesday. The intelligence official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to publicly discuss the issue.

Between 2002 and 2003, the Justice Department issued several memos from its Office of Legal Counsel that justified using the interrogation tactics, including ones that critics call torture.

"If you looked at the timing of the meetings and the memos you'd see a correlation," the former intelligence official said. Those who attended the dozens of meetings agreed that "there'd need to be a legal opinion on the legality of these tactics" before using them on al-Qaida detainees, the former official said.

The meetings were held in the White House Situation Room in the years immediately following the Sept. 11 attacks. Attending the sessions were Cheney, then-Bush aides Attorney General John Ashcroft, Secretary of State Colin Powell, CIA Director George Tenet, and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.

The White House, Justice, and State Departments and the CIA refused comment Thursday, as did a spokesman for Tenet. A message for Ashcroft was not immediately returned.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., lambasted what he described as "yet another astonishing disclosure about the Bush administration and its use of torture."

"Who would have thought that in the United States of America in the 21st century, the top officials of the executive branch would routinely gather in the White House to approve torture?" Kennedy said in a statement. "Long after President Bush has left office, our country will continue to pay the price for his administration's renegade repudiation of the rule of law and fundamental human rights."

"With each new revelation, it is beginning to look like the torture operation was managed and directed out of the White House," ACLU legislative director Caroline Fredrickson said. "This is what we suspected all along."

The former intelligence official described Cheney and the top national security officials as deeply immersed in developing the CIA's interrogation program during months of discussions over which methods should be used and when.

At times, CIA officers would demonstrate some of the tactics, or at least detail how they worked, to make sure the small group of "principals" fully understood what the al-Qaida detainees would undergo. The principals eventually authorized physical abuse such as slaps and pushes, sleep deprivation, or waterboarding. This technique involves strapping a person down and pouring water over his cloth-covered face to create the sensation of drowning.

The small group then asked the Justice Department to examine whether using the interrogation methods would break domestic or international laws.

"No one at the agency wanted to operate under a notion of winks and nods and assumptions that everyone understood what was being talked about," said a second former senior intelligence official. "People wanted to be assured that everything that was conducted was understood and approved by the folks in the chain of command."

The Office of Legal Counsel issued at least two opinions on interrogation methods.

In one, dated Aug. 1, 2002, then-Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee defined torture as covering "only extreme acts" causing pain similar in intensity to that caused by death or organ failure. A second, dated March 14, 2003, justified using harsh tactics on detainees held overseas so long as military interrogators did not specifically intend to torture their captives.

The second former senior intelligence official said rescinding the memos caused the CIA to seek even more detailed approvals for the interrogations.

The department issued another still-secret memo in October 2001 that, in part, sought to outline novel ways the military could be used domestically to defend the country in the face of an impending attack. The Justice Department so far has refused to release it, citing attorney-client privilege, and Attorney General Michael Mukasey declined to describe it Thursday at a Senate panel where Democrats characterized it as a "torture memo."

Not all of the principals who attended were fully comfortable with the White House meetings.

The ABC News report portrayed Ashcroft as troubled by the discussions, despite agreeing that the interrogations methods were legal.

"Why are we talking about this in the White House?" the network quoted Ashcroft as saying during one meeting. "History will not judge this kindly."