Saturday, December 15, 2007

Enough Already - Time for Impeachment!!

Impeachment: Now The Gloves Are Off
December 13, 2007
Jodin Morey
[Editor's Note: This article makes characterizations - that Impeach for Peace is a 'Primarily Democratic Organization' - which are inaccurate since Impeach for Peace is a non-partisan organization and no poll has been taken of it's member's political affiliations if any.]
by Michael Cavlan - MN Green Party nominee for Senator"Now the gloves are off."
Let me explain that statement.
First, on the issue of Impeachment, either you get it or you don't. Sadly, the Democratic Parties leadership are of the latter, they don't and apparently won't get it. Former Federal Prosecutor, Elizabeth de la Vega has done a supreme job on making of the case for Impeachment. Far more eloquently and concisely than I ever could.
My name is Michael Cavlan, Registered Nurse, active in the group Impeach For Peace and the Green Party candidate for US Senate in Minnesota 2006. I was also the second politician in the country to publicly call for Impeachment, two days after the now infamous Downing Street Memo became public. Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, John Conyers was the first. He later arrested Cindy Sheehan in his office for staging a sit down protest in his office due to his effectively taking it "off the table." I can now safely say that I was the first to say it and actually mean it. More on Representative Conyers later.
Fellow progressives, we need to be honest with ourselves and understand something. The Democratic Party and it's corporate corrupted leadership have not simply been inactive on this issue of Impeachment. Democratic "leadership" have actually been fighting and blocking Impeachment all over the country. I base this statement of fact on my four years of experience in the Impeachment movement. I have worked with Impeach For Peace and have made the statement that on this issue, I have been deliberately non-partisan because it is so important. Now, with what happened to the Dennis Kucinich Bill HR 799 that has changed my entire perspective. At this time I told my local Minnesota Democratic friends in Impeach For Peace that my ceasefire was over and that the "gloves were indeed off." There has been no argument from them on this. As I told them, it was time to look seriously at "Plan B" for Impeachment. More on "Plan B" and what it entails in a minute.
Let me explain what the corporate media and the corporatized leadership of the Democratic Party will not tell you. We need to understand that their actions and lack of actions are actually protecting the Bush Administration and their illegal activity from the wrath of "We The People." All over the country, while rank and file Democrats and indeed the majority of the American people want to have Bush and Cheney Impeached, the Democratic party leadership have done everything in their power to stop Impeachment. While at the same time, hyping us all up on how evil those in the Bush Administration are. Of course this mirrors the blatant lie on the Iraq war, where the Democrats tell us about needing 60 votes in the Senate to stop the Iraq war. That is a lie as the truth is, they only need 41 votes to block funding for this illegal and immoral war. Just don't expect a Democrat politician or their apologists to tell us that. So it is with Impeachment. The lie being perpetrated on a lack of Impeachment and accountability is that "it will make the Democrats look bad, small and spiteful." Just as the lie on not having enough votes to stop the war, so this lie must be exposed.
The truth is that having the Congress call for Impeachment will do two very important things at the same time. It will begin the public investigation into the crimes of the Bush Administration and then the corporate media will be unable to ignore the issue further. They will be forced into investigating and reporting it in a serious and meaningful way. The second part is, in my book even more important than the first. With the American people awakened to the crimes being perpetrated in our names, the groundswell of support for Impeachment will take off immediately.
Instead, we have seen the movement for Impeachment squashed all over the country. From Vermont, to New Mexico and elsewhere all over our country it has been stifled and marginalized. Not by the "greater evil" Republican Party but instead by the "lesser evil" Democratic Party. So very often, going against the wishes of the rank and file Democrats. As I stated earlier I have been working with a primarily Democratic organization Impeach For Peace and have witnessed this phenomena going on all over the nation, as well as locally. Our federal government has failed us, all of us. Instead of standing up and protecting us, they have blocked and stalled the Impeachment Movement all over our nation.
By their actions and equally important, lack of action our elected officials have abandoned their oath to "defend and protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic." Even more damning, they have, as stated earlier actually protected the Bush Administration from being held accountable by us for their criminal and immoral actions. In Minnesota recently Congressman John Conyers was recently challenged on this very point. He told us that it was more important to be re-elected and have a Democrat in the White House than this critical issue of accountability for those criminals in the White House. These are his words here, not mine. I told him that we have reached a point in our nation that we need to hold those people accountable who refuse to hold this criminal Administration itself accountable. Remember this term for later.
Then we have the earlier mentioned HR 799, entered into the political record by Dennis Kucinich. What happened to that Bill irrefutably makes my case. When presidential candidate Kucinich used his position and privilege as a Congressman to introduce this bill, calling for the Impeachment of Dick Cheney look at what happened. It was the Democratic Party which attempted to table it, to effectively kill the Bill and all that it stood for, accountability. Yet in a stunning turn around, it was the Republicans who actually kept it alive, in an obvious attempt to make the Democrats look bad. In fact the story goes that an unnamed Republican "accidently" dropped his pen where he could not reach it. Then the Republicans quickly had a meeting and decided to keep it alive, obviously for what they perceived as short term political gain. At the obvious behest of House leader Nancy Pelosi, the Bill was then sent to the Judiciary Committee, where it currently sits. We must note that it now sits with it's virtual mirror HR 333 which also calls for the Impeachment of Cheney. HR 333 has been languishing with no movement for over six months now and it appears that HR 799 will suffer the same fate, as was intended. For all intended purposes "Mission Accomplished" or so it would appear.
It was at this point that I told my friends in Impeach For Peace that "the gloves are off." Now we need to analyze why the Democratic Party leadership would make such a horrific political blunder. Some have put it down to yet another example of "the Dems spinelessness and cowardice again." I disagree. I hold, firmly that the reason that Nancy Pelosi, Barck Obama, Hillary Clinton, yes even John Edwards and John Conyers have been guilty of these unbelievable acts of craven cowardice is not just simple lack of political will and spine. I put it to you all, very directly that the real reason that they are not moving and in fact are attempting to kill Impeachment is much deeper and troubling.
The plain and simple reason that the Democratic Party are willing to go against the will of the majority, not just in their Party but indeed the general public is this simple and chilling. Their owners won't let them. Their owners are, of course the wealthy, monied corporate interests who own the entire political system, media and just about everything else in our country. Those people and interests who fund campaigns, the ones responsible for the slick, glitzy TV adds, the fancy glossy brochures and parades that we often attend. The very groups and people that the Democratic party claims to fighting against. They own them, they are not our representatives, they are theirs. Years of watching good, honest people "petitioning" them has made that clear to me. The sooner we all come to that realization and fight for a true representative, grassroots government, the sooner we can actually achieve it. Of course that means we have to look honestly and realistically on where we are and just how bad and deep the mess we find ourselves is. "They" are not the solution, they are a manifestation of the problem we face. I base this on the dual understanding, the undeniable truth that corporate interests own both political parties. Corporations do not like instability and Impeachment would indeed create some short term instability in the market. So they are probably threatening to withhold their campaign constibutions if Impeachment is not "taken off the table."
Plan BThis leads us to Plan B and all that entails, given the realities just described. Here in Minnesota we are starting to organize a plan, a call to action. Since the federal government have indeed failed us all so dramatically, we need to go local. The good people in Impeach For Peace have found a way to make that happen. According to the Thomas Jefferson Manuel On Impeachment, there is another way to institute the will of We The People in regards to Impeachment. Apparently Jefferson foresaw the situation we find ourselves in today. he gave us the blueprint for Plan B.
It is this simple. We need to have just One State House and Senate pass, together a Resolution for Impeachment. That happens and the Congress which has failed us by refusing to even bring it to the House is forced to put all other business aside and deal with Impeachment. Here in Minnesota we are, even now planning for a Call To Impeachment Rally on the steps of the St Paul Minnesota Capitol. It is planned for February 15th, the first day of business for the Minnesota House and Senate. At the end of the rally, we in essence Storm the Bastille. The message will be clear, crystal clear. We are not "lobbying" or begging for Impeachment, we are demanding it. We will also be crystal clear in this message. If the politicians we talk to, do not actively do everything in their power to promote Impeachment, we will hold them accountable. They will face opposition in the next election and their oppositions message will be simple. He or she will face another candidate running against him with this message, "this person violated his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic." We will ask them, in very plan language [if] they want to face the accusation that "they actually protected the Bush Administration?" The simple beauty of this plan is that we will be afforded the opportunity of talking to people and potentially affecting them, on the local level where they are much less beholden to the corporate interests which has made our democracy "the best that money can buy" on the Federal level, as investigative journalist Greg Palast has pointed out.
Of course it would be beautiful if Minnesota did this, which we will but can we imagine the impact of California, Hawaii, New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Arizona, New Mexico and a host of other states did the same thing?
This is your call to action. Make it happen. As is often the case, if you face a career politician who will use the structure of his political party and it's apparatus, then this is your opportunity to use us, the Green Party. That way you can't be crushed or marginalized in a primary race by those who are better funded than you. Get involved in your local Green Party and seek the Green endorsement in your run for office. If you don't know how, contact myself at or (612)327-6902. We can actually make this thing happen. We can and should put Impeachment and accountability back on the table. It is our table to set after all, although those in Washington Dc seem to have forgotten that.
Like I said at the start of this piece, I had very deliberately been non-partisan on the issue of Impeachment because it was so critical. I am now strictly partisan for the same reason. Now is the time to get active on Impeachment. Let us hold the Bush Administration accountable for their crimes. Not just because it is the right thing to do but to ensure that their are no further abuses of power in the future. Let us all do this now, acting as though the very future of our democratic Republic depends on it. It just may.
Michael Cavlan RN(612)
Impeachment Leader Wexler Emerges
by IFP cofounder Mikael Rudolph
Florida Representative and House Judiciary Committee member Robert Wexler (D) has taken a leadership position in demanding impeachment hearings against Vice President Dick Cheney begin immediately.From his new website: "The charges are too serious to ignore. There is credible evidence that the Vice President abused the power of his office, and not only brought us into an unneccesary war but violated the civil liberties and privacy of American citizens. It is the constitutional duty of Congress to hold impeachment hearings."

Tough Talk on Impeachment
by Bill Moyers
July 13, 2007
A public opinion poll from the American Research Group recently reported that more than four in ten Americans — 45% — favor impeachment hearings for President Bush and more than half — 54% — favored impeachment for Vice President Cheney.
Unhappiness about the war in Iraq isn't the only cause of the unsettled feelings of the electorate. Recent events like President Bush's pardoning of Scooter Libby, the refusal of Vice President Cheney's office to surrender emails under subpoena to Congress and the President's prohibition of testimony of former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers in front of the House Judiciary Committee have caused unease over claims of "executive privilege." In addition, many of the White House anti-terror initiatives and procedures — from the status of "enemy combatants" in Guantanamo to warrantless wiretapping — have come under legal scrutiny in Congress and the courts.
Bill Moyers gets perspective on the role of impeachment in American political life from Constitutional scholar Bruce Fein, who wrote the first article of impeachment against President Bill Clinton, and The Nation's John Nichols, author of The Genius of Impeachment.
"The founding fathers expected an executive who tried to overreach and expected the executive would be hampered and curtailed by the legislative branch... They [Congress] have basically renounced — walked away from their responsibility to oversee and check." — Bruce Fein
"On January 20th, 2009, if George Bush and Dick Cheney are not appropriately held to account this Administration will hand off a toolbox with more powers than any President has ever had, more powers than the founders could have imagined. And that box may be handed to Hillary Clinton or it may be handed to Mitt Romney or Barack Obama or someone else. But whoever gets it, one of the things we know about power is that people don't give away the tools." — John Nichols
Bruce FeinBruce Fein is a nationally and internationally recognized expert on Constitutional law. Graduating from Harvard Law School in 1972, Fein became the assistant director of the Office of Legal Policy in the U.S. Department of Justice. Shortly after that, Fein became the associate deputy attorney general under former President Ronald Reagan.
His political law career would take him to various outlets, including general counsel of the Federal Communications Commission, followed by an appointment as research director for the Joint Congressional Committee on Covert Arms Sales to Iran. Mr. Fein has been an adjunct scholar with the American Enterprise Institute, a resident scholar at the Heritage Foundation, a lecturer at the Bookings Institute, and an adjunct professor at George Washington University.
Fein has also penned a number of volumes on United States Constitution, Supreme Court, and international law, as well as assisted three dozen countries in constitutional revision, including Russia, Spain, South Africa, Iraq, Cyprus, and Mozambique.
Fein currently writes weekly columns for The Washington Times and Capital Leader, and a bi-weekly column for the Lexington Herald-Leader devoted to legal and international affairs.
Recently, Fein has been in the national spotlight after his editorial in the online newsmagazine Slate called for the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney, in which he outlines the various cases against the Vice President. Fein also testified in front of the House Judiciary Committee on June 27, 2007 about President Bush's use of "signing statement."
According to Fein, Cheney has:
Asserted Presidential power to create military commissions, which combine the functions of judge, jury, and prosecutor in the trial of war crimes.
Claimed authority to detain American citizens as enemy combatants indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay on the President's say-so alone.
Initiated kidnappings, secret detentions, and torture in Eastern European prisons of suspected international terrorists.
Championed a Presidential power to torture in contravention of federal statutes and treaties.
Engineered the National Security Agency's warrantless domestic surveillance program targeting American citizens on American soil in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
Orchestrated the invocation of executive privilege to conceal from Congress secret spying programs to gather foreign intelligence, and their legal justifications.
Summoned the privilege to refuse to disclose his consulting of business executives in conjunction with his Energy Task Force.
Retaliated against Ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife Valerie Plame, through chief of staff Scooter Libby, for questioning the administration's evidence of weapons of mass destruction as justification for invading Iraq. (Read Fein's SLATE article)
John NicholsJohn Nichols, author and political journalist has been writing the "Online Beat" for The Nation magazine since 1999. Nichols also serves as Washington correspondent for The Nation, as well as the associate editor of the Capital Times, the daily newspaper in Madison, Wisconsin and a contributing writer for The Progressive and In These Times.
Along with fellow author Robert McChesney, Nichols co-founded the media-reform group Free Press. Nichols has also authored several books, including Jews for Buchanan, which analyzed the recount vote of 2000, and Dick: The Man Who is President, his best-selling biography of Vice President Dick Cheney.
Nichols most recent book, The Genius of Impeachment, argues that impeachment is an essential instrument of America's democratic system. Nichols' argument also bases the power of impeachment in the hands of the people, rather than the congress. In his recent article, "In Praise of Impeachment," Nichols argues "While the Constitution handed Congress the power to officially check such despotism, Jefferson and his colleagues fully expected the American people to be the champions of the application of the rule of law to an errant executive."
Dave Lindorff: Corporate News Means No Real News Where Impeachment is Concerned
18 December 2007
Over this weekend and by Tuesday morning, almost 90,000 Americans have signed a petition sponsored by Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) and two other members of the House Judiciary Committee, Reps. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), calling on that committee and its chairman, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) to begin immediate hearings on Rep. Dennis Kucinich's long-stalled bill to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney.
There was no report in the nation's corporate media on the three Judiciary Committee members' dramatic call (they are three senior members of the House Democratic Party), and no report on the remarkable public response to their petition. (Several major papers, including The New York Times and The Washington Post, to which the three had submitted an op-ed article explaining their move, refused to run it.)
As always when the story involves impeachable crimes by the Bush Administration, the corporate media have instead been silent, devoting their pricey news minutes and their precious column inches to meaningless stories about the twin horse races for the presidential nomination, which themselves have blacked out any word of the main applause-generators in those campaigns: Republican Ron Paul and Democrat Kucinich.
Impeachment is the elephant in the room.
But the media won't allow any talk of holding this administration to account. It's not just that we are being told that the only power and duty we as citizens have is to vote once every two or four years (after which we are supposed to shut up and consume). We are also apparently not to be told, or are being encouraged not to talk about these larger crimes that are occurring, and worsening, day by day.
Impeachment isn't just off the table in the Congress. It is off the table in the media and consequently in public discourse.
It's About the Rule of Law
Impeaching George W. Bush
By Francis A. Boyle, Professor of Law, University of Illinois School of Law
July 25, 2003
With another Bush Family war of aggression against Iraq staring the American People, Congress and Republic in their face, on Tuesday 11 March 2003, Congressman John Conyers of Michigan, the Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, which would have jurisdiction over any Bill of Impeachment, convened an emergency meeting of forty or more of his top advisors, most of whom were lawyers, to discuss and debate immediately putting into the House of Representatives Bills of Impeachment against President Bush Jr., Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and Attorney General Ashcroft in order to head off the impending war.[i] Congressman Conyers kindly requested me and Ramsey Clark to come in to the meeting and argue the case for impeachment. Ramsey had launched his own campaign to impeach Bush Jr. et al. in mid-January 2003 at a peace rally held in Washington D.C.
This impeachment debate lasted for two hours. It was presided over by Congressman Conyers, who quite correctly did not tip his hand one way or the other on the merits of impeachment. He simply moderated the debate between Clark and me, on the one side, favoring immediately filing Bills of Impeachment against Bush Jr. et al. to stop the threatened war, and almost everyone else there who were against impeachment. Obviously no point would be served here by attempting to digest a two-hour-long vigorous debate among a group of well-trained lawyers on such a controversial matter at this critical moment in American history. But at the time I was struck by the fact that this momentous debate was conducted at a private office right down the street from the White House.
Suffice it to say that most of the "experts" there opposed impeachment on the grounds that it might hurt the Democratic Party get their presidential candidate elected in the year 2004. As a political independent, I did not argue that point--it was not for me to tell Democrats how to get their candidates elected. Rather, I argued the merits of impeaching Bush Jr., Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft under the United States Constitution, U.S. Federal Laws, U.S. Treaties and other International Agreements to which the United States was a contracting party. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution provides that Treaties "shall be the supreme Law of the Land." This so-called Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution also applies to International Executive Agreements concluded under the auspices of the U.S. President such as the 1945 Nuremberg Charter.
History of Impeachment
by Bill Moyers
July 13, 2007
Bill Moyers guests' Bruce Fein and John Nichols view impeachment as an essential component to our constitutional checks and balances on power. Fein wrote the first article of impeachment against President Clinton becaue perjury is a legal crime and Fein believed no one is above the law. John Nichols has just published a history of the process in the U.S.: The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism.
The process of impeachment can be traced back as far as 1376, when the First Speaker of the English House of Commons, Peter de la Mare, initiated impeachment and removal proceedings against Lord William Latimer, for raiding the public treasury for personal enrichment.
Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 65, "borrowed" the process of impeachment from the British, noting it to be a "method of national inquest into the conduct of public men." However, the founding fathers were not about to completely copy the British; they needed to adapt impeachment proceedings to the American governing system.
After much debate, it was finally agreed that the Senate would act as the court of impeachment, as some feared that the Supreme Court and other courts are two small to handle such a trial and could be susceptible to corruption; it was also agreed that impeachable offenses must fall under "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
The process of impeachment was set in stone in the Constitution in two separate amendments by the First Congress. Article I establishes "the House of Representatives...shall have the sole Power of Impeachment," and "the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." Article I further establishes the parameters of punishment, as well as the proceedings specific to an impeachment proceeding against the President of the United States. Article II specifically outlines the parameters for impeachment against executive branch officials, including the President and Vice President.
The first test of federal impeachment did not occur until 1797, when Senator William Blount, of Tennessee, was expelled from the Senate for conspiring with the British to instigate an attack by the Cherokee and Creek Indians on the Spanish colonies of Louisiana and West Florida. The British hoped to take control of these colonies, and Blount would have profited greatly. However, Blount was expelled from the Senate before impeachment proceedings began, and since he was no longer a public official, the Senate was forced to drop the proceedings.
In 1804 John Pickering, Judge for the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire was the first official removed from office through impeachment. After erratic behavior and random disappearances, Pickering was accused of drunkenness and unlawful rulings by President Thomas Jefferson.
The first impeachment proceedings against a President resulted from a conflict over the role the federal government would play in post-Civil War South. President Andrew Johnson came into conflict with the House, controlled by 'Radical Republicans' over the Reconstruction Acts — laws that provided suffrage to freed slaves and prevented former Southern rebels from regaining control of the state governments. Johnson repeatedly blocked enforcement of the Acts. The final straw for the House came when Johnson after he suspended his Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, which violated the Tenure of Office Act. When the proceedings moved to the Senate, the voting fell one vote short of conviction — Johnson argued that the Act itself was unconstitutional.
The threat of impeachment has been used more than once in recent history — in 1974 the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration was meeting on August 8, when President Nixon announced that he would resign the next day. In a lesser-known case, in April of 1952, President Harry S. Truman announced that he had ordered Secretary of Commerce Charles Sawyer to seize steel mills from their owners in order to avert a strike and keep the mills open. America was at war with Korea and Truman believed a steel strike would severely threaten the U.S. military.
The seizures immediately prompted the steel owners and lawmakers to question Truman's exertion of presidential power. "Congress seethed with rancorous argument over the President's highhanded seizure of steel. Ohio's Republican Representative George H. Bender asked for a bipartisan committee to consider impeachment of Harry Truman," according to TIME magazine. The Supreme Court declared the seizures unconstitutional in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer.
Former President William J. Clinton's impeachment proceedings are the most recent in memory. After apparently lying under oath about relations with an intern, the House voted to impeach Clinton, citing the President had "willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process." However, once again the Senate had trouble finding an impeachable offense under "high crimes and misdemeanors," and Clinton was found not guilty.
Impeachment proceedings have been initiated in the House a total of 62 times since 1789. In total, sixteen cases of impeachment have reached the Senate. Of those officials, thirteen have been federal judges, one senator, one cabinet officer, and two Presidents. Of these cases, two were dropped because the individuals had left office, seven ended in acquittal, and seven in conviction. All seven convictions have involved a federal judge.
And how does Bush feel about the Constitution ... ?

Bush on the Constitution:
'It's just a g**damned piece of paper'
10 Dec 2005
Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.
Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.
GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
“I don’t give a g**damn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”
“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”
“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a g**damned piece of paper!”
I’ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution “a g**damned piece of paper.”

The Presidential Oath of Office

"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."
January 20, 2001, January 20, 2005
George W. Bush
With the sun in his eyes, and his left hand resting on a family Bible, President George W. Bush takes the oath of office to serve a second term as 43rd President of the United States during a ceremony at the U.S. Capitol. Laura Bush, Barbara Bush, and Jenna Bush listen as Chief Justice William Rehnquist administers the oath.
Virtually everyone knows on some level that this country is
being run by a criminal syndicate that has rigged elections,
hidden its knowledge of the 9-11 attacks, lied the country into war, plotted to out an important CIA undercover operative and then obstruct a criminal investigation into that treasonous act, subverted most of the articles of the Bill of Rights, emasculated the Congress and the Courts (which it has also shamelessly packed with shameless hacks), betrayed veterans, surrendered a major American metropolis to the devastation of a hurricane, plotted to enable the declaring of martial law, tortured, kidnapped, and killed people in violation of international law and obstructed efforts to deal with the unprecedented crisis of global warming for an unconscionable seven years.