| It's a bit discouraging but I guess not surprising that those who disagree with our indictment initiative should resort to character assasination to make their case. It works for Rush Limbaugh, so why not the loyal opposition?
The indictment idea was born out of an acknowledgement that our government is no longer operating under the constitutional structure that is its foundation. The executive branch has placed itself above the law, and the Congress refuses to hold it accountable. As our founders were forced to take the drastic action of declaring independence when Britain acted so egregiously upon the colonies, we thought, why can't we as well make the declaration that if Congress will not act to defend the Constitution and the rule of law, then we as citizens and towns can at least put on the record that we recognize lawlessness when we see it and call them out for these actions?
As news of the initiative spread, we received opinions from legal minds that told us that, beyond being a symbolic act, there is some legal justification for this action as well. Francis Boyle, a human rights lawyer and law professor at the University of Illinois worked with John Conyers to draw up the impeachment indictments against Bush (before Conyers got the news that impeachment was off of the table). But Mr. Rouser craftily outed him as a wack-job because he holds the view that at some time American intelligence (sic) agencies infiltrated Amnesty International. Do you really find that so impossible to believe? You might ask some of the Vermont Quakers who discovered that they also were the unknowing targets of similar actions by the same agencies. And is it really reason to dismiss someone because he has the temerity to question the coincidence theory about 9/11 that the government hastily presented to the American people as the truth about the events of that day?
And in Mr. Burbank's case, I wonder if being a Green today is somewhat like being a Progressive in Vermont back in the day, before they started winning mayoral races and seats in the legislature?
The indictment does not claim to be supported by federal statute. Its force is derived from the Common Law, which underlies our nation's jurisprudence, and internationally acknowledged standards of what constitute war crimes. Someone should tell the judge in Spain, who indicted General Pinochet for crimes committed in Chile, and who managed to get him apprehended in England (escaping trial only because of failing health) about the pronouncements of the blogger on daily Kos telling us what a load of hooey this concept is.
The most cursory reading shows that the referendum is not an indictment. The referendum calls for the selectboard to issue an indictment. A selectboard is at once an executive body, a legislative body, and at times a quasi-judicial body. If it decides to call for an indictment it is free to do so. The city council of Dublin Ireland did just that in fact, in February of 2005, calling for either the International Criminal Court of the World Court (I'm sorry that I forget which) to indict Bush and others in his administration for torture. In fact over 200 similar indictments are waiting to be opened on the day after Bush/Cheney leave office. If Brattleboro's town attorney cannot figure out how to frame the indictment, or under which statute he has the authority to write it, that is a separate if related question to solve as the process moves along (or not).
How is this supposed to stimulate dialogue? Why don't you ask the New York Times which gave the story a prominent placement and referred to it asking a "provocative question" in the headline? I would say that over 8000 emails to the town of Brattleboro (running 60/40 pro-indictment) is some indication of dialogue as well. Retired Federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega sees this initiative as an important and powerful idea. Please advise me of her looney tendencies ASAP.
If we thought that our ideas were the only right ones, we would have rested our laurels on the Town Meeting impeachment votes and called it a day. It is precisely because we are continually working to find an approach that can convince a critical mass of Americans that all is not well and action must be taken that we are now trying the indictment path as well.
I'm not sure what makes us such an ugly, yahooish, egotistical, ignorant bunch of spotlight hounds with a tenuous grasp on reality. As hard as I try, I can't seem to get in touch with my inner rage, but I see now that its in there and I'll try harder.
Obviously, this indictment idea has touched a raw nerve. I'm not exactly sure why, but it may be a good thing in the long run. |
250-1
55-1
