We need examples of specific things that can be done to challenge underlying illegality of current administration's policies. These can be on national, regional and local levels.
My previous entry, suggesting it's time for Regime Change, contained no specific examples. Frankly, I don't know enough about law and politics to suggest good ones. But maybe someone will read this who does and can add to the pot.
In Vermont, I read there are a series of town hall meetings coming up debating whether or not its legal for their sons and daughters in the National Guard to be sent to Iraq. Now I don't know much about this, but it is the sort of thing I meant.
For example: the Vermont Governor probably has certain legal/constitutional requirements in terms of allowing national guard service. The war in Iraq was actually never legally declared as a war, although 'use of force' was authorized. It is a grey area.
Why do I say this? Because when Sy Hersh wrote his piece last month about the Iran plans, special ops etc., one conservative pundit called for him to be tried as a traitor. Actually, if we were legally at war, Sy Hersch would indeed be guilty and would lose the case, since he reported on clandestine troop movements during a time of war, endangering the mission as well as the lives of the soldiers involved.
But because this is NOT in fact a legal war, even according to US definitions, Sy Hersh cannot be tried for treason in this case.
Since it is NOT a legal war, perhaps State Governors are NOT allowed to give their national guard personnel in service in foreign lands? I don't know the answer to this, but it is the sort of approach I am recommending. If indeed the Governor of Vermont (in this particular example), who is the commander of such forces I believe, is indeed not allowed by State statutes to send his people away except in times of war, then he/she can be attacked legally ( not personally ) for violating oath of office. So this particular issue becomes a precise, identifiable pressure point.
Others: the use of DU as weaponry probably violates certain treaties we have signed;
the use of torture in detention violates other treaties we have signed. The Defense Secretary, the commanders in charge of Gitmo and Abu Graib and others can be charged. The point here is not to demonize the individuals but to use specific situations as pressure points by applying legal pressure. Money needs to be raised for it by somebody (no idea who!) and then a media campaign with a legal action.
There are probably hundreds of examples like this where action can be taken outside the conventional political arena - which is now dead for all practical purposes - but yet addresses key political issues head on.
I just read this piece in Counterpunch: http://www.counterpunch.org/farley02252005.html The idea is to mount an anti-war platform in every congressional district in the 2006 elections. Bypass the Republocrat corporate gridlock, pick a real issue and run people on that issue and try to win. Every seat is up for re-election in the House, so this could have a huge effect - as long as they do it and people get inspired and don't fall back into the trap of voting Democrat again!
Also, Nader is behind (I think ) the new DemocracyRising.us site which is also going to focus on the war as the single, main issue. It really helps to have a particular issue and then push it.
I think the 2006 anti-war platform for congressional elections is not a bad idea, though, if they can raise money and get traction.
I still think suing Condi Rice for lying on the national airwaves - and suing the station that broadcast those lies - is not a bad idea either, but there are no groups organised to mount these sorts of attacks. Yet...