ImpeachForChange

How to Create a Congressional District Impeachment Committee

admin — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 07:11:57 -0500

Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leaders in Congress say impeaching Bush is "off the table." We must change their minds!

Our plan is simple: we will form Impeachment Committees in all 435 Congressional Districts to persuade all of our Representatives to support impeachment.

Help us Impeach Bush by taking the following 4 steps:

1. Join (or create) an Impeachment Committee in your Congressional District.
2. Collect petitions and handwritten letters.
3. Build support for impeachment by holding an educational town forum, writing letters to the editor, etc.
4. Meet with your Representative, deliver the petitions and ask them to Impeach Bush.

More detailed instructions are below.

1. Join (or create) an Impeachment Committee in your Congressional District (existing committees here)

Login to Democrats.com
Check your profile to make sure your Congressional District is correct - if not, click "Change Personal Information" below Voter Registration and fix your address (no apartment please), then save the changes - if the Congressional District is still wrong, contact us with the correct district
Click the "Local" button in the navigation box at the upper left to check for the latest announcements in your Congressional District (also County and State)
Look for an announcement of an Impeachment Committee in your Congressional District. If you do see one, reply to it and say you want to help.
If you do not see one:
- click the link to "create forum topic"
- for subject, enter "Impeachment Committee"
- for forum, choose "Impeachment - Congressional District Organizing"
- for topic, choose "ImpeachForChange"
- for subscriptions, click the box if you want to get an email when someone from your district replies
- for local, choose "Congressional District"
- in the body, identify your Congressperson by name (if you don't know click here)
- add the address of their District Office by searching for their name here and clicking their name and looking under "Contact Information" for the "District Office"
(note: newly elected Members will not have offices until January)
- Propose a time and place when local activists can conveniently meet
- we suggest Saturday at noon at the busiest place in town, but another time and place might work better for your group

2. Collect petitions and handwritten letters (click printer-friendly version below to print this page)

download our petition form
print as many copies as you'll need (19 signers per page)
bring clipboards and pens
bring blank paper for handwritten letters
bring an ironing board for letterwriting (optional)
wear impeachment buttons or anti-war buttons
stand in a safe location that gets a lot of foot traffic (but don't block anyone)
as people approach you, ask them in a reasonably loud voice if they would like to sign our petition to impeach Bush
if they say yes, hand them the clipboard and pen and thank them
tell them you will email them when you get home so they can sign our full petition online and email it directly to their Representative and get a personal reply
ask them if they have another minute to write a personal letter that you will hand-deliver
here is a simple letter they can copy or modify:
[Date]
Dear Rep. X,
I urge you to Impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney for violating the Constitution and breaking the law. I am particularly upset that they:
- lied about Iraq to start a war
- allowed torture of prisoners
- gave corrupt no-bid contracts to their rich friends
- wiretapped our phones and emails without a warrant
Sincerely,
[Name and address]
when it's time to leave, find a copy shop where you can make copies of the petitions (not handwritten letters)
bring (or mail) the original petitions and letters to the Representative (you can call in advance to get the name of the District Manager and schedule a brief visit)
keep the copies to keypunch the emails (only) into our petition invitation form
the keypunchers should login and click here:
http://democrats.com/impeach-petition
and look just below the message for the "send to friend" link
the "send to friend" page lets you keypunch up to 20 email addresses, one per line
copy/paste all the emails and save them in a convenient document (Email distribution list, spreadsheet, or Word document) for future organizing in your community
press "submit"
this will email each person and invite them to sign our petition

3. Write letters to the editor and op-eds and call radio and TV talk shows because Representatives pay attention to the issues people are raising in the local media.

4. Organize a Honk-to-Impeach event - if possible do it every week, same time same place.

5. Schedule a district meeting with your Representative

Your Representative spends some work weeks in Washington and some at home.
November will be mostly in Washington, December and January mostly at home.
Designate one well-spoken person to call the District Office and request a meeting with a group of impeachment supporters to discuss why impeachment is absolutely necessary.
Each member of the group should read and bring one book or serious article on impeachment and prepare a couple of sentences for the meeting summarizing the most important argument in that book or article.
The group should meet for coffee an hour before the meeting to discuss who will say what and avoid duplication.
The person who scheduled the meeting should be the first to speak and thank the Representative for the meeting and then let each person say their name and neighborhood
One person should take notes
The key questions to ask are:
Do you agree that invading Iraq on the basis of lies is an impeachable offense?
Do you agree that allowing prisoners to be tortured is an impeachable offense?
Do you agree that wiretapping countless innocent Americans without a warrant is an impeachable offense?
Do you agree that nullifying laws with signing statements is an impeachable offense?
If you agree that one or more are impeachable offenses, what will it take for you to publicly support impeachment?

6. Organize a Town Hall Meeting on December 10, 2006.

Details here.

Find Your Congressional District Impeachment Committee

admin — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 10:49:47 -0500

AL03, AZ01, AZ03, AZ08, CA01, CA03, CA05, CA06, CA07, CA09, CA11, CA13, CA14, CA13-14-15, CA23, CA25, CA26, CA28, CA29, CA30, CA36, CA37, CA38, CA47, CA49, CA50, CA51, CA52, CA53, CO01, CO03, CO07, CT04, CT05, DC00, DE00, FL01, FL02, FL06, FL08, FL10, FL16-19-22, FL18, FL20, FL24, GA07, HI01, HI02, IA05, IL01, IL03, IL05, IL09, IL11, IL13, IL16, IN01, IN05, IN06, IN09, KS01, KY06, LA02, MA01, MA03, MA04, MA05, MA06, MA07, MA08, MA10, MD03, MD06, ME01, MI03, MI06, MI07, MI10, MI12, MN01, MN04, MN05, MO03, MO08, MA02, MS03, NC02, NC04, NC05, NC06, NC09, NC10, NC11, NC13, ND00, NE03, NH01, NH02, NJ01, NJ12, NY05, NY07, NY08, NY09, NY10, NY11, NY12, NY13, NY14, NY15, NY18, NY19, NY20, NY21, NY22, NY23, NY24, NY28, OH11, OH18, OK01, OK05, OR01, OR02, OR03, OR04, PA06, PA07, PA08, PA11, PA13, PA15, PA17, PA18, PA19, SC03, SD00, TN05, TX07, TX18, TX24, TX25, UT01, UT02, VA02, VA03, VA06, VA07, VA08, VA11, VT00, WA01, WA02, WA03, WA06, WA07, WA08, WA09, WI02, WI03, WV01, WV02

Don't see a committee in your district? Help us create one! http://democrats.com/cdic

C-Span to Show David Swanson Book Event on Cable and Online Sunday Nov. 22nd 7:45 a.m. ET

davidswanson — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 22:28:10 -0500

C-Span's Book TV, which can be watched on cable television on C-Span 2 or online at http://www.booktv.org plans to air a book event they recorded when I was in Miami, Florida.

Here's more info.

They'd told me they would run about 90 minutes, and so that was -- I think -- about what I did, including opening remarks and questions and answers. But their website says they're showing 1 hr and 7 min, which makes me suspect that they cut something out, most likely some of the Q&A. That's unfortunate.

I expect it to be a good show, in any case, and remember it as a good event. Please tell everyone to watch, record it, spread the word. Thanks!

Here's more about the book: "Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union."

Your Town Can Demand Justice More Powerfully Than You Can

davidswanson — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:04:04 -0400

By David Swanson

Most city council members take oaths to defend the Constitution. The Constitution makes the rights and standards in its amendments and in international treaties the supreme law of the land. Our nation has a rich tradition of local governments lobbying state and national governments through the passage of resolutions. Under Clause 3, Rule XII, Section 819, of the Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives local governments may petition Congress. Under the First Amendment, we all can.

Just in recent years, on issues of peace and justice, hundreds of cities have passed resolutions in favor of peace, diplomacy, restraint from launching wars, and the cessation of wars in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan, including 287 cities, 4 counties, and 17 states on Iraq alone. Through this and many other means, we have thus far prevented an attack on Iran, and we've won over a majority of the country to support ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- which we will eventually end if we keep up the struggle.

Over 100 cities passed resolutions urging the impeachment of Bush and/or Cheney. They have yet to be impeached, but an impeachment push drove Alberto Gonzales out of town, may yet nail Jay Bybee and bring down the whole criminal power structure, and has solidly laid the groundwork for prosecutions. In fact, three cities have already passed ordinances committing their police to arresting Bush or Cheney should they dare to visit. I strongly recommend that your town do the same, as well as publicly backing the impeachment of torture-memo author Jay Bybee.

Meanwhile, Berkeley, Calif., has now joined United Nations human rights treaties that are not supported or complied with by the United States as a whole. And Amherst, Mass., may invite released Guantanamo victims to settle within its welcoming borders.

Perhaps most impressively, the Bill of Rights Defense Committee (BORDC) has led a campaign that has seen 414 local, county, and state resolutions passed defending our civil rights against abuses in the PATRIOT Act, and committing local police to noncooperation with federal violations of rights that were created by the U.S. Constitution.

Now the BORDC is launching a campaign to pass a pair of new ordinances, which I cannot recommend more strongly. These are powerful tools for restoring the rule of law and defending our civil rights. Passage of resolutions by towns often leads to their passage by states and to support for their substance by congress members, as well as to public education and a shift in media discourse.

The first model resolution offered by BORDC (which you can alter to suit local needs) limits local law enforcement efforts in support of federal warrantless spying. Of course, local and state police, as Americans, are required to comply with the Fourth Amendment anyway. But what happens when the feds say otherwise? This explicit legislation backs up those who take a stand.

The second model resolution is even more important. It places your town on record supporting federal and requiring local criminal investigations into torture. It includes an optional clause requiring the arrest of accused torturers as in the three ordinances noted above.

A third resolution that I can imagine but have not drafted would be modeled on this torture accountability resolution and require a criminal investigation of warrantless spying, which is not only unconstitutional but also illegal under state law in most states.

While we understand that there is strength in numbers in the abstract, too seldom do we employ that power through our levels of government from the smallest and most democratic up to the largest and most corrupt. Together, our towns can save our country, if we force our local representatives to take action.

David Swanson is the author of the new book "Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union" by Seven Stories Press. You can order it and find out when tour will be in your town: http://davidswanson.org/book.

The Conyers-Bybee Love Affair

davidswanson — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:19:53 -0400

By David Swanson

There is strong evidence that John Conyers, Patrick Leahy, and most of the rest of us are in love with torture-lawyer Jay Bybee. I'm not talking about sexual love and wouldn't, because people's lives are lost to such bread-and-circuses journalism every day. I'm talking deep personal devotion.

Let's examine the evidence.

1. As head of the Office of Legal Counsel, Jay Bybee committed felonies in exchange for being nominated to a life-time seat on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Bybee violated the Anti-Torture Statute and the War Crimes Statute by facilitating torture through secret memos purporting to legalize specific criminal acts. Bybee also played a leading role in a conspiracy to violate the UN Charter, the US Constitution, and the War Powers Act by signing a secret memo purporting to give presidents the unrestricted power to launch aggressive wars.

2. The excuses that House Judiciary Committee Chairman Conyers used for not impeaching Bush or Cheney, outlandish and revolting as they may have been, do not apply to a judge who is not president and who is not known to most Americans. Yet Conyers, his committee, and the House of Representatives impeached a judge this year for groping people and have not attempted to impeach Bybee.

3. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy has asked Bybee to testify, and Bybee has told the Chairman to go cheney himself. Conyers has not even asked Bybee to appear. Although any committee of Congress has the power to subpoena and to use the Capitol Police to enforce that subpoena, neither Leahy nor Conyers has subpoenaed Bybee.

4. While more than enough of Bybee's handiwork is publicly available in the form of his death memos, Conyers and Leahy have expressed their intention to do nothing until the Justice Department itself releases its own internal report on the crimes of Bybee and his colleagues. This has resulted in the Justice Department not releasing its report.

5. Conyers and Leahy are not being challenged in this matter by any members of Congress or any activist groups, the whole gang of them and us -- each in our own way -- deferring to the preference of President Barack Obama to grant all of the worst criminals immunity. But this dynamic won't stop people from placing the blame on Conyers. He knows that Obama is the messiah, whereas he is just the guy with the responsibility to impeach. Conyers wouldn't shred what's left of his oath of office and reputation just to please Obama. Conyers has publicly denounced Obama's actions on healthcare in the strongest terms.

6. The Department of Justice has proposed to cement in place the power of presidents to tell lawyers to secretly legalize crimes for particular criminals, by investigating for prosecution those who strayed from the illegal policies and granting immunity to those who created them.

7. The consequences of allowing the so-called executive branch to grant itself immunity for its crimes will effectively eliminate the first branch of government from our government, and Leahy and Conyers belong to that branch. The consequences of leaving Bybee in his current office include the possibility of his ruling on the legality of many of Bush and Cheney's crimes.

8. I've only heard two excuses leak out of Conyers' office. One of them is that the media would attack him for targeting a "conservative" judge if he tried to impeach a judge who tried to legalize aggressive war and torture. Exactly what is conservative about such actions has not been explained. How our republic can survive if Congress continues to take orders from Fox News I'm not sure.

9. The other excuse I've heard is that Bybee's not the worst of the lot, that John Yoo was a worse lawyer, that Bush and Cheney gave the orders. The problem with impeaching those people, however, is that they are out of office. You could and should still impeach them. Going into last year's election, Conyers promised to impeach Bush after it. Impeaching Bush and Cheney now would send a strong message, expose new information, lay the groundwork for prosecutions, and strip away secret service and pensions while banning them from every again holding public office. I'm all for it, and only focus elsewhere because 98 percent of Americans don't know it's possible. But if you're intent on avoiding impeachments of conservatives or non-sexual criminals, what about subpoenas? Subpoena the lot of them. Start with whoever you deem the most significant. Talking this way to Conyers is like talking to a wall. Why?

10. Many have suggested that Conyers is being blackmailed over scandals involving his wife and other things. But to allow threats to himself to dissuade him from the essential task of preserving the legislative branch of our government would require that he hate his country. I find it easier to imagine that he loves something or someone else.

Since the beginning of the year, already on record supporting Bybee's impeachment or resignation are: Congressman Jerrold Nadler, Senator Russ Feingold, the New York Times, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Courage Campaign, Progressive Democrats of America, Bruce Fein, Common Cause, Democrats.com, People for the American Way, The World Can't Wait, ThinkProgress, Crooks and Liars, Digby, Scott Horton, After Downing Street, ImpeachBybee.org, Jeremy Scahill, Dave Lindorff, Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, Senator Patrick Leahy, American Freedom Campaign, National Lawyers Guild, John Podesta, MoveOn, Veterans for Peace, National Accountability Network, Code Pink, Velvet Revolution, Bruce Ackerman, the Salt Lake Tribune, and too many others to name. But all have gone silent.

Efforts to impeach Bybee are headquartered at http://ImpeachBybee.org I'm convinced it’s a cause worth imposing on Congress, not just politely asking for. I'm convinced that the restoration of the power of impeachment as a check on the executive branch is much larger than Bybee, and that his impeachment hearings would result in the incarceration of the heads of his crime family: Cheney and Bush. I'm convinced that this is a cause worth pursuing, even if we have to break off a love affair.

Hurricane Dubya Four Years On

davidswanson — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 16:40:26 -0400

By David Swanson

Hurricane Katrina is not as sexy as torture, but has killed more people and ruined more lives, and -- like many non-natural disasters in recent years -- has a chief culprit who has now settled in at 10141 Daria Place, Dallas, Texas, where he clears very little brush and where -- to my knowledge -- not a single politician or journalist or author has sought his wisdom on the affairs of the past seven months. George W. Bush, who should face nonviolent protest every minute of his life while he remains at liberty, knowingly abandoned an American city and nearby towns to a predictable and predicted natural disaster four years ago this week, and for years refused to repair the damage.

Changing presidents has not dramatically improved the fate of New Orleans or of the world's changing climate, a chief cause of the storm. But we should not forget that George W. Bush refused to acknowledge the existence of global warming, hid evidence of it from the public, and took no serious action to reverse the trend. While more evidence of these abuses has emerged in recent months, I think we should also not forget that among the 35 articles of impeachment introduced two years ago by Congressman Dennis Kucinich were these:

Article XXXI
KATRINA: FAILURE TO PLAN FOR THE PREDICTED DISASTER OF HURRICANE KATRINA, FAILURE TO RESPOND TO A CIVIL EMERGENCY

In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution "to take care that the laws be faithfully executed", has both personally and acting through his agents and subordinates, failed to take sufficient action to protect life and property prior to and in the face of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, given decades of foreknowledge of the dangers of storms to New Orleans and specific forewarning in the days prior to the storm. The President failed to prepare for predictable and predicted disasters, failed to respond to an immediate need of which he was informed, and has subsequently failed to rebuild the section of our nation that was destroyed.

Hurricane Katrina killed at least 1,282 people, with 2 million more displaced. 302,000 housing units were destroyed or damaged by the hurricane, 71% of these were low-income units. More than 500 sewage plants were destroyed, more than 170 point-source leakages of gasoline, oil, or natural gas, more than 2000 gas stations submerged, several chemical plants, 8 oil refineries, and a superfund site was submerged. 8 million gallons of oil were spilled. Toxic materials seeped into floodwaters and spread through much of the city and surrounding areas.

The predictable increased strength of hurricanes such as Katrina has been identified by scientists for years, and yet the Bush Administration has denied this science and restricted such information from official reports, publications, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency's website. Donald Kennedy, editor-in-chief of Science, wrote in 2006 that "hurricane intensity has increased with oceanic surface temperatures over the past 30 years. The physics of hurricane intensity growth … has clarified and explained the thermodynamic basis for these observations. [Kerry] Emanuel has tested this relationship and presented convincing evidence."

FEMA's 2001 list of the top three most likely and most devastating disasters were a San Francisco earthquake, a terrorist attack on New York, and a Category 4 hurricane hitting New Orleans, with New Orleans being the number one item on that list. FEMA conducted a five-day hurricane simulation exercise in 2004, "Hurricane Pam," mimicking a Katrina-like event. This exercise combined the National Weather Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the LSU Hurricane Center and other state and federal agencies, resulting in the development of emergency response plans. The exercise demonstrated, among other things, that thousands of mainly indigent New Orleans residents would be unable to evacuate on their own. They would need substantial government assistance. These plans, however, were not implemented in part due to the President's slashing of funds for protection. In the year before Hurricane Katrina hit, the President continued to cut budgets and deny grants to the Gulf Coast. In June of 2004 the Army Corps of Engineers levee budget for New Orleans was cut, and it was cut again in June of 2005, this time by $71.2 million or a whopping 44% of the budget. As a result, ACE was forced to suspend any repair work on the levees. In 2004 FEMA denied a Louisiana disaster mitigation grant request.

The President was given multiple warnings that Hurricane Katrina had a high likelihood of causing serious damage to New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. At 10 AM on Sunday 28 August 2005, the day before the storm hit, the National Weather Service published an alert titled "DEVASTATING DAMAGE EXPECTED." Printed in all capital letters, the alert stated that "MOST OF THE AREA WILL BE UNINHABITABLE FOR WEEKS...PERHAPS LONGER. AT LEAST ONE HALF OF WELL CONSTRUCTED HOMES WILL HAVE ROOF AND WALL FAILURE. … POWER OUTAGES WILL LAST FOR WEEKS. … WATER SHORTAGES WILL MAKE HUMAN SUFFERING INCREDIBLE BY MODERN STANDARDS."

The Homeland Security Department also briefed the President on the scenario, warning of levee breaches and severe flooding. According to the New York Times, "a Homeland Security Department report submitted to the White House at 1:47 a.m. on Aug. 29, hours before the storm hit, said, 'Any storm rated Category 4 or greater will likely lead to severe flooding and/or levee breaching.'" These warnings clearly contradict the statements made by President Bush immediately after the storm that such devastation could not have been predicted. On 1 September 2005 the President said "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees."

The President's response to Katrina via FEMA and DHS was criminally delayed, indifferent, and inept. The only FEMA employee posted in New Orleans in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Marty Bahamonde, emailed head of FEMA Michael Brown from his Blackberry device on August 31, 2005 regarding the conditions The email was urgent and detailed and indicated that "The situation is past critical…Estimates are many will die within hours." Brown's reply was emblematic of the administration's entire response to the catastrophe: "Thanks for the update. Anything specific I need to do or tweak?" The Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, did not declare an emergency, did not mobilize the federal resources, and seemed to not even know what was happening on the ground until reporters told him.

On Friday August 26, 2005, Governor Kathleen Blanco declared a State of Emergency in Louisiana and Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi followed suit the next day. Also on that Saturday, Governor Blanco asked the President to declare a Federal State of Emergency, and on 28 August 2005, the Sunday before the storm hit, Mayor Nagin declared a State of Emergency in New Orleans. This shows that the local authorities, responding to federal warnings, knew how bad the destruction was going to be and anticipated being overwhelmed. Failure to act under these circumstances demonstrates gross negligence.

In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

ARTICLE XXXII
MISLEADING CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, SYSTEMATICALLY UNDERMINING EFFORTS TO ADDRESS GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE.

In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution "to take care that the laws be faithfully executed", has both personally and acting through his agents and subordinates, together with the Vice President, ignored the peril to life and property posed by global climate change, manipulated scientific information and mishandled protective policy, constituting nonfeasance and malfeasance in office, abuse of power, dereliction of duty, and deception of Congress and the American people.

President Bush knew the expected effects of climate change and the role of human activities in driving climate change. This knowledge preceded his first Presidential term.

1. During his 2000 Presidential campaign, he promised to regulate carbon dioxide emissions.

2. In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a global body of hundreds of the world's foremost experts on climate change, concluded that "most of observed warming over last 50 years (is) likely due to increases in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activities." The Third Assessment Report projected several effects of climate change such as continued "widespread retreat" of glaciers, an "increase threats to human health, particularly in lower income populations, predominantly within tropical/subtropical countries," and "water shortages."

3. The grave danger to national security posed by global climate change was recognized by the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Planning Research Projects Agency in October of 2003. An agency-commissioned report "explores how such an abrupt climate change scenario could potentially de-stabilize the geo-political environment, leading to skirmishes, battles, and even war due to resource constraints such as: 1) Food shortages due to decreases in net global agricultural production 2) Decreased availability and quality of fresh water in key regions due to shifted precipitation patters, causing more frequent floods and droughts 3) Disrupted access to energy supplies due to extensive sea ice and storminess."

4. A December 2004 paper in Science reviewed 928 studies published in peer reviewed journals to determine the number providing evidence against the existence of a link between anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide and climate change. "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."

5. The November 2007 Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report showed that global anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gasses have increased 70% between 1970 and 2004, and anthropogenic emissions are very likely the cause of global climate change. The report concluded that global climate change could cause the extinction of 20 to 30 percent of species in unique ecosystems such as the polar areas and biodiversity hotspots, increase extreme weather events especially in the developing world, and have adverse effects on food production and fresh water availability.

The President has done little to address this most serious of problems, thus constituting an abuse of power and criminal neglect. He has also actively endeavored to undermine efforts by the federal government, states, and other nations to take action on their own.

1. In March 2001, President Bush announced the U.S. would not be pursuing ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, an international effort to reduce greenhouse gasses. The United States is the only industrialized nation that has failed to ratify the accord.

2. In March0f 2008, Representative Henry Waxman wrote to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson: "In August 2003, the Bush Administration denied a petition to regulate CO2 emissions from motor vehicles by deciding that CO2 was not a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. In April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled that determination in Massachusetts v. EPA. The Supreme Court wrote that 'If EPA makes a finding of endangerment, the Clean Air Act requires the agency to regulate emissions of the deleterious pollutant from new motor vehicles.' The EPA then conducted an extensive investigation involving 60-70 staff who concluded that 'CO2 emissions endanger both human health and welfare.' These findings were submitted to the White House, after which work on the findings and the required regulations was halted."

3. A Memo to Members of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on May 19, 2008 stated "The record before the Committee shows: (1) the career staff at EPA unanimously supported granting California's petition (to be allowed to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, consistent with California state law); (2) Stephen Johnson, the Administrator of EPA, also supported granting California's petition at least in part; and (3) Administrator Johnson reversed his position after communications with officials in the White House."

The President has suppressed the release of scientific information related to global climate change, an action which undermines Congress' ability to legislate and provide oversight, and which has thwarted efforts to prevent global climate change despite the serious threat that it poses.

1. In February, 2001, ExxonMobil wrote a memo to the White House outlining ways to influence the outcome of the Third Assessment report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The memo opposed the reelection of Dr. Robert Watson as the IPCC Chair. The White House then supported an opposition candidate, who was subsequently elected to replace Dr. Watson.

2. The New York Times on January 29, 2006, reported that James Hansen, NASA's senior climate scientist was warned of "dire consequences" if he continued to speak out about global climate change and the need for reducing emissions of associated gasses. The Times also reported that: "At climate laboratories of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, for example, many scientists who routinely took calls from reporters five years ago can now do so only if the interview is approved by administration officials in Washington, and then only if a public affairs officer is present or on the phone."

3. In December of 2007, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform issued a report based on 16 months of investigation and 27,000 pages of documentation. According to the summary: "The evidence before the Committee leads to one inescapable conclusion: the Bush Administration has engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science and mislead policy makers and the public about the dangers of global warming." The report described how the White House appointed former petroleum industry lobbyist Phil Cooney as head of the Council on Environmental Quality. The report states "There was a systematic White House effort to minimize the significance of climate change by editing climate change reports. CEQ Chief of Staff Phil Cooney and other CEQ officials made at least 294 edits to the Administration's Strategic Plan of the Climate Change Science Program to exaggerate or emphasize scientific uncertainties or to de-emphasize or diminish the importance of the human role in global warming."

4. On April 23, 2008, Representative Henry Waxman wrote a letter to EPA Administrator Stephen L Johnson. In it he reported: "Almost 1,600 EPA scientists completed the Union of Concerned Scientists survey questionnaire. Over 22 percent of these scientists reported that 'selective or incomplete use of data to justify a specific regulatory outcome' occurred 'frequently' or 'occasionally' at EPA. Ninety-four EPA scientists reported being frequently or occasionally directed to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information from an EPA scientific document. Nearly 200 EPA scientists said that they have frequently or occasionally been in situations in which scientists have actively objected to, resigned from or removed themselves from a project because of pressure to change scientific findings."

In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

David Swanson is the author of the new book "Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union" (Seven Stories Press, 2009). Swanson holds a master's degree in philosophy from the University of Virginia and served as press secretary for Kucinich for President in 2004. Swanson is just beginning a book tour of 48 cities and hopes to see you on the road: http://davidswanson.org/book

Judge Declines to Show Up for Own Impeachment

davidswanson — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 02:04:37 -0400

By David Swanson

A judge gropes and harasses his female employees, lies about it to investigators, is tried and convicted, and is on his way to prison. The U.S. House of Representatives springs into action, activating something none of us even knew existed during the entire eight-year hell of Cheney-Bush: the House Judiciary Committee Task Force on Judicial Impeachment. And what did Judge Groper do on Wednesday? He chose not to show up, as requested by Congress, for his own impeachment hearing.

Over on the Senate side of Capitol Hill, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee recently asked a federal judge not yet convicted of authoring memos to facilitate torture if he wouldn't mind coming in to talk, and Jay Bybee replied "Um, let me think about it . . . no. You go ahead without me," or something roughly to that effect.

Karl Rove is expected to drop in to chat with the House Judiciary Committee behind closed doors at the end of this week or the beginning of next. But he will only be partially complying with a subpoena, the Obama White House having negotiated on behalf of this private citizen for elaborate terms of partial compliance. And, no doubt, congress members feel like this is a step forward.

After all, for the past two years dozens of people simply laughed off requests and subpoenas and even contempt citations from Congress. Condoleezza Rice literally said that she was "not inclined" to show up, and so she didn't. Showing up is now optional. Some token refusals to comply in the face of contempt citations are being reviewed by courts, but even a victory there would merely teach the next recalcitrant witness to stall until the next congressional election by allowing congress to take him or her to court.

Congress can no longer compel anyone to show up for two reasons. First, it doesn't impeach any more, so elected officials have nothing to fear from ignoring Congress. Of course, Congress may impeach the groping judge, but he's already been convicted in court. This is a case of Congress following another branch of government, not challenging one. Second, Congress does not enforce its own subpoenas through the Capitol Police but relies on the other two branches of government to enforce them, which tends not to work or to work so slowly as to be useless. Knowing this, congress members seem most inclined now not to issue subpoenas at all.

There is not a single member of the House or Senate even remotely considering using inherent contempt, and there are many who don't even know what it is. “Contempt” refers to the process of compelling a witness to testify who has refused to do so and punishing the refusal by, for example, locking someone in jail until they agree to testify. “Inherent” simply refers to the idea that Congress can enforce its own contempt citations, as it did up until the early twentieth century. Congress chose to begin asking the Justice Department (part of the executive branch) or the courts (part of the judicial branch) to enforce its contempt citations. This procedure seems to work just as well as the other except in cases in which the Justice Department has an interest in allowing a witness to not comply. In at least those cases, if not all, Congress ought logically to enforce its own contempt citations, a power that it never lost and which has never been challenged, merely forgotten. Believe it or not, Congress (and any committee thereof) has always had -- and used to actually use -- the power to lock people in jail until they agreed to answer questions. Congress did this over 85 times between 1795 and 1934. If a judge had refused a request to appear for his own impeachment between 1795 and 1934 he would likely have been picked up by the capitol's police force, hauled to Washington, and stuck in jail until he agreed to apologize.

Reviving a procedure not used since 1934 might sound radical if we do not understand why it fell out of practice. Congress members actually believed that by establishing a legal statute of contempt and asking the Justice Department to enforce it, they would strengthen the process and eliminate the need for inherent contempt within Congress. But Congress actually weakened itself. This is similar to the case of Congress passing the War Powers Act to strengthen its power to make war, whereas that bill actually weakened the congressional war powers found in the Constitution. There are other examples. Congress has worked very hard over the centuries to strip itself of power, while presidents have done the opposite.

If Congress wanted to restore itself as a branch of our government, it would lock up the groper judge and subpoena the torture judge, with a commitment to lock him up too if he did not comply. The House would impeach and the Senate convict both of those judges.

Sadly, when it comes to investigating torture and other war crimes, Congress is choosing (rather bizarrely, given the overwhelming evidence already available) to wait for the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility to release a report. The report is complete, and the attorney general has signed off on it, and yet it has not been published. One guess as to the reason for the delay is, in fact, the promises of Congress not to do anything as long as the report is still unreleased.

Listen to the Latest Urban Journal

davidswanson — Thu, 07 May 2009 12:32:14 -0400

The Urban Journal is hosted by Keith Murphy on XM Satellite Radio Channel 169,
"The Power" daily, Monday through Friday, 8pm Eastern and the special
encore edition at 5am.

Urban Journal 5/07 pt. 1 Pulitzer Prize winning author Tom Ricks
Urban Journal 5/07 pt. 2 David Swanson
Urban Journal 5/07 pt. 3 Actor Hill Harper, author of Letters to a Young Sister
Urban Journal 5/07 pt. 4 Actor Hill Harper, author of Letters to a Young Sister

Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union by David Swanson

davidswanson — Sat, 02 May 2009 15:03:55 -0400

Book Can Now Be Ordered, Book Tour Being Planned

You can now pre-order my book at Amazon.com at http://tinyurl.com/daybreakbook

It's a thick book containing everything I know - and then some - for $10 (pre-order discount price). And you can support a good cause by pre-ordering it now.

You can also call or visit your local bookstore right now and ask them to be sure to stock the book.

If you're in California, Pennsylvania, Florida, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, or Ohio please see below. I'm only coming once to any given state, so please schedule more events for the times I will be in yours! Please don't ask me later why I didn't come to your town!

If you're in another state, please contact me re dates in 2010. -- David Swanson

Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union will be published by Seven Stories Press on September 1, 2009.

"[Daybreak is] a useful guide to restore the balance of powers and reclaim our constitutional system of government."-Majorie Cohn, president of the National Lawyers Guild

"Daybreak urgently reminds us that good political intentions are not sufficient to ensure the continuation of our democracy; informed vigilance is vital to that task."-Mark Karlin, editor of Buzzflash.com

Pre-order now: http://tinyurl.com/daybreakbook

Bring the Tour to Your Town

I'm planning events around the country. If you'd like me to come to your town or can help with planning an event, please check out this info and let me know.

Here's the schedule so far:

Sept. 1-6 unavailable

Sept. 7 Kent, OH
Sept. 10 Toledo, OH
NEED MORE OHIO DATES Sept 8 and 9 These are the only days I will come to any part of Ohio!!!

Sept. 11-15 unavailable

Three dates with United Progressives:
Sept. 18 Tulsa, OK
Sept. 19 Oklahoma City, OK
Sept. 20 Stillwater, OK
NEED MORE OK or KS or TX DATES SAME WEEK

Sept. 23 to Oct. 8 unavailable

NM Tour with Ann Wright, Ray McGovern, Cindy Sheehan, Elliott Adams:
Oct. 9, 10, 11
Albuquerque, Santa Fe, & Taos.

NEED MORE EVENTS Oct. 12 to 13

October 14 Miami, FL at 8 p.m. at
http://booksandbooks.com
October 15 Orlando, FL

Oct. 16 to Nov. 1 unavailable

November 4 Kutztown, PA
NEED MORE PA DATES FOR NOV. 5, 6, 7. Pittsburgh? Philly? These are the only dates I will come to any other part of Pennsylvania!!!

November 19 Davis, CA
Need more California dates November 20, 21, 22, 23. This is only time I will come to California. SF? LA? SD? Speak up now!!!

December unavailable.

Pre-order now: http://tinyurl.com/daybreakbook

Audio: Sheila Dean and David Swanson on Impeachment and Prosecution

davidswanson — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 08:45:10 -0400

Audio clip.