Impeach.TV

Congress Must Stop Torture

davidswanson — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:18:33 -0400

A Call for Congress to Take Action on Torture
October 28th, 2009

ADD YOUR NAME TO THOSE OF 83 HUMAN RIGHTS GROUPS AND LEADERS AT
http://afterdowningstreet.org/stop

Whereas over seven years have passed since President George W. Bush fraudulently induced the U.S. congress, the American people, and the world into the illegal war in Iraq,

Whereas it is nearly five years since Specialist Darby revealed the photos of Abu Ghraib that showed us torture being committed by our government in our name,

Whereas further evidence of torture remains secret and has been hidden from the public, courts, and Congress to insulate the perpetrators from appropriate criminal liability,

Whereas over the past years we have campaigned about the illegality of this war and the need to prosecute the high-level civilian and military officials who put in place the torture,

Whereas, notwithstanding all the congressional hearings and reports so far on these matters, those officials have not been brought to justice,

Whereas a prosecutor has been appointed to address only a very small number, perhaps as few as three, of the crimes committed and none of the crimes "justified" by the clearly illegal torture memos,

Whereas the Department of Justice's limited investigation of torture threatens to invite more torture around the world by undermining the Nuremberg precedent,

Whereas the Attorney General of the United States, under the influence of the President, appears unwilling to follow the facts about the illegal war in Iraq and torture to the full extent of the law,

Whereas we as citizens of the United States do not accept the damage to our country's honor committed by these persons, the threats to the lives and well-being of our children and fellow citizens sent to illegal wars, and the transformation of our country from a beacon of liberty to a beacon of torture,

WE NOW CALL FOR ACTION:

1. We call on Congress to start impeachment proceedings against Judge Jay Bybee of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, as it is unconscionable that one who encouraged violations of such fundamental laws as those against torture and aggressive war be trusted to apply and shape the law.

2. We call on congressional committees to subpoena those responsible for aggressive war and torture, including former president Bush, vice president Cheney, and other former senior officials complicit in war crimes; and to enforce those subpoenas through the Capitol Police, rather than the Department of Justice.

3. We call on state bar associations to begin the process of revoking the law licenses of those lawyers who put in place the legal analysis for the illegal war and the torture.

4. We call on state licensing authorities to begin the process of revoking the licenses of all other professionals who participated in the torture such as psychologists, psychiatrists and other doctors.

5. We call on the American people to contact their congressional representatives and insist that, on our watch, the high, who are the instigators of illegal wars and torture, will be brought low, and that low-level personnel will not be the only ones prosecuted for committing crimes authorized and encouraged by their superiors.

ADD YOUR NAME TO THOSE OF 83 HUMAN RIGHTS GROUPS AND LEADERS AT
http://afterdowningstreet.org/stop

Forward and Post Widely!

Help Stop Torture!

SIGNED BY:
Robert H. Jackson Steering Committee
Action Center For Justice
After Downing Street
AngryVoters.Org
Backbone Campaign
Bend-Condega Friendship Project
Benjamin G. Davis, Associate Professor of Law, University of Toledo College of Law
Berkeley Fellowship Unitarian Universalists Social Justice Committee
Bill of Rights Defense Committee
BuzzFlash.com
Campus Antiwar Network, Ole Miss
Center for Constitutional Rights
Chelsea Neighbors United to End the War, New York City
Chesapeake Citizens
Christiane Brown, The Solution Zone, KJFK
Citizens For Legitimate Government
CODE PINK: Women for Peace
Code Pink Portland
Marjorie Cohn, Professor, Thomas Jefferson School of Law
Collateral Repair Project
Consumers for Peace
Defending Dissent Foundation
Democracy for America - Tucson
Democracy for NYC
Democracy In Action (DIA)
Democrats.com
Democratic Activist blog
Docudharma
Eastside FOR
The Enviro Show,WXOJ-LP/WMCB
Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space
High Road for Human Rights
Humanists for Peace
IndictBushNow.org
Instruments For Peace
Jobs For Afghans
Justice Through Music
Liberty Tree Foundation
The Make America Again Project
Media With Conscience
Media Freedom Foundation/Project Censored
Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute
Nashville Peace Coalition
Nicole Sandler, RadioOrNot.com
NC Democrats Network
New York Metro Progressives
North Country Coalition for Justice and Peace
Northeast Impeachment Coalition
OpEdNews.com
Oregon PeaceWorks
Peace & Justice Forums, Billings, Montana
The People's Email Network
PoetsWest (Seattle)
Progressive Democrats of America
Progressives Democrats of New York, 14th CD
Progressive Democrats of the Santa Monica Mountains
PDA/DFA Progressive Democracy South Jersey
Progressive Democrats Sonoma County
The Progressive magazine
Rebublicans For Impeachment
Reclaim The GOP
RiseUpTampaBay.com
Sitkans for Peace and Justice
Squadron13.com
SUV Network (Seniors United for Victory)
ThisCantBeHappening.net
Topanga Peace Alliance
Topplebush.com
Transylvanians for Peace of Brevard, NC
True Blue Network
Uncommon Thought Journal
Velvet Revolution
VeteransAgainstTorture.com
Veterans For Peace Chapter 099
Veterans For Peace Chicago Chapter 26
Voices of Conscience
Voters for Peace
War Crimes Times
War Criminals Watch
Washington for Impeachment
Hazel Weiser, Executive Director Society of American Law Teachers -- SALT
Western North Carolina Stop Torture Now
Young Americans for Liberty at Ole Miss

ADD YOUR NAME TO THOSE OF 83 HUMAN RIGHTS GROUPS AND LEADERS AT
http://afterdowningstreet.org/stop

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

One Step Forward, Two Steps Toward Monarchy

davidswanson — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 13:57:49 -0400

It has become almost commonplace, since the release last week of seven "legal" opinions written in 2001 and 2002 by the Justice Department, to remark that unbeknownst to us we came within an inch of dictatorship. And with President Obama announcing an end to torture and a new policy on signing statements, it is extremely common to speak as if we are moving quickly and deliberately in the opposite direction. But this picture is far too simplistic.

We knew a great deal about what was happening when Bush and Cheney were president. In fact, the reason we find the latest handful of memos so "shocking" is that we are already familiar with many of the actual crimes and abuses they were used to justify. While the transfer of unconstitutional powers to the president began when George Washington held that office and has advanced over the centuries, it did take a dramatic leap forward during the reign of Bush-Cheney. We were indeed within a foot, if not an inch, of outright dictatorship, but we were well aware of it. Many chose to avert their gaze for a variety of reasons. Chief among them were approval of presidential power, loyalty to Republicans, and loyalty to Democrats who chose not to rock the boat.

The picture is also too simplistic because there is far more smoke than fire in President Obama's retreat from imperial power, and there is a fundamental defect in our assumption that limiting presidential power can and should be done by a president, rather than by Congress, courts, and the American people. Obama has announced policy changes, some of them very much for the better, but to choose a policy of not torturing, or a policy of not altering laws with signing statements unless absolutely necessary, is to make choices in areas we previously supposed to allow no room for choice at all. In other areas, including the launching of missiles into foreign nations, rendition, unlawful detention, outrageous claims of "state secrets" and "executive privilege", claiming the right to deny courts access to any classified information, the continuation and even escalation of aggressive wars, the refusal to prosecute known crimes of the previous administration, and the creation of gargantuan powers to spend and lend without accountability for the purposes of bailing out bankers, stimulating the economy, and potentially even providing healthcare in a manner acceptable to health insurance companies, Obama has not only made policy choices but made the wrong ones, made the ones that the Constitution does not allow him.

It strikes me as very unlikely that Obama and Biden will abuse their offices to an extent equal to Bush and Cheney. But it is equally unlikely that the presidency in 2013 will possess only the powers it possessed in 2000, if we leave the job of restricting those powers to the president. Most of us are pleased that Obama has just legalized stem-cell research. Others of us are furious. But we should all be terrified of the state of affairs in which a single person can make such fundamental decisions. The problem is not just that the next president can reverse such decisions, but also that he or she can make decisions completely contrary to the will of the majority of Americans or the rights of individuals. If Obama can choose to stop torturing, but not prosecute any of the torturers, a number of horrible consequences follow. First, the torturers have nothing to fear and torture continues even within a government opposed to it. Second, the levels of secrecy permitted the president allow no one to be sure how much torture is happening. Third, we stand in violation of our laws and international treaties, encouraging lawlessness around the world, allowing the foreign minister of Algeria when accused of human rights abuses by our State Department last month to reply, in effect, "Look who's talking!" Fourth, no matter how much truth we get or how reconciled we become, there is nothing to deter the next president from secretly or openly establishing a policy of torture, and nothing to stop any president from violating any other law. Fifth, we no longer elect executives to execute the will of Congress, but elected despots, kings for four years.

History shows that powers claimed by one president are almost always claimed by future ones, even if not abused to the same extent by the immediate successor. A statement from a president, no matter how good and righteous, is not the way to end a pattern of unconstitutional statements from presidents. Congress should pass a bill banning the use of signing statements to alter laws. Of course, this bill could be signing-statemented or ignored, but it wouldn’t be if the threat of impeachment were reestablished. One way of doing that would be by impeaching Bush and Cheney despite their being out of office, an action for which there is precedent. Another step in the right direction would be to impeach Jay Bybee, former torture memo author, now appellate court judge.

We could also consider a Constitutional amendment, but there is good reason to be reluctant about proceeding with that. No reasonable interpreter of the current Constitution could ever have imagined that the president had the right to rewrite laws with signing statements. If we amend the Constitution to clarify that point, we could be seen as suggesting that any bizarre outrage against the basic principles of a government of laws is permissible until explicitly forbidden in detail by Constitutional amendment. And the Constitution already includes the power of impeachment. If, however, we ever significantly revise the Constitution in convention, banning signing statements should be a part of that revision.

As a candidate for the presidency, Obama committed to not using signing statements to reverse laws. In a questionnaire published by the Boston Globe on December 20, 2007, Obama said:

"Signing statements have been used by presidents of both parties, dating back to Andrew Jackson. While it is legitimate for a president to issue a signing statement to clarify his understanding of ambiguous provisions of statutes and to explain his view of how he intends to faithfully execute the law, it is a clear abuse of power to use such statements as a license to evade laws that the president does not like or as an end-run around provisions designed to foster accountability. I will not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law. The fact that President Bush has issued signing statements to challenge over 1100 laws -- more than any president in history -- is a clear abuse of this prerogative."

On February 17, 2009, President Obama published his first signing statement in the Federal Register, commenting on H.R. 1, the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009." He wrote the statement in plain English and did not declare the right to violate the law. His statement appears to be exactly what Bush's lawyers claimed his were, a press release. But, unlike Bush, Obama did not post his first signing statement on his website, and -- as far as I know -- he didn't send it to any press. So what was the point? One point may have been to simply establish that there would still be signing statements. Another may have been to make part of the formal law these seemingly innocuous and admirable phrases:

"My Administration will initiate new, far-reaching measures to help ensure that every dollar spent in this historic legislation is spent wisely and for its intended purpose. The Federal Government will be held to new standards of transparency and accountability. The legislation includes no earmarks. An oversight board will be charged with monitoring our progress as part of an unprecedented effort to root out waste and inefficiency. This board will be advised by experts—not just Government experts, not just politicians, but also citizens with years of expertise in management, economics, and accounting."

While nothing is said here that Obama did not also say publicly, he has hereby (if we allow this interpretation of signing statements to stand) made part of the law his right to use the hundreds of billions of dollars appropriated in this bill in "new" and "far-reaching" ways that he "initiates," as well as the understanding that an "oversight board" created by the executive branch will -- rather than Congress -- oversee the activities of the executive branch, or as Obama calls it "the Federal Government."

On March 9, 2009, Obama published a memo on the topic of signing statements in which he defended the practice but promised not to abuse it. The memo read, in part:

"executive branch departments and agencies are directed to seek the advice of the Attorney General before relying on signing statements issued prior to the date of this memorandum as the basis for disregarding, or otherwise refusing to comply with, any provision of a statute,"

suggesting that Bush's signing statements permitting the violation of laws would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis as needed. There was no indication of how the public would learn of such reviews. But, of course, unless we learn of such reviews we will have yet another form of secret law, and even if we do learn of such reviews, we will have legislating done by the executive branch.

Some commentators have exclaimed that by so reviewing Bush's signing statements, Obama has finally agreed to "look backwards." I disagree. Obama's "look only forward" idea is all about undoing bad policies and creating new ones. What it is not about is holding anyone accountable for their crimes.

As president-elect, in November, Obama said that he was preparing a list of about 200 executive orders issued by Bush that he, Obama, would simply reverse. I haven't seen that list yet, and this latest memo regarding signing statements suggests that they will not be included. The most Constitutional move that President Obama could make would be to toss out every signing statement that authorized violating laws and every executive order, memo, determination, finding, directive, proclamation, or other royal decree that his predecessor did not have the Constitutional right to issue. Instead, Obama has reversed a handful of Bush's orders because of "policy differences." Some of these are wonderful and lifesaving reversals, such as that regarding torture. But they involve a life-threatening maintenance of dangerous monarchical power. Congress should give the president explicit and limited rule-making powers. All rules should be publicly available. And Congress should be understood to have the power to overrule them. Outside of those restrictions, a president should not be permitted to make decrees carrying the force of law.

In the same pre-election questionnaire quoted above, Obama made an encouraging comment regarding secrecy:

"I believe the Administration's use of executive authority to over-classify information is a bad idea. We need to restore the balance between the necessarily secret and the necessity of openness in our democracy--which is why I have called for a National Declassification Center."

But Obama has, at least thus far, chosen to release only a small fraction of the Bush-Cheney crime documents known to exist. We have not seen most of the memos and not seen the Emails. Eric Holder's Justice Department has opposed releasing the Emails and urged a federal appeals court to dismiss a lawsuit against Boeing subsidiary Jeppesen DataPlan for its role in the extraordinary rendition program. Mohamed et al. v. Jeppesen had been brought on behalf of five men who were kidnapped and secretly transferred to U.S.-run prisons or foreign intelligence agencies overseas where they were tortured. The Bush administration had asserted the "state secrets" privilege, claiming the case would somehow undermine national security, and Holder's department agrees.

Holder's Justice Department has also used a "state secrets" claim to try to block a lawsuit over Bush's warrantless spying, and claimed in a brief filed in that case that only a president can decide on the use of any classified information in court (even in a closed court), a power that would allow presidents to give themselves immunity by simply classifying evidence of their crimes.

Britain's High Court of Justice ruled that evidence in the U.K. civil case of Binyam Mohamed, one of the plaintiffs in the Jeppesen case, had to remain secret because of U.S. threats to cut off intelligence sharing. Britain's Telegraph newspaper reported that "Mohamed’s genitals were sliced with a scalpel and other torture methods so extreme that waterboarding, the controversial technique of simulated drowning, 'is very far down the list of things they did'." Britain's Daily Mail reported that Mohamed "was identified as a terrorist after confessing he had visited a 'joke' website on how to build a nuclear weapon. ... [He] admitted to having read the 'instructions' after allegedly being beaten, hung up by his wrists for a week and having a gun held to his head in a Pakistani jail."

In a remarkable show of their continuing desire for Congress to exist as a functioning part of our government, and willingness to challenge a president of the same political party, leading Democrats in the House and Senate have introduced the State Secrets Protection Act, which would require court review of any "state secrets" claims. Senator Russ Feingold (D., Wisc.) also requested a classified briefing to have this particular "state secrets" claim explained to him. Of course, if he's given an explanation he'll be forbidden from sharing it with us. And, of course, Congress does not propose Congressional review, only court review, of "state secrets" claims.

However, in what I consider a remarkable rush to give presidents more power, Feingold joined with Republican Senators John McCain and Paul Ryan last week to reintroduce legislation that would effectively give presidents an unconstitutional line-item veto for spending bills. Unwilling to ban or simply stop including wasteful earmarks, senators and Congress members would like to give presidents the power to undo congressional decisions. Rather than rejecting an item with a signing statement, a president could legally "rescind" it, requiring both houses to vote again on that item alone. The same result could be achieved by requiring each house to vote on such items individually to begin with, but that wouldn't transfer power to the president and therefore doesn't look to Washington insiders like as much of a reform.

Barack Obama as a candidate for the presidency had advocated for Congressional "approval" of the treaty President Bush made with Iraq. As President-Elect, Obama favored Congressional "review." As President he went silent. President Obama immediately upon taking office began launching military strikes into Pakistan and has now escalated the occupation of Afghanistan, without anyone even suggesting that Congress be consulted in these matters. President Obama and his top officials, in their first weeks in office, supported claims of "executive privilege" allowing members of the former Bush administration to refuse to comply with Congressional subpoenas, and explicitly doing so in order to protect the "power of the presidency." Obama's lawyer conducted a negotiation of terms between the first branch of our government and a common criminal, Karl Rove, rather than hauling Rove in by force, something that Congress itself of course refuses to do as well. The result will be Rove testifying, at least in private and at least on some topics, but also the maintenance of the idea that the president can choose whether or not to allow Congress to subpoena witnesses.

I hate to sound ungrateful here. I'm delighted that Obama released seven more memos. I'm aware that those memos exhibit a reckless, lawless lunacy that outstrips anything previously seen in this country or likely to be seen in the next four years. But the powers claimed by those memos do not go away just because some other memos are written and the powers are not used. The powers go away only if something is done to deter their reappearance. One option, which really ought not to be an option, would be for the Justice Department to enforce the law.

Paris Says No Pardons!

Bob Fertik — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 15:31:17 -0400

For his final official act, Bush plans to pardon himself and everyone in his administration for all of their crimes. Can Paris stop him? Sign our petition and spread the word!

Liveblogging Impeachment Day 1

Bob Fertik — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 08:15:31 -0400

It's impeachment day 1 thanks to Rep. Dennis Kucinich!

David Swanson is liveblogging with impeachment activists on Capitol Hill. Kagro X has a diary on Kos explaining how Kucinich and Robert Wexler pressured Pelosi into having hearings, who will testify, and why no one can call Bush a "liar." Ralph Lopez has a diary at Kos with Corporate Media links - tell them to cover today's impeachment hearing!

#2: 9 a.m. Pacifica starts live coverage. David will be a guest at 9:30.

9:40: Robert Parry, author of "Neck Deep" - Mainstream media (MSM) doesn't feel pressured by the left Media, as they do by the right. There is a difference between how the media responds to the conservatives and liberals.

9:43: John Conyers is 79 and has been in Congress since 1961.

9:46: Scott Horton and David Swanson on now.

9:47: David Swanson currently in line; has been in line for 3 hours, and is about to be let into the room.

9:48: David was asked if this is a victory. He said no, but it is a forceful statement on Bush's multiple crimes.

9:49: Jane Harmon will not be speaking. Prepared remarks by Bruce Fein available on www.afterdowningstreet.org/

9:50: Discussion about the need for increased "street heat" that is, activism by citizens to bring about accountability.

9:52: David was asked if it's too late to impeach. He replied absolutely not! This action is not about George Bush, but rather about upholding the rule of law in our nation.

9:55: Scott Horton: When impeachment hearings commence, blanket pardons are no longer possible, and this is one of the central arguments for impeachment.

9:56: Will today's hearings set the stage for the next step toward impeachment? Yes, if there is an outpouring of public support for impeachment.

9:58: In 1974, telegrams represented the public outcry; today, it is emails.

10:00: CSPAN is showing the hearing room and Rep. John Conyers greeting people. Gavelling in soon.

10:02: Motion and commotion as people come in and settle. Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) is present. Crowd cheers vigorously as Rep. Dennis Kucinich and his wife Elizabeth enter the hearing room. Three or four rounds of indecipherable chanting.

10:05: Panelists for Panel #1 are assembling.

10:09: You can watch the hearing webcast at http://www.c-span.org/ and read Articles of Impeachment Rep. Kucinich submitted in the "Featured Links" section.

10:16: The Committee appears to be settling in, paper shuffling has begun.

David Swanson reports that "They let a grand total of 17 members of the public into the room. A crowd of hundreds is in the hallway shouting "Shame! Shame!" despite being offered two large overflow rooms. The 17 of us include a bunch of people with IMPEACH shirts, after we won an argument in the hallway for the right to wear them -- led by Col. (retired) Ann Wright." At least half of those admitted are members of Vets for Peace.

10:19: Chairman Conyers calls hearing to order. He is reading a prepared statement about the legacy of this administration's excesses. Chairman Conyers states that there have been 45 hearings on related matters in this Congress. He points out that the Judiciary Committee took action against Harriett Miers and Josh Bolton, and expects to take action against Karl Rove.

10:27: Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) says nothing will come out of this hearing; there will be no impeachment. There is no evidence of any wrongdoing by the President. This hearing will only impeach Congress' credibility.

Rep. Smith reads a House Rule: "Rules do not permit the use of language that is personally offensive toward the President."

10:32: Rep. Robert Wexler begins opening statement. Openly calls for impeachment. This is not a partisan issue - it is an American issue. Rep. Wexler recommends studying the events surrounding the Nixon years.

10:35: Chairman Conyers reminded those in the hearing room that cheers, clapping and other similar actions are not permitted.

10:37: Rep. Steve King (R-IA-5) when Chairman Conyers mentioned "the power to remove" in his opening statement, Rep. King never thought that he would be present at a hearing where the removal of a president would be the subject. Rep. King will be releasing today the debriefing of Ambassador Joe Wilson after his return from Niger. Rep. King is asserting that Wilson's debriefing statement acknowledged that Niger had yellow cake uranium.

10:34: Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA-16) exploring "Executive Power and Its Constitutional Limitations." Calls Bush the "worst president our country has every suffered."

10:37: Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA-3) opening statement. He seems to be straining to speak. Calls hearing "Friday morning show trial." Questions the purpose of the hearing; perhaps it's "impeachment lite" leaving the press to print the charges without actually taking the steps.

10:51: Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY-8) reviewing the lists of possible offenses that are excesses of the Executive Branch. States this is not a waste of time.

10:53: Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN-6) again reflects that this is not a hearing on "impeachment." Does this take us down the road of criminalizing American politics? Rep. Pence sees no reason for impeachment. Bush not accused of treason or bribery, so that leaves high crimes and misdemeanors. Rep. Pence say Rep. Kucinich is "dead wrong." Calls Bush a "man of integrity." He has seen no evidence of a high crime or misdemeanor, and therefore there should be no serious consideration of impeachment of George W. Bush.

10:58: Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (R-TX-18) opens by reading the preamble to the Constitution. Points out that Congress has responsibility to do fact-finding; she focuses on the issue of how the movement toward war evolved. She queried whether it was treasonous for Karl Rove not to appear as required by the Judiciary House Committee. Also questioned whether signing statements contravene the Constitution.

11:02: Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ-2) criticizes past committee hearings that has made Americans less safe due to terrorism. Says the committee's hearings make the terrorists happy.

11:07: Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN-9) Congressional newbie - 19 months. Administration is contemptuous of the Congress. Cohen describes how Monica Goodlin only would testify to executive branch wrongdoing by being granted immunity.

11:09: Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA-4) Lawyer/judge

11:29: Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH-10) begins his statement. War has killed 4,127 American military personnel. Rep. Kucinich asks to enter HR. 333, 1258, and 1345 into the record; Chairman Conyers agreed. Rep. Kucinich passionately describes the decision before us is to right a very great wrong.

11:36: Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY-22) administration dominated by corruption and incompetence. Need to insure that future administrations work with the Congress. Rep. Hinchey outlines numerous references and warnings about AlQaeda's determination to attack the US. All of the circumstances surrounding the war need to be examined because of the damage that it has done. The situation now is one of the most difficult we have faced in history of our nation.

11:41: Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC-13) Democracy dies behind closed doors. It is the responsibility of Congress to keep communication open, both Democratic and Republican. Quoting James Madison about the founders of our republic.

11:52: Walter Jones

12:00: 2nd Panel Being Seated. Panelists are:

The Honorable Elizabeth Holtzman, Former Representative from New York
The Honorable Bob Barr, Former Representative from Georgia, 2008 Libertarian Nominee for President
The Honorable Ross C. “Rocky” Anderson, Founder and President, High Roads for Human Rights
Stephen Presser, Raoul Berger Professor of Legal History, Northwestern University School of Law
Bruce Fein, Associate Deputy Attorney General, 1981-82, Chairman, American Freedom Agenda
Vincent Bugliosi, Author and former Los Angeles County Prosecutor
Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law
Elliott Adams, President of the Board, Veterans for Peace
Frederick A. O. Schwarz, Jr., Senior Counsel, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law

Panel 2

Honorable Elizabeth Holtzman, Former Representative from New York: Outlined list of crimes, recommended an impeachment action.

Honorable Bob Barr, Former Representative from Georgia, 2008 Libertarian Nominee for President: Notes that the US Post Office is the most trusted governmental agency, and says that's a source of concern to all. Expresses hope that this will be the first of many inquiries into the checks and balances and the separation of powers. Quotes Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis: "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." Administration's secrecy undermines the respect of the rule of law.

Honorable Ross C. “Rocky” Anderson, Founder and President, High Roads for Human Rights:

Stephen Presser, Raoul Berger Professor of Legal History, Northwestern University School of Law: Discussing standards for impeachment. Comparing and contrasting with Clinton. Says unitary executive theory and signing statements aren't impeachable.

Bruce Fein, Statement Associate Deputy Attorney General, 1981-82, Chairman, American Freedom Agenda: Close to executive despotism...rule of law is the nation's civic religion...claims of war power: every square inch of world is an active battlefield where Bush can use military force...we have the sword of Damocles over our heads...

Vincent Bugliosi, Author and former Los Angeles County Prosecutor: Charges that Bush is a murderer of our military personnel; would never make the charge if he didn't have evidence. Bush knew that Hussein was not an eminent threat. The unclassified report had that information deleted. The Bush Administration has gotten away with thousands upon thousands of murders. No comparison to Clinton; urges a CRIMINAL investigation. Crowd breaks out in loud applause. Chairman Conyers admonished the guests in the room not to react to the testimony.

Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law: Will try to add perspective to hearing. Doesn't want to look at "secondary charges." "Wartime presidents don't take great care of the Constitution." People want to kill us.

Frederick A. O. Schwarz, Jr., Senior Counsel, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law: Now we are less free, and less safe. This is given extremist Muslims powerful recruiting tools. World is doubting the moral basis of our war on terrorism. Recommends independent non-partisan, bi-partisan commission rather than impeachment. Thinks there's no time for a detailed investigation now. US must not adopt the techniques of our enemies.

Elliott Adams, President of the Board, Veterans for Peace: Ben Franklin asked "What have we here?" and Ben Franklin replied: "A republic, if you can keep it." Describes the works of Veterans for Peace. No question that members of this administration have committed crimes. The question is what we do about it? Torture is illegal and ruins the value of the intelligence gathered. When our founding fathers signed the Declaration of Independence they were not worried about political will or their political future. They were worried that were going to get hanged.

Follow-ups:

Bob Barr: The Constitutional clock is running down. Chooses constitutional inquiry over constitutional silence.

Ross C. “Rocky” Anderson: Characterizes aluminium tubes as fraud, leading to war

Stephen Presser: You won't find a lack of good faith.

Bruce Fein: Permanent war is inconsistent with freedom. Bush has taken more powers that George III.

Vincent Bugliosi: Consensual sex and lying about it is worse than murder. Bush spoke about 3 ways to provoke war; one included provoking Hussein by flying war planes into Iraqi territory.

(Audience outburst, person evicted from hearing room)

Frederick A. O. Schwarz, Jr.: The idea that the President can break the law and do it secretly is a very dangerous doctrine that must be exposed and squashed.

Elliott Adams: Promotes his soon to be written book.

Chairman Conyers accepts all paperwork for entry into the record.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX): Feels that witnesses missed the point that this is not an impeachment hearing. Question to Presser: Was the Clinton impeachment about lying about sex? Answer: No. There is no misconduct from this administration that would rise to an impeachable offense.

Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law: Question from Rep. Smith to Prof. Rabkin: Is there something impeachable? Did the president get us into a war to enrich oil companies? If that were true, of course, impeachment would be suitable. Why are people so bitter? Something to do with is such a charge even plausible...I mean, you have to find it demented, really. You not only have to believe that the president is a Shakespearean villain, you have to believe that all through the White House there are people who will just say, "Well, I'll just cover it up."

Rep. Smith: If we accepted the definitions of impeachable offenses given today, would other presidents have committed impeachable offenses.

Rep. Nadler: If the President lied to Congress,

#1: 8 a.m. Dennis Kucinich kicks off the day on C-Span 1 while I make my first cup of coffee.

8:07: Q: On Iraq, was the Administration lying or honestly wrong? A: Either way it's impeachable after the deaths of over 4000 U.S. soldiers

8:09: A: My presentation will focus closely on what Congress was told about Iraq... on representations that were untrue at the time they were told to Congress. Now everyone knows Iraq had no WMD's, no ties to Al Qaeda.

8:10: Q: Only months left - why push impeachment? A: Setting precedent for future president. Disastrous consequences. Central purpose was to grab Iraq's oil - our troops are there to get $5/gal gasoline from our people. What's this all about?

8:11 Q (Auburndale Republican): I voted for Bush twice and I'm sorry about it. I thank you for impeachment.

8:12: Q: Are you in touch with the Speaker? A: She's busy; I talk to her staff and tell them everything I'm doing. Q: Why does she oppose impeachment? A: Ask her. She took it off the table in 2006. But she allowed this hearing which is good. This isn't about Pelosi but about Bush. She's done her best - other Members oppose impeachment.

8:15: Q: Read Phillippe Sands' book - Bush lied on purpose. A: I wrote a report in 2006 exposing lies. We want to trust our President. There has to be accountability - Founding Fathers only gave us impeachment.

8:16: Q (Random Lake WI): High crimes - I see every day. We've called 50 million children (abortion), Waco, Saddam paying terrorists. No attacks in US for 6 years because Bush went into Iraq. A: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. We went to war against innocent people.

8:18: Q (Essex CT): Bush says he got bad info but never said where he got it - who gave it? Doug Feith? Netanyahu and Sharon? After 9/11 FBI caught 5 dancing Israelis - said they were sent to "record the event." How did they know "the event"? A: Don't know about the latter, just the former. Senate Intelligence Committee report is damning to administration - they had plenty of info that the what they told Congress wasn't true.

8:21: Q: What do other Members say? Some voted for Iraq because they honestly believed Bush. There has been a steady reappraisal. Over 4,127 troops have died, tens of thousands injured, over a million innocent Iraqis, $3 trillion cost, oil prices going up - oil was a central reason why we went to Iraq - rising oil price, rising food price. Dimunition of civil liberties - all because a lie was told, that Iraq was an imminent offense. I can't think of a graver offense because of all the consequences.

8:23 Q (Anniston AL Republican): Should Democratic leadership be impeached too for stupidity? A: Congress does have responsibility - for war powers. But we never declared war. We only relied on what the President told Congress. When driving, accidental killing is manslaughter - a serious crime. If it was just a mistake, look at the gravity - 1 million dead people in Iraq. There must be accountability. You can't say "gee we made a mistake." They knew better and there must be consequences.

8:25 Q (Walton NY Democrat): What was Bush's motivation? Is there a money trail? A: Congress can't crack veil of secrecy over Cheney's meetings with oil companies - maps of Iraq - consensus that access to oil would be critical. Link between that meeting and military action later on. But just based on what's on the record we can impeach. Look at consequences - money for health care, jobs, environment, alternative energy - money's not there because money's going into war. Unless we find out the truth we'll never be free of the consequences.

8:27 Q: Cheney? A: I introduced H.Res.333 against Cheney because of his statements on nuclear weapons. I thought it would be better to remove him first. This is about accountability to history. Our Constitution is at risk. If our President is no longer accountable, we've set the stage for more wars, a government that's about empire - not the urgent problems at home.

8:29 Q (NYC Republican): I'm a former prosecutor. I blew the whistle on airport security in 1999. I made a big arrest for drug smuggling. I reported it and was threatened by my supervisor to keep my mouth shut. They wanted me to perjure. I was terminated and filed a lawsuit that has lasted 9 years. A: Call my office so I can investigate. Thank you for standing up.

8:31: This administration is getting ready to attack Iran and plunge us into a 4-front war. Very dangerous for America - for our troops in the field, for our economy. We can't sustain this - we have to look to our Constitution to rein this in. There has to be consequences for this President's insistence on passing the AUMF.

8:32 Q: Will War Powers Act be changed? A: Proposed changes would take more power from Congress. Founding Fathers were clear - power for warmaking given to Congress, not President. We need to strengthen Congress' role. This is very serious - we see consequences in Iraq.

Dennis Kucinich: Thanks to You, Impeachment Will Be Heard on Friday

davidswanson — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:12:05 -0400

Nadler Cites Bush's Impeachable Offenses and War Crimes but Rejects Impeachment

Bob Fertik — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:03:11 -0400

On C-SPAN's Washington Journal, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) declared George Bush guilty of "impeachable offenses" and "some people" in his Administration with "war crimes."

Nevertheless, Nadler insisted Bush should not be impeached because it would "distort the presidential campaign." Watch it:

Here's the transcript:

I think as a matter of justice that if we had a just system and it weren't overly political, the President probably would be impeached. I think he has committed impeachable offenses.

But first of all, it's not up to me as to whether we should impeach the President, it's up to the House as a whole and up to the leadership of the House to allow such a proceeding to be brought.

As a practical matter at this point in the game with 6 months left in the Administration, it would never happen, and it's probably not the best idea to start a full impeachment hearing at this point which would simply take all the attention away from and distort the presidential campaign.

In my view, if we're going to restore the United States as a nation of laws, if we're going to see some of these hideous and illegal practices... stop, the most important thing right now is to elect Barack Obama as President so we can get a decent honest man in office again and an Administration that begins to obey the law.

And then I would hope to see prosecutions - criminal prosecutions - of some people in the Bush Administration who have clearly committed war crimes because I think it's very important that people be held accountable so these crimes do not set precedents for the...

Nadler's position is politically, morally, and legally bankrupt. The 2008 "presidential campaign" began shortly after the 2004 election, and became a full-fledged media obsession immediately after the 2006 election. According to Nadler's logic, a President could never be impeached - even if he is a war criminal - because there is always a Presidential election underway.

As chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, Nadler has direct jurisdiction over Bush's impeachable offenses and war crimes. His failure to enforce the Constitution is a complete betrayal of his oath of office, which requires him to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

Fortunately Nadler is being held accountable for betraying his oath of office by Adam Sullivan, a passionate impeachment supporter who is challenging Nadler in a Democratic primary on September 9. Adam writes,

When my congressman tells me that he will not co-sponsor an impeachment resolution against a reckless and criminal vice president, I submit to you that he has broken faith with the people he is meant to serve, and violated his sworn oath to the Constitution. He has chosen to adhere to the wishes of his party leaders in the name of some short-sighted political “wisdom.”

I will never break an oath to protect the Constitution, no matter the perceived cost to a political agenda. The cost to our country, our republic, and to each individual citizen is too great to bear. We are citizens of the United States of America. We deserve better.

If you believe Bush should be impeached, please volunteer or contribute to Adam Sullivan's campaign.

Update 1: When talking to impeachment activists, Nadler sings a different tune:

Nadler told us the concern was that the attack dog Republicans (not all) would characterize this as "retribution for the Clinton impeachment. And the media would go along with it."

Sue4theBillofRights is spot-on in response:

Is that all life is? To tremble in fear at what attacks the other party might make on you? You are better than that, Congressman. We know you are.

Bush impeachment debate focuses on subpoenas

davidswanson — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 12:30:33 -0400

McClellan Strengthens Wexler's Case for Impeaching Cheney

Bob Fertik — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 13:47:53 -0400

When Scott McClellan testified before the Judiciary Committee on Friday, Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) only got 5 minutes. But he used it brilliantly as you can see.

Wexler wants to know who told Scooter Libby to leak Plame's identity, and narrows the suspects down to Bush and Cheney. If McClellan believes Bush was innocent, then that leaves Cheney.

Could there be a more impeachable offense than willfully exposing the identity of a covert CIA operative - endangering her life, the lives of her sources, and her entire anti-WMD program - as a way to "get" her husband for telling the truth about Bush's pre-war lies?

You go, Wexler!

The Declaration of Independence as a Tool of Impeachment

Jesai — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:20:38 -0400

Hi Folks: June 18th, 2008

We are involved in public readings/performances of the Declaration of Independence which highlights the similarity between King George and the current administration of the US. Looking for as many people as possible to read/record/perform/present such presentations. Live readings are happening in NYC now through the Society for Ethical Culture: Ethical Communications Committee and Social Service Board.

When people hear it they say "Is that really what's in it?" "Isn't that happening now with our own government.?"