Now we learn this:
"What are we waiting for? Let's take these two guys out," Conyers reportedly told the enthusiastic crowd at a Progressive Democrats of America event in San Diego. He later repeated the same line according to the caller, "KPete," who wrote more about the event at Democratic Underground yesterday. She reported that the comment was met by "huge cheers."By the way, some people have said that the Judiciary Committee cannot look into impeachment without a directive to do so by the House Leadership. Not true. The Constitution does not so mandate, and the 1998 precedent should not apply to the current situation. 1998 did not involve the Vice President or the line of succession, and thus could not be construed as a coup by the Speaker.
A similar account of Conyers's statement was offered by progressive talk show host Bree Walker who also attended the same event.
Conyers reportedly urged patience in the process, and asked for everyone's support as things moved forward first with Cheney, and then with Bush.
Russ Feingold has renewed his call for censure in the Senate. A terrific idea, that: A censure motion will give us an idea as to whether any Republicans in the Senate can be turned against Bush and Cheney. Impeachment is one thing; removal another. You cannot ask Bush to go back to Texas without cooperation from at least some senatorial Republicans.
Unfortunately -- and I know that this viewpoint conflicts with common wisdom -- there is far more disunity among Democrats than among Republicans right now. Note, for example, the hate vibes some Dem rank-and-filers have directed at Feingold for his censure suggestion, because it does not go "far enough." (Yes, I know that he said he does not support impeachment at this time. He's a Senator, not a House member. If he had said "Impeach now!" his censure call would be even less palatable to Republicans. These things must be handled with some delicacy.)
Wonkette has published an incredibly daring column which asks: How to stage a revolt? The piece discusses all options from military coup to attacks on the home offices of congress members. Needless to say, I do not condone violence or illegal activity. But can you believe that we are actually discussing such matters?
Dark response. If Bush feels power slip away, how will he react? We see increasing signs that he is considering the "false flag" terror option, under which he will assume dictatorial powers. Consider this executive order, which allows the President to take away the property of any United States "persons" who "threaten stabilization in Iraq."
Please note that this order is not directed against insurgents in Iraq -- we are already firing bullets at those fellows, as you may have noticed. No, this EO is directed at unnamed people in the United States...
determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,I need to not point out how vaguely worded this is. We know how aggressive the President's lawyers are, and we know that they are quite capable of of construing any anti-war protester (or blogger) as a threat to the stability of Iraq.
(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:
(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or
(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;
(ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order...
Most people reading these words could be considered broadly guilty of undermining Bush's efforts. Conservative zealots will argue (have argued) that anyone who writes a web article in favor of immediate withdrawal has provided "goods and services" in favor of the insurgency.
A careful reading reveals that an "act of violence" of some sort must occur before this EO becomes operative. But in my opinion, an even more careful reading indicates that an aggressive DOJ official can apply this EO to a United States "person" who cannot be directly tied to any specific violent act.
Think about it: Have there been any instances of U.S. citizens acting on behalf of the Iraqi insurgency? (I mean acting directly, in terms of offering money or logistical support.) If, hypothetically, a resident of this nation did offer material support to the insurgents, would not existing law suffice to deal with the situation?
This Executive Order, at first glance, is directed against a problem that does not exist. So why does the order itself exist? Why now?
Bush's hard core supporters have called for draconian tactics against administration critics. Just talk? I don't think so.
Finally: Here, once again, are the names of the Congressfolk you should call. Tell 'em to get behind the impeachment of Cheney NOW:
Neil Abercrombie, Tammy Baldwin, Lois Capps, Mike Capuano, Danny K. Davis, Chaka Fattah, Maurice Hinchey, Mike Honda, Jesse Jackson Jr, Sheila Jackson-Lee, John Lewis, Carolyn Maloney, Betty McCollum, Gwen Moore, Jerold Nadler, John Olver, Donald Payne, Charles Rangel, Steve Rothman, Hilda Solis, Fortney Pete Stark, John Tierney, Nydia Velazquez, Diane Watson.
A reader suggests adding Jay Inslee to the list. Let's not forget that Conyers himself has not added his name to the fourteen.
10 comments:
A mechanic does not fabricate a tool he does not intend to use.
Another option short of violent revolt, and possibly useful to put pressure on Congress to remove Bush and Cheney -- especially if impeachment succeeds -- is a nationwide work stoppage and/or boycott. Certainly everyone will not participate, but if labor and Congressional leads endorse such a move to show widespread solidarity of the American people.
It is vague for a reason, so it can be used against US citizens at the President's will.
Just remember this too people: South Carolina courts do not honor previous valid legal court orders.
US citizens no longer have " proof " of anything.
Bush/Cheney couped this whole country .
"Constituents called Rep. Peter DeFazio’s office, worried there was a conspiracy buried in the classified portion of a White House plan for operating the government after a terrorist attack.
As a member of the House Committee on Homeland Security, DeFazio, D-Ore., is permitted to enter a secure “bubbleroom” in the Capitol and examine classified material. So he asked the White House to see the secret documents.
On Wednesday, DeFazio got his answer: DENIED.
“I just can’t believe they’re going to deny a member of Congress the right of reviewing how they plan to conduct the government of the United States after a significant terrorist attack,” DeFazio said. Read more…
What are they hiding? I posted about this Presidential Directive in May, Bush Wants Full Control Of Government During Catastrophic Attack, which garnered a lot of discussion — it now appears the White House is attempting to block Congressional review of that directive. Contact your representatives in the House and Senate to let them know your thoughts on this. As I’ve mentioned before, please remind them (politely) that Congress is a coequal branch of our government and that President Bush is a public servant and therefore accountable to the people HE SERVES."
posted on C&L
As you're probably aware, a young Indian doctor in Australia is currently in dentention because he supplied "material support" to terrorists. What did he do? When he moved from the UK to London, he gave his prepaid UK phone card which still had some time left to one of his cousins. That cousin was involved in the recent failed car bombing attempts and the prepaid card was found in his appartment.
Under this reasoning, the "material support" clause you gave above means that American Airlines and all involved in helping the 9/11 terrorists, including ticket sellers, baggage handlers etc - all have provided support to terrorists and can be indefinitely detained.
first of all, interestingly, this is so vaguely worded it is glaringly unconstitutional.
second of all, this EO looks even more ominous when considered beside the bizarre letter written to hillary clinton questioning her right to request contingency withdrawal plans, and implying that such questions openly aid the enemy. (see emptywheel)
what i want to know is, just how iron clad are these damn EO's?? can the prez just issue such an order if it is blatantly unconstitutional? and how does one go about addressing that problem?
An EO can be struck down in two ways:
1. The courts can rule that the EO makes law instead of interpreting it. Such a ruling would always have a political basis, since (realistically speaking) most EOs are guilty of this.
Courts today are unlikely to rule against Bush.
2. Congress can refuse to fund an Order. But Bush can simply veto the legislation.
So we're screwed. Bush can do whatever he pleases.
When someone disagrees with a government policy or official action these days - especially in regards to the Iraq war or any of Bush's psychotic nonsense - the retort from the right wing is often, "You only have the freedom to say such, (stupid, naive, treasonous, anti-American) things, because a solider sacrificed to give you the right to do so."
It is taken by for granted by many that this is actually the case, but it is not true - it is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that gave us the right to free speech.
Politicians and Soldiers do not give us anything. At best they help us function as a country, and protect us from outsiders.
Yes, the sacrifice of soldiers keeps forces from outside our country from taking our long held rights away from us at gun point it is Lawyers and our Laws that protect us and enforce the rights the Constitution and the Bill of Rights granted - not loaned, not leased, but granted - every American.
Lawyers and The Law are America's first and most important line of defense.
They, and it, protect us from the abuse of powerful interests and unscrupulous people, and more importantly uphold our Constitution and our Bill of Rights.
It is a dangerous thing to block legal redress for abuse via the Courts, but it appears we are headed post-haste down that road.
We must not allow this country to get to the point where, as the right wing often claims, our Constitution and our Bill of Rights are truly protected by Soldiers and the Military, rather than by Lawyers and the Law, for therein lies Tyranny.
Ownership and accumulating wealth in our country is now at the discretion of the administration.
I can't imagine the real purpose of this law. They may be trying to tie up the terrorists' funds, but that's not done here, that's mostly elsewhere (coming from Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran, not the US). I can only suppose that there is another, more pernicious purpose of this executive order. It gives them, in more critical and unruly times (war with Iran, for example), a manner to threaten and to lock up assets of those who oppose their actions.
dr elsewhere,
I had the same question. But wouldn't the Eo be unconstitutional if the E that signed it was impeached?
And if impeachment is impeded by the DOJ, would it not make sense to impeach (or what ever the term is for getting rid of the AG)Gonzales first?
Would it not make sense to restore the integrity of the DOJ before we go after anyone else?
As a matter of fact, to avoid the stigma of impeaching the president, why not impeach everyone else that he depends on and leave him defenseless.
EOs are as good as the powers behind them, like our laws against hiring illegal immigrants.
Post a Comment