Wednesday, July 18, 2007

More on The Bush Family Evil Empire

Reining In an Out-of-Control Executive

by Marjorie Cohn

Our Founding Fathers created three separate but co-equal branches of government to check and balance each other so no one branch would become all powerful. Indeed, James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers, “The preservation of liberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and distinct.” Madison warned, “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands… may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” The American colonists were reacting against a police state.

More than 200 years later, we have another King George. In the last six years, George W. Bush has sought to accumulate all governing powers in the same hands — his. In the Declaration of Independence, the framers charged that the King “refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.” Bush has repeatedly violated the Constitution’s command that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” by breaking some and refusing to enforce others. The Constitution grants Congress the power to make laws; after both houses pass a bill, the President can only sign it or veto it. Bush, however, takes a different tack. He has vetoed just three bills, then quietly attached “signing statements” to more than 1,000 congressional laws, indicating his intent to follow only those parts with which he agrees.

In an end run around Congress and the courts, Bush secretly authorized the Terrorist Surveillance Program to conduct electronic surveillance without a judicial warrant, in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the Fourth Amendment. Although two judges on a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the dismissal of a lawsuit challenging the legality of Bush’s spying program for lack of standing, the only two judges ever to rule on the merits declared the program illegal.

The Bush administration lied to Congress to get authority to invade Iraq. Long before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Bush and his officials were planning to attack Iraq and change its regime. Dick Cheney’s secret energy task force drew up maps of Iraq’s oil fields to divvy up the black gold once we occupied that country. They then devised an elaborate scheme to convince the American people that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the United States, notwithstanding overwhelming intelligence to the contrary. Since Bush launched “Operation Iraq Freedom,” more than 3,600 American soldiers and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis have died; many thousands more have been wounded. This invasion is a war of aggression, which violates the UN Charter, because it was neither executed in self-defense nor approved by the Security Council.

During the war, U.S. troops have been acting under rules of engagement — free-fire zones — that have led some to commit war crimes. For instance, the killing, execution-style, of 24 civilians in the Haditha Massacre, the execution of a disabled man, and the shooting of a wounded unarmed Iraqi in a mosque violate the Geneva Conventions which prohibit willful killing of civilians. Commanders, all the way up the chain to the commander-in-chief, could be convicted of war crimes if they should’ve known their subordinates would commit them and the commanders didn’t stop or prevent it.

Bush’s legal eagles, particularly David Addington and John Yoo, concocted elaborate “legal” arguments to justify the torture of prisoners. Never mind that international and American law forbid torture under all circumstances. Pursuant to a common plan to violate the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, prisoners in U.S. custody are being tortured and abused. Prisoners have been subjected to water-boarding, attacks by dogs, sexual humiliation, and excruciatingly painful force-feeding.

The Bush administration has secretly rendered prisoners to other countries to be tortured. One former CIA agent observed, “If you want a serious interrogation, you send a prisoner to Jordan. If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria. If you want someone to disappear — never to see them again — you send them to Egypt.”

Shortly after 9/11, the Bush gang set up a prison camp in Guantánamo, intending to create a legal black hole where they could hold prisoners for the rest of their lives without any judicial oversight. But the Supreme Court didn’t buy the administration’s argument that U.S. courts have no jurisdiction over Guantánamo because it’s in Cuba. And the Court struck down Bush’s original military commissions since they violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions.

The Supreme Court said in Berger v. United States that a prosecutor’s job is to see that justice is done, not to politicize justice. But Bush’s Department of Justice, the chief law enforcement agency in the government, has been seriously compromised. Several U.S. attorneys who refused to bring frivolous charges that would further Bush’s political agenda, or who brought charges that didn’t, were purged.

The White House is resisting congressional subpoenas that call for testimonial and documentary evidence about the U.S. attorney firing scandal. The deadline for Bush, Cheney and the Justice Department to produce documents in response to Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenas about the warrantless surveillance is July 18. In 1974, when the House Judiciary Committee passed three articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon, Article III charged refusal to comply with subpoenas during the Watergate hearings.

Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and President of the National Lawyers Guild. Her new book, Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law, was just published. Her articles are archived at http://www.marjoriecohn.com.

© 2007 Huffington Post


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Rank and File Goopers Don't Like Any of Their Candidates


That's certainly understandable.

GOP voters: We don't want any of 'em

July 17, 2007 - 8:11am.

Republicans don't like their candidates

And the leading Republican presidential candidate is ... none of the above.

The latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that nearly a quarter of Republicans are unwilling to back top-tier hopefuls Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, John McCain or Mitt Romney, and no one candidate has emerged as the clear front-runner among Christian evangelicals. Such dissatisfaction underscores the volatility of the 2008 GOP nomination fight.

In sharp contrast, the Democratic race remains static, with Hillary Rodham Clinton holding a sizable lead over Barack Obama. The New York senator, who is white, also outpaces her Illinois counterpart, who is black, among black and Hispanic Democrats, according to a combined sample of two months of polls.

A half year before voting begins, the survey shows the White House race is far more wide open on the Republican side than on the Democratic. The uneven enthusiasm about the fields also is reflected in fundraising in which Democrats outraised Republicans $80 million to $50 million from April through June, continuing a trend from the year's first three months.

"Democrats are reasonably comfortable with the range of choices. The Democratic attitude is that three or four of these guys would be fine," David Redlawsk, a University of Iowa political scientist. "The Republicans don't have that; particularly among the conservatives there's a real split. They just don't see candidates who reflect their interests and who they also view as viable."

More Republicans have become apathetic about their options over the past month.

A hefty 23 percent can't or won't say which candidate they would back, a jump from the 14 percent who took a pass in June.

Giuliani's popularity continued to decline steadily as he faced a spate of headline headaches, came under increased scrutiny and saw the potential entry of Thompson in the mix; his support is at 21 percent compared with 27 percent in June and 35 percent in March.

The former New York mayor is running virtually even with Thompson, who has become a threat without even officially entering the race. The actor and former Tennessee senator has stayed steady at 19 percent. McCain, the Arizona senator who is revamping his nearly broke campaign, clocked in a bit lower at 15 percent, while Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, remained at 11 percent.

None of the top candidates has a clear lead among Christian evangelicals, a critical part of the GOP base that has had considerable sway in past Republican primaries. Giuliani, a thrice-married backer of abortion rights and gay rights, had 20 percent support — roughly even with Thompson and McCain who have one divorce each in their pasts. Romney, a Mormon who has been married for three decades, was in the single digits.

Among the legions of undecided Republicans is Barbara Skogman, 72, a retired legal assistant from Cedar Rapids, Iowa. She isn't at all excited about any of the prospects.

"I'm looking for a strong honest person. Do you know of any?" she joked. She had an easy time detailing why she was queasy about each of the most serious contenders. "Isn't that sad?" Then she reached a conclusion: "I just don't know."

Andrew E. Smith, a polling expert at the University of New Hampshire, said the number of voters in flux is no surprise, given that the primaries aren't for another six months. "People really don't decide who to vote for until the last couple months or days," he said.

On the Democratic side, 13 percent declined to back a candidate, and of those who picked a candidate, some may be willing to change their minds.

Barbara Hicks, 29, an English tutor in Arlington, Va., said her friends got her to lean toward former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards but she said, "It's not set in stone. ... I don't favor him very, very strongly."

The only other sign that Democrats are at all agitated about their choices is the continued support for Al Gore, the former vice president and 2000 Democratic presidential nominee who says he's not running. His popularity has slid some to 15 percent.

Otherwise, Clinton kept her strong advantage over Obama; her backers accounted for 36 percent of Democrats to his 20 percent, while support for Edwards remained essentially unchanged at 11 percent.

While neither Obama nor Edwards has threatened Clinton in national polls, both are giving her a chase in other areas. Obama leads her in fundraising for the primary and Edwards is running stronger in Iowa.

Nationally, the combined sample found Clinton has the edge among black Democrats, with 46 percent of their support to Obama's 33 percent. Her advantage is even wider among Hispanics; she has the support of 45 percent of them to Obama's 17 percent. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, whose mother was Mexican, had the backing of just 5 percent of Hispanics and virtually no support among blacks.

The AP-Ipsos poll was conducted by telephone July 9-11 with 1,004 adults, including 346 Republicans and 477 Democrats. The margin of sampling error for the full sample is plus or minus 3 percentage points, plus or minus 5.5 percentage points for Republicans and 4.5 percentage points for Democrats. For the combined June and July samples, the margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points for Republicans and plus or minus 3 percentage points for Democrats.

___

Associated Press Manager of News Surveys Trevor Tompson, AP News Survey Specialist Dennis Junius, and AP Writer Natasha Metzler contributed to this report.



(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Vote Integrity...or not

Please circulate the below letter far and wide to all your members (and other organizations) to ask their Representative to sign the letter. If you get any feedback from an office, please let me know so I can follow up.

Auke

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Auke Mahar-Piersma
Legislative Director
Rep. Dennis Kucinich
(202) 225-5871
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Speaker Pelosi:

We have been made aware of a growing concern with H.R. 811, the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2007.

Many constituencies important to the Democratic Caucus, including but not limited to the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Association of Counties, VotersUnite.Org, and Election Defense Alliance, have expressed frustration with our offices about the process and current legislative text of the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act.

These constituencies represent a broad range of interests that reflect many of the core values of our party. H.R. 811 now finds opposition from organizations focused on upholding the integrity of our elections and local and states governments. For these constituencies, H.R. 811 falls short of its intended goals to ensure votes are cast and counted as intended by the voters.

Below are representative examples of the negative feedback we are receiving.

VotersUnite.Org statement by founder Ellen Theisen

    • After more than three years of supporting election reform bills introduced by Representative Rush Holt, I am saddened to see the many severe flaws in the version of HR 811 as it was passed out of committee last month." June 11, 2007

National Association of Counties letter to Congress

    • County officials welcome federal lawmakers' interest in strengthening the integrity and accessibility of our most basic democratic institution. We look forward to working with you to address the myriad challenges facing county officials in this environment of unprecedented change in election technology rather than exacerbating these challenges by enacting legislation such as H.R. 811. March 14, 2007

Before this bill is scheduled for a vote before the House of Representatives we urge you to ensure the legislative process addresses these very valid concerns and a substitute is developed that has broad, vocal support.

Sincerely,

Member of Congress

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Evil Caused By Junior

Nameless US official and Iraqi freedom fighter agree that the evil is caused by W.

by winston winston Page 1 of 1 page(s)

http://www.opednews.com




The article "Administration Shaving Yardstick for Iraq Gains" at

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/07/AR2007070701274.html states "As they work to put together the reports due to Congress next week and in September, these officials and others close to Iraq policy recognize that the administration is boxed in by measurements that were enshrined in U.S. law in May.


"That is a problem," the official said. "These are congressionally mandated benchmarks now." They require Bush to certify movement in areas ranging from the passage of specific legislation by the Iraqi parliament to the numbers of Iraqi military units able to operate independently. If he cannot make a convincing case, the legislation requires the president to explain how he will change his strategy.

Top administration officials are aware that the strategy's stated goal -- using U.S. forces to create breathing space for Iraqi political reconciliation -- will not be met by September, said one person fresh from a White House meeting."

So, who ultimately is to blame for keeping the US in Iraq? The article states "The heart of darkness is the president," the person said. "Nobody knows what he thinks, even the people who work for him."


The article "Sunni Insurgent Leader Paints Iran as 'Real Enemy' – U.S. Strategy Described as Only Inflaming Iraqi Resistance" at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/13/AR2007071301792.html
shouldn't be 100% believed, but then we should trust W's propaganda less than 5%. It states "Over the course of a 90-minute interview, a leader of an armed Sunni group in western Baghdad described his hatred for Iran and the current Iraqi government, while outlining the dimensions of an armed insurgency that extends well beyond al-Qaeda in Iraq, the organization that U.S. officials routinely identify as their central enemy.

Abu Sarhan, as the 37-year-old insurgent wished to be known, said Iraq's Sunnis are deep into an entrenched and irresolvable civil war against Iranian-backed Shiites. He said the premise of the U.S. military's counterinsurgency strategy deploying thousands of soldiers in small outposts in violent neighborhoods -- only inflames the insurgency and prompts attacks against the Americans.

If U.S. forces release Sunni detainees, remove the concrete blast barriers that now cordon off several neighborhoods and improve services in areas neglected by the Shiite-led government, "the attacks will be reduced 95 percent within days," he said. He added that the Americans' insistence on striking Sunni areas "is generating an increasing resistance."


"We must defeat al-Qaeda in Iraq," Bush said, but Abu Sarhan described al-Qaeda in Iraq as one of "hundreds" of insurgent groups, some aligned and others in some degree of conflict, ranging from cells of about 10 people to groups with scores or hundreds of members.


Why is W blathering on about al-Qaeda in Iraq when this informant who obviously doesn't think of himself as a terrorist, but a freedom fighter, states "Any person in the position of the American president, who has drawn himself a certain path, would be very embarrassed to change that track and confess that he has been wrong. Unless he loves his people more than he loves himself. Only then could he confess his wrongdoing for the sake of his people."


W's hubris is why he keeps on conflating the villains who perpetrated the 9-11 atrocity against us and this al-Qaeda in Iraq and why he insists that al-Qaeda in Iraq is our greatest enemy in Iraq, even though everyone knows, including the nameless US official as well as the Iraqi freedom fighter or insurgent, whatever you wish to label him, says W's lack of compassion for innocent Iraqis and our US troops as the cause of these atrocities.

Iraq was bad with Hussein, but it will be worse as a result of this failed policy as "But when the Americans do eventually leave, Abu Sarhan said, "the future will be dim."

"There will be a fierce civil war, a grinding civil war, because Iran will always be there," he said. "But the Sunnis are ready for such a day."



(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

Bush: Guilty As Charged!

1505. Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees


How Current is This?

Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so; or

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.




LII has no control over and does not endorse any external Internet site that contains links to or references LII.



(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the origiator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Summertime; A Time For Dictatorship?

It's far more likely than most will admit.

Elliot D. Cohen:

This Summer, Will America Officially Become A Totalitarian State?


The unfolding of events over the past 7 years and the recent emergence of certain key facts point to the prospect of an ominous conclusion: before the summer is up, America will be brought under martial law with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney at the helm.

In May 2007, Bush posted a national continuity policy to the White House Web site that bypasses Congress and puts him in charge of all three branches of the federal government if there is a "catastrophic emergency" -- vaguely defined to include anything from a destructive hurricane to a terrorist attack. This leaves democracy in America dangling on a thin thread of chance that such a "catastrophe" doesn't happen.

On Wednesday, Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, said he has a "gut" feeling that Al Qaeda will launch another terrorist attack on the U.S. mainland sometime this summer. Chertoff's "gut feeling" comes on the heels of the latest National Intelligence Estimate, which maintains that in the past year, Al Qaeda has reconstituted its core structure and has grown stronger along the Pakistan/Afghanistan border.

This information is disconcerting in itself. But it becomes even more so when considered in the context of the Bush administration's unrelenting quest for power. Consider these facts, for example: The September 11 attacks were foreshadowed by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) in its report on Rebuilding American Defenses (2000) when it stated, "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor . . ." This would not be significant were it not for the fact that the Vice President, among other key members of the Bush Administration, were founding members of PNAC.

This neoconservative organization also prescribed forced regime change in Iraq and buildup of a permanent U.S. military presence there. The primary goal for invading Iraq was not to quell tensions or stop the threat of terrorism posed by the Hussein regime but instead to advance U.S. interests in the region through military force. The 2000 report stated, "while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." Regime change was therefore pretense for the invasion.

Clearly, the invasion of Iraq was never conceived as a means of stopping Saddam Hussein from instigating terrorism. This was made plain in the official British documents known as the Downing Street memos, which said that Bush was attempting to make the facts "fit" the policy in order to justify invading Iraq -- since Hussein's WMD capability was in fact "less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran." The redeployment of U.S. troops and special forces to Iraq was done in spite of the fact that the hub of Al Qaeda was in Pakistan and Afghanistan. So the Bush administration permitted Al Qaeda to regroup and strengthen in Pakistan and Afghanistan to pursue its ideology of global dominance in Iraq.

Add to these facts that the Bush administration has displayed consistent disregard for the rule of law by canceling habeas corpus, disregarding the Geneva Conventions in the torture of prisoners of war, using signing statements to override congressional lawmaking authority, eavesdropping on Americans without court warrants, summarily refusing to comply with Congressional subpoenas, firing federal prosecutors for political reasons, outing a covert CIA agent, threatening to jail journalists for disclosing leaked government documents, censoring mainstream media and infusing it with government propaganda ("prepackaged news" staged by PR firms working for the government), placing "gatekeepers" in all federal agencies who report directly to the White House, eliminating legal protections for government whistle blowers, arresting peaceful protestors, manipulating the terror alert system to instill fear in Americans, and stacking the Supreme Court.

In a press conference on Thursday regarding the war in Iraq, Bush indicated that he will not be discouraged by what the American people believe. He said that, while he preferred to be loved, he had to do the right thing.

Do what is right by whose standards? Not those of the generals; and certainly not those of the majority of Americans. While the mainstream media brought out its analysts to comment on Bush's press conference, none drew the obvious conclusion. In a democracy, it is the will of the people, not that of a single man, that is paramount. But, according to Bush, respecting the will of the American people would be nice if it happened to accord with his own will, but not in the least essential to shaping U.S. policy, even if that policy happened to affect the lives and limbs (and tax dollars) of the American people. This is dictatorship (or "decidership") at its core, not democracy.

All of these facts, among others, point to the willingness of this administration to stop at little or nothing to advance its ideology. It has proven its resolve to lie to the American people, violate their civil liberties, and discount their will. It has shown little respect for the rule of law or the U.S. Constitution.

So, this summer (or sometime before the 2008 presidential elections), will America officially become a totalitarian state brought under martial law by a ruthless dictator? If Chertoff's gut is right, just add the current national continuity policy and the conclusion follows.

Like a game of chess drawing to a close, there is a chilling aura that the final checkmate is imminent. In the least, democracy in America is in grave danger and at best dependent on chance.

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION

Elliot D. Cohen, Ph.D. is a media ethicist and critic. His most recent book is The Last Days of Democracy: How Big Media and Power-Hungry Government are turning America into a Dictatorship. He is also first prize winner of the 2007 Project Censored Award.


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.


Rep. Paul gets more contributions from our military families

...than any other Gooper.

Congressman Ron Paul has defined his Republican presidential candidacy with a staunchly critical stance on the Iraq war, saying during the June 5 debate in New Hampshire, for example, that it was a "mistake to go and a mistake to stay."

Paul has often reiterated his views that US security has been worsened by its military presence in Iraq, and that Bush's pre-emptive war doctrine represented one of his administration's greatest moral failings.

One might think such criticism of the war and the Commander-in-Chief's leadership would make Paul a pariah to the military community, however, the latest figures indicate the antiwar Republican is receiving more donations from employees of the US military than any other Republican candidate.

The Presidential campaigns just released their quarterly campaign finance reports, leaving much of the mainstream media remarking on Paul's surge in online donations from his healthy Internet following, though the $2.3 million he raised still has him trailing far behind the front runners.

But a closer look at the reports reveals a less obvious but more remarkable development--the antiwar Republican received nearly 50% of the money donated by employees of the US military.

The site that crunched the numbers on the quarterly reports did not count donations coming from the US Marine Corps, which adds $1600 to the total of $15,825 total they report McCain raised from employees of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Veterans Administration. That failure slightly alters the conclusions they draw on the totals, since Paul received no money from Marines. Even so, the overall percentages indicate that the underdog candidate, whose overall fund raising cache is dwarfed by the leading pack of candidates, has appealed to segments of the military community.


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Bob Schieffer Has Had it!

Funny, isn't it, what turns out to be the last straw on the proverbial camel's back for some people.

For Schieffer it is the Iraqi Parliament taking a month-long vacation in August.

Hasn't Bush done that just about every year, including 2001?

I am still not sure that I believe it: The Iraqi parliament is going on vacation during the month of August.

The White House offers the lame excuse that, after all, Baghdad is hot in August – sometimes 130 degrees.

May I ask a follow-up?

How much hotter do you suppose it is if you are a wearing a helmet, full body armor, carrying ammunition and walking foot patrols through Baghdad?

The last I heard, that is how American troops are spending their August in Iraq.

For me, this does it.

God help the Iraqi people because there is not much America can do to help a government that leaves Americans dying in the streets while the parliament escapes to cooler climes.

Does this mean we should pull out immediately?

No. A sudden withdrawal could set the entire region aflame. The truth is there are no good options left. But from here on, we need to put aside the dream of building a democracy in Iraq and focus solely on what is in our national interest.

It won't be pretty, but for all our good intentions, about all we can do now is try to contain this mess, pull our troops back from the middle of this civil war, and concentrate instead on the terrorist threat that this country faces around the world.
As for what kind of government Iraq needs, let their parliament figure it out. They can get right on it when the Baghdad weather turns cooler.

- Bob Schieffer July 15, 2007



(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Sunday, July 15, 2007

Red Lights Flashing

Feds work to raise terror readiness

By KATHERINE SHRADER,

Associated Press WriterSa

t Jul 14, 1:02 PM ET

National security officials worry about a possible attack against the United States in the months ahead even though the government's leading terrorism experts have not found concrete information about an imminent strike.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff spoke this past week of his "gut feeling" that the nation faces an increased risk of attack this summer.

President Bush's instincts point in the same direction. "My head also tells me that al-Qaida's a serious threat to our homeland," he said at a news conference Thursday. "And we've got to continue making sure we've got good intelligence, good response mechanisms in place."

As early as this coming week, the administration is expected to release an unclassified version of a new National Intelligence Estimate — spy agencies' most authoritative type of appraisal — on al-Qaida's resurgence and the group's renewed efforts to sneak operatives into the United States.

A look at what the government says it is most worried about and what it is doing to thwart potential attacks:

TRANSPORTATION

Chertoff is asking people to be on watch for suspicious behavior or activities in transit systems or other public places. "When you see something, say something," he often says. That means picking up the phone to alert local authorities or federal law enforcement about anything out of the ordinary, such as a suspicious person, package or vehicle.

Just before the July 4 holiday, the Transportation Security Administration dispatched VIPR teams (Visible Intermodal Protection and Response) to airports and mass transit systems in Washington, Baltimore, New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Houston, Los Angeles and San Francisco.

They include canine teams, agency officers trained in behavior observation, additional air marshals, surface transportation security inspectors and local police.

Federal air marshals already had bolstered their presence on domestic and international flights since last August, when international authorities foiled a plot to blow up about 10 U.S.-bound jetliners coming from London. That stepped-up presence continues today.

The department also sent out bulletins to state and local officials about routine steps they can take and new precautions after the largely botched car-bomb plot in Britain late last month.

Any more precautions expected this summer? "It can change at a moment's notice," said Chertoff's spokesman, Russ Knocke.

TREASURY

The Treasury Department is keeping close watch for fresh clues on sources of financing for terrorist groups. Yet counterterrorism officials say that attacks do not have to be expensive. The Sept. 11 Commission estimated the 2001 attacks cost $400,000 to $500,000.

"By exploiting financial intelligence, the Treasury can map terrorist networks and reveal who is sending money to al-Qaida, Hezbollah and like-minded terrorist groups," department spokeswoman Molly Millerwise said. "These efforts allow us to detect and disrupt the flow of finances to terrorists, making it harder and riskier for them to store and move money."

The Sept. 11 strikes in New York and Washington hit the country's financial nerve center and symbol of capitalism. Since then, regulations have been tightened to better guard the financial system against abuse from terrorist financiers and others.

ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCIES

These agencies report a high level of vigilance but few if any specific changes because of the latest worries.

With 4,000 law enforcement officers, the Interior Department says it is keeping busy. It is charged with protecting one of every five U.S. acres. "We ask our employees always to be vigilant," spokeswoman Tina Kreisher said.

The officers have bolstered security along borders, at sites such as the Statue of Liberty, the Liberty Bell, Independence Hall and the Washington Monument, and at national assets such as Bureau of Reclamation dams and the roads that lead to them.

The Environmental Protection Agency is the lead for hazardous materials response and works closely with industry. Under a government mandate, chemical makers are taking stock of chlorine, anhydrous ammonia (the basic ingredient for most nitrogen fertilizers) and other "chemicals of concern" that could — if stolen — cause damage by release or explosion.

ENERGY AND NUCLEAR

Nuclear power plants long have been viewed as a top target of terrorists and have tightened security since Sept. 11. But the latest concerns have not led to significant changes or alerts. "We are paying close attention to what the intelligence community is reporting and will act accordingly," Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman Eliot Brenner said.

At the Energy Department, which oversees the government's nuclear weapons facilities, including its national research labs, security requirements have been revamped since 2001, especially in the protection of nuclear materials.

Thousands of miles of oil and natural gas pipelines as well as refineries also have been regarded as potential terrorist targets. But with no specific threat, the industry's response to the latest concerns has been simply to remain cautious.

AGRICULTURE

The Agriculture Department is most concerned about devastating animal or plant diseases that could be introduced intentionally into the United States. These include avian influenza and others that could move from animals to humans.

The department has worked with farmers and shippers to educate them on prevention against tampering, asking them to make sure supplies are locked, for example, and asking truckers never to leave shipments unattended.

The department also is working with veterinarians to make sure they are knowledgeable about exotic diseases that may appear in animals.

Other concerns include the misuse of agricultural pesticides and the entry of suspicious people through U.S. border farms, which often are expansive and largely unprotected.

FOOD AND DRUG

The Food and Drug Administration is helping foster the development and acquisition of vaccines, diagnostic tests and drugs that can be used against attacks including anthrax, botulism, radiological agents, smallpox and plague.

In a declared emergency, the FDA can authorize the use of unapproved medical products to diagnose, treat or prevent illnesses due to biological, chemical, radiological or nuclear attack. The agency has the authority to investigate the suspected tampering of the products it regulates — a list that includes drugs, vaccines, blood, medical devices and food.

With the FBI and the Agriculture and Homeland Security departments, the FDA has begun assessing various foods — from a list of roughly 30 — to determine their vulnerability to attack at various points in the production process. In 2005-06, for instance, the FDA visited yogurt, baby food, bagged salad and other producers.

The FDA considers foods processed in large batch sizes, or ingredients subsequently mixed with large amounts of product, the most vulnerable to terrorism.

DEFENSE

There has been no overall change in protection measures for domestic military installations. Individual commanders have authority to increase inspections or patrols when necessary. Checks of traffic going into some Washington-area bases have gotten more rigorous this summer, for example.

Basic security at military installations has been at the next-to-lowest level for more than four years. Protective measures added in recent years include entry barriers, road closures, surveillance cameras and armed guards, and programs to encourage service members and their families to report signs of possible terrorist planning.

Military bases are acknowledged to be vulnerable, particularly those close to urban areas and civilian roadways. Naval bases have the added problem of securing waterfronts and surrounding waterways.

_____

Associated Press writers Jeannine Aversa, John Heilprin, H. Josef Hebert, Mary Clare Jalonick, Andrew Bridges and Lolita C. Baldor contributed to this report.



(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Are Conservatives About to Neuter Congress?

Harriet Miers's Contempt of Congress: Are Conservatives About To Neuter Congress, While Claiming Full Legal Justification for this Separation-of-Powers Violation?
By JOHN W. DEAN
----

President George Bush has issued an instruction to his former White House counsel Harriet Miers to defy the House Judiciary Committee's subpoena. The Committee had sought to ask her about her role - and that of others in the White House - in firing a covey of United States Attorneys who were apparently not toeing the political line. Bush's instruction sent a very clear signal: As I wrote earlier, and as has been clear from the outset, he is looking for a fight.

By not responding to the subpoena, the President and Ms. Miers all but invited the House Judiciary Committee and, in turn, the House of Representatives to vote to deem her in contempt of Congress. It was a defiant, in-your-face insult to Congress. No president would do this unless he was quite confident of the outcome. Clearly, Bush's White House and Justice Department lawyers believe that the solidly conservative federal judiciary will grant them a favorable ruling, and that, in the process, they will greatly weaken congressional oversight powers, to the advantage of the White House.



In short, the Bush White House is not bluffing with this act of defiance.


Rather, the White House truly wants to test, and attempt to expand, presidential power. Bush's White House is ready, willing, and able to play hardball. Indeed, the White House may actually be trying to bait the House Judiciary Committee and the House of Representatives into voting to deem Ms. Miers in contempt of congress.

The Initial Consequences of Harriet Miers's "No Show"

It was on Thursday, July 12, that Miers was asked to testify before the subcommittee investigating the removal of U.S. Attorneys by the Bush Administration, and did not show. That same day, the subcommittee's Chair, Linda Sanchez (D.CA), undertook the preliminary steps necessary to declare Miers in contempt. By a party line vote of seven Democrats to five Republicans, the subcommittee ruled that there was no legal justification for Miers's failing to appear pursuant to the subpoena.

Notwithstanding this blatant affront to the House Judiciary Committee, Republicans members played their familiar role -- allowing party affiliation to trump institutional responsibility, just as it had when they controlled Congress. Republicans made lame (if not ridiculous) excuses for the Bush Administration's defiance, and proved themselves more than willing to let the President insult the subcommittee by instructing Miers to not show up. (The transcript of the proceeding is not available as I write but the information available from Firedoglake and Talking Points Memo indicates that Republicans embarrassed themselves as badly as did former White House aide Sara Taylor -- who kept telling the Senate Judiciary Committee, when she did honor a similar subpoena, that she had taken an oath to uphold the President, rather than the Constitution. House Republicans appear to have taken the same oath.)

As a result of Miers's "no show," the full House Judiciary Committee will no doubt support the subcommittee, and vote to deem Miers in contempt. One can only hope - but probably this hope is in vain -- that Republicans may realize this is not a partisan issue, but an institutional matter, and thus will either abstain or vote to support the dignity of the committee on which they serve. Republicans should remember that they will one day be back in control, and may then be confronted by a Democratic president defying their subpoenas - and relying on this very precedent to do so. Realistically, however, there is zero chance that Republicans will place their constitutional interest ahead of their partisan interests.

The House Judiciary Committee itself cannot hold Miers in contempt; rather, the Committee can only report its request that this be done to the full House, which must then vote to deem her in contempt. Before the full House turns to this question, however, its members should not only carefully consider what they are doing, but also consider what they are not doing. At this stage, it is unclear how far this conflict will progress. The White House appears to have given this matter much more thought than Congressional leaders have thus far.

Long ago, Congress should have oiled up its most powerful tool to require Executive cooperation. No one who follows these matters is surprised that Bush is again pushing the envelope of presidential powers. But it continues to mystify me why Congress does not get its act together, and remind the White House that they are constitutional co-equals.

The Emboldened Position of the Bush White House, Backed by Its Attorneys

Keep in mind that, as I have previously written, conservatives now believe that a strong president is one who protects his prerogatives. This point of view counsels, too, that a president need not worry at all about low approval ratings; indeed, high approval ratings would signal a weak president, who had not used his or her powers effectively. In short, to Republicans, the fact that Bush's public support is sub-par means nothing with respect to the White House's fight with Congress.

Moreover, the Bush White House clearly believes the law is on its side. The Los Angeles Times reports that the Justice Department has provided the White House with a "broadly worded legal opinion" advising that "senior White House officials" can "ignore subpoenas from Congress to testify about the U.S. attorneys affair." This "three-page opinion," the L.A. Times says, "raises questions about whether the Justice Department would prosecute senior administration officials if Congress voted to hold them in contempt." The L.A. Times's article also notes that, under the law, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columba decides whether or not to pursue such cases when they are referred by the House or Senate for prosecution.

Needless to say, this is an extraordinary legal opinion, but not a surprising one. It is consistent with Bush's embrace of the "unitary executive theory."

Could this opinion be endorsed by a court if challenged? House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers - who was surprised that Miers was not going to appear - told the L.A. Times that his committee was "aware of absolutely no court decision that supports the notion that a former White House official has the option of refusing to even appear in response to a Congressional subpoena." Chairman Conyers is correct. There is no such law or precedent - yet.

I have not seen the Justice Department's memorandum, but the only basis they can possibly have to assure officials involved is that they enjoy, in the words of White House counsel Fred Fielding, "absolute immunity from compelled Congressional testimony" must be advice from the Department of Justice to this effect. The Justice Department, then, must be assuring the White House that it will make this, in effect, the law, by refusing to prosecute such defiant officials under the criminal contempt statute if Congress refers the matter to them.

This is a very aggressive position. While it does not reflect the current state of the law, given the pro-presidential bias among so many of the conservative jurists who now dominate the federal judiciary, and particularly the Supreme Court, Bush may well succeed in defending this position if this matter goes to court.

Congress Needs To Protect Its Powers: Only One Way It Can Do So

Marty Lederman has prepared a nice overview analysis of what happens when officials defy a congressional subpoena.

Let's suppose that the House votes Miers in contempt, and the matter is sent to the U.S. Attorney. One can expect that no prosecution will be brought. During the Reagan years, the Justice Department ruled that even though the referral statute makes it the "duty" of the U.S. Attorney to take the matter to the grand jury, Congress cannot enforce that duty on the Executive Branch if the Executive Branch refuses to honor it. As noted, it would appear that under the most recent Justice memo on the subject, the White House will not permit the U.S. Attorney to prosecute the matter, and Congress has no power to overrule that by forcing the U.S. Attorney to go forward.

If the U.S. Attorney did go forward could criminal sanctions be imposed on a witness such as Harriet Miers who is (albeit willingly) following the orders of the president by refusing to honor a congressional subpoena? The issue raises serious Constitutional questions that have not been resolved by the Supreme Court. If the issue did reach the Court, how would the Court rule? Given its current conservative majority, the Justice Department and White House may be right if they have concluded that they can win before the Court, convincing at least five Justices to declare such criminal sanctions unconstitutional.

If the House votes Miers in contempt, they can also institute a civil legal action by seeking declaratory judgment from a federal court to compel enforcement of their subpoena. However, there is a growing body of law, coming from conservative jurists, calling for conflicts like this between the executive and legislative branch to be considered "political questions" that are improper for the federal courts to resolve. Thus, it seems likely that the Court might - citing the political-question doctrine - decline to take jurisdiction over this clash, thereby leaving the White House's status quo untouched. For the Bush Administration, the worse case scenario, as Lederman suggests, is simply that the courts will seek to force a political settlement.

Finally, if Miers is found in contempt, the House itself can take action against her at the bar of the House. (The Senate can similarly hold such proceedings.) Congress has the power to prosecute contumacious witnesses to require them to comply, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed this power. For example, in 1987, in Young v. U.S., Justice Antonin Scalia recognized "the narrow principle of necessity" or "self-defense" of the Congress in protecting its institutional prerogatives. Scalia said "the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches must each possess those powers necessary to protect the functioning of its own processes, although those implicit powers may take a form that appears to be nonlegislative, nonexecutive, or nonjudicial, respectively."

When all is said and done the only way Congress can protect its prerogatives is to undertake its own contempt proceedings. The parliamentary precedents of the House provide such procedures, by which Congress can effectively protect itself. There is no shortage of past instances where the Congress has held such trials. Readers may want to consult, for example, Hinds' Precedents and Canon's Precedents. Unfortunately, however, this machinery has become a bit rusty, for these procedures have not been used since 1934.

Congress Must Avail Itself of Traditional Procedures to Compel Testimony and/or Punish Contempt

Given the clear attitude of conservative presidents, who are doing all within their power to make Congress irrelevant, Congress should turn to these underemployed precedents and put them back to work. The House and Senate Judiciary Committees should take the lead in reviving these procedures, and the Democrats' leadership should announce that they are embracing them.

If they do not, Fred Fielding has it right: Officials are absolutely immune from compelled Congressional testimony. Bush can simply tell Congress to stop sending subpoenas to his appointees. However, if Congress does engage in a little self-help at this crucial juncture, it can be sure that not only Harriet Miers, but also George Bush, will be forced to pay attention to congressional subpoenas - for the bottom line is that Congress will not need the cooperation of the other branches to enable it to conduct proper oversight.



(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

MAJOR ALERT! False Flag Terrorist Attack Warning!

So, why the hell isn't this headline news; lead story, stuff?

This should be huge!

Oh, by the way, we agree with the Lantern Brigadiers, we not absolutely sure that Chertoff is a villain this time. Could be he is trying to warn us and get the word out.

Is Chertoff a completely bad person? Maybe not. Most people have a point beyond which they cannot go; a breaking point, so to speak. People, generally, are varying degrees of light and dark
For example one person can steal with little effect on their conscious, but murder is a whole other world.

I was so completely wrong about Colin Powell, in making the mistake of trusting him far more than I should have, could it be I've gone too far with Chertoff in the other direction. Maybe Chertoff has reached his limit.

Maybe I am being big fool again. There is always definitely a possibility of that. But I still have hope that quite a few people are going to be reaching their limit and are brave enough to turn it around, who finally are devoted to the heart of the nation, the people and their constitution and not to a president or ideological cabal or, even, a political party.

At any rate, don't say we never warned you. (:-)


July 13, 2007

Read More: Homeland Security


Ron Paul warns of staged terror attack


Republican presidential candidate, Rep. Ron Paul, said the country is in "great danger" of the U.S. government staging a terrorist attack or a Gulf of Tonkin style provocation, as the war in Iraq continues to deteriorate.

The Texas congressman offered no specifics nor mentioned President Bush by name, but he clearly insinuated that the administration would not be above staging an incident to revive flagging support.

"We're in danger in many ways," Paul said on the Alex Jones radio show. "The attack on our civil liberties here at home, the foreign policy that's in shambles and our obligations overseas and commitment which endangers our troops and our national defense."

Paul was asked to respond to comments by anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan that the U.S. is in danger of a staged terror attack or a provocation of an enemy similar to the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 before the Vietnam War.

During the radio interview, Paul said the government was conducting "an orchestrated effort to blame the Iranians for everything that has gone wrong in Iraq."

The comments come as several prominent terrorism experts have warned the U.S. is facing an increased risk of attack this summer. Earlier this week, in an interview with the Chicago Tribune, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said he had a "gut feeling" the U.S. would be attacked again.

The remark angered some Democrats, who criticized Chertoff for being too vague. And some pundits seized on his remarks, saying the vague warnings were meant only to revive flagging support for the war in Iraq and Bush’s larger war against terrorism.


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.


Judge Walton "Perplexed" by Libby Commutation


It's not a great mystery, Your Honor. No one will go to prison for anything as long as he/she knows too much about the BFEE and where they bodies are buried, so to speak.

BushCo is worse than the mob!

Libby Judge "Perplexed" by Clemency
By Richard B. Schmitt
The Los Angeles Times

Friday 13 July 2007

His 30-month sentence was appropriate for the former Cheney aide, he writes in his first public comments on the issue.


Washington - In an unusual expression of frustration, the judge who sentenced former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby to 30 months in jail, only to see the sentence commuted by President Bush, said he was "perplexed" by the act of clemency.


In his first public comments on the matter, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton took issue with Bush's statement that the prison sentence ordered for Libby last month was "excessive." Walton defended the sentence, saying that he followed established legal precedents as well as a strict interpretation of federal sentencing guidelines that has been supported by Bush's own administration.


"In light of these considerations ... it is fair to say that the court is somewhat perplexed as to how its sentence could accurately be characterized as 'excessive,' " Walton wrote.


"Although it is certainly the president's prerogative to justify the exercise of his constitutional commutation power in whatever manner he chooses, the court notes that the term of incarceration imposed in this case was determined after a careful consideration of each of the requisite statutory factors."


The judge, who was appointed to the federal bench by Bush in 2001 in part because of his tough law-and-order approach to sentencing, made the comments in a lengthy footnote to an order issued Thursday.


Bush intervened in Libby's case July 2, hours after an appeals court refused to allow Libby to remain free while he appealed his perjury and obstruction of justice conviction in the CIA leak case. Bush commuted the jail sentence but left intact a requirement that Libby serve two years' supervised release and pay a $250,000 fine - which Libby has since paid.


Backing It Up


In his order, Walton cited several legal precedents supporting his sentencing ruling, including a decision in June by the U.S. Supreme Court in a case known as Rita vs. United States. The high court ruled in that case that a sentence that did not depart from the sentencing guidelines was inherently reasonable.


The 30-month sentence for Libby, Walton observed, was at the low end of federal sentencing guidelines. The Bush administration and the Justice Department, he pointed out, have been strong proponents of those guidelines for judges, which are supposed to ensure that defendants in federal cases receive similar sentences for the same crimes.


"Indeed, only recently the president's attorney general called for the passage of legislation to 'restore the binding nature of the sentencing guidelines so that the bottom of the recommended sentencing range would be a minimum for judges, not merely a suggestion,'" Walton wrote.


He also questioned whether Bush had the constitutional power to order the supervised release without sending Libby to jail. The form of probation, according to the law, is supposed to be reserved for after someone has served time.


"The president has effectively rewritten the statutory scheme on an ad hoc basis to make the punishment created by Congress applicable to a situation that Congress clearly did not intend," Walton wrote.


While the pardon powers are broad, "it is far more unsettled ... whether the president may transmute a duly crafted form of punishment into one that is expressly proscribed by statute," the judge wrote. "The court concludes, with great reservation, that it does not" offend the Constitution.


Walton ordered Libby to report to the federal probation office "with all requisite haste." He noted that if Libby failed to comply with any condition of his supervised release, he would be sent to prison.


Like other criminal defendants, Libby may not leave the judicial district without the permission of the court or probation officer. According to court papers, he "shall work regularly at a lawful occupation," "refrain from excessive use of alcohol" and "not associate with any persons engaged in criminal activity," among other requirements. He is also required to perform 400 hours of community service.


At a news conference Thursday, Bush acknowledged publicly for the first time that someone in his administration perhaps leaked the name of former CIA officer Valerie Plame to the news media - an act that launched the criminal investigation that resulted in Libby's conviction.


"And, you know, I've often thought about what would have happened had that person come forth and said, 'I did it.' Would we have had this, you know, endless hours of investigation and a lot of money being spent on this matter?" Bush said.


"It has been a tough issue for a lot of people in the White House, and it's run its course, and now we're going to move on."


You can read Walton's statement here.


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.