Showing posts with label Impeachment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Impeachment. Show all posts

Saturday, September 20, 2008

Recommendations From Bush War Crimes Prosecution Conference


By Sherwood Ross


ANDOVER , MASS. (Special) -- Twenty recommendations made at a conference on prosecuting President George Bush for war crimes are under consideration for action, according to conference convener Lawrence Velvel, a prominent law school dean.


"Attendees discussed the violations of international and domestic law that were committed and are now studying recommendations for action," said Velvel. “All of us feel that those who committed war crimes and other crimes against humanity must be held accountable," he said. “The continued viability of Nuremberg Principles barring aggressive war and torture depends on it.”


More than 120 public officials, lawyers, academics, and authorities on the U.S. Constitution and international law attended the two day conference, which was held in Andover , Massachusetts on September 13th and 14th.


The conference resulted in recommendations ranging from asking the next U.S. Attorney General to prosecute Bush, to having any of some 2,700 county district attorneys launch proceedings against him for murder, to having Bush prosecuted for war crimes in other countries.


A newly formed committee will decide which of the suggestions can practicably be pursued.


The complete list of possible actions is:


1. Working for the election of district attorneys who pledge to prosecute high level war criminals for murder under state law, and working for the reelection of district attorneys who pledge to prosecute such criminals for murder.


2. Working for the election of state attorneys general who pledge to prosecute high level war criminals for murder under state law.


3. Working for the election of local executive and legislative officials (e.g., city council members) in specified localities who will formally denounce war crimes and might even seek to take action against them, as apparently has occurred in Vermont.


4. Mandamus proceedings to force local prosecutors to act.


5. Requesting state bar authorities to disbar the lawyers who were part of the executive cabal to authorize torture and other abuses that are crimes under international law, domestic law, or both.


6. Teach-ins at universities on the question of war crimes.


7. Asking universities to conduct hearings on whether certain individuals (e.g., John Yoo, Jack Goldsmith) should be dismissed from faculties for aiding and abetting criminal acts.


8. A march of many thousands of American lawyers on the Department of Justice (a la Civil Rights or Viet Nam war marches or the million man march). The purpose of the march would be to highlight lawyers’ belief that crimes were committed and must be punished.


9. Seeking prosecutions of high level war criminals before foreign courts or before international tribunals such as the International Criminal Court.


10. Asking the next federal Attorney General to prosecute war criminals.


11. Seeking major congressional investigations of what occurred.


12. Obtaining inspector general reports of what was done in given federal departments like the Department of Justice, the Pentagon, the State Department, the CIA, etc.


13. A truth and reconciliation commission.


14. Impeachment, even after the culprits leave office. And, unless he resigns from the federal bench, Jay Bybee, who collaborated with John Yoo on the first torture papers, will still be in office after the election.


15. Legislative or judicial action to dramatically cut back on, and sometimes totally eliminate, the present vast overuse by the federal government of the state secrets doctrine, executive privilege and other such doctrines.


16. Repeal of immunity amendments (which, even if not repealed, may have tremendous holes in them with regard to federal prosecutions, are unlikely to have any immunizing effect at the state level (though they may nonetheless be claimed as a defense), and whose only effect on foreign and international prosecutions would be to encourage them because these amendments indicate that the American federal government (like the governments of Argentina and Chile for many years) refuses to take action against federal criminals.


17. Resisting pardons, particularly advance pardons by Bush or the next president before there are convictions.


18. Creating an office of Chief Prosecutor(s), with Vince Bugliosi as Chief Prosecutor for domestic actions and perhaps a Co-Chief Prosecutor, with international prosecutorial experience, as Chief Prosecutor for foreign and international actions. This office would handle prosecutions in which governmental officials are willing to use “our” designated chief prosecutor as the lead lawyer, and would advise governmental prosecutors who desire to handle the prosecutions themselves but are willing to use “our” chief prosecutor as an adviser.


19. Setting up an internet-accessible repository, or library, of information on the pertinent war crimes, so that persons will have ready access to all relevant information. The repository, or library, should be cross indexed by subject matter, and should include briefs, articles, books, memos, speeches, etc. -- anything that sheds light on what was done.


20. Considering what, if anything, can be done to overcome the current ineptitude, failure and sometimes even deliberate hiding of facts by the corporate mass media, and to consider how the web might be used to accomplish this.


Vincent Bugliosi, former Los Angeles county prosecutor, extensively explained the legal reasoning under which Bush can be prosecuted for murder once he is no longer president. Bugliosi added that “No Federal, state or local statute says there is any person who can't be prosecuted for murder."


Bugliosi said that, of the 2,700 district and county attorneys having the power to prosecute, "There should be one prosecutor bold enough to say 'No man is above the law'. I am looking for that courageous prosecutor and I am not going to be satisfied until I see George W. Bush in an American courtroom prosecuted for murder."


Bugliosi said the evidence of U.S. war crimes in Iraq was overwhelming. "There are over 100 books” providing facts to underpin“ bringing Bush to prosecution for the deaths of 4,000 American soldiers under false pretenses," Bugliosi said.


Philippe Sands, director of the Centre of International Courts and Tribunals at University College , London , discussed violations of law such as torture. He said that "Under the Convention Against Torture, any person who has tortured anywhere in the world can be arrested in the United Kingdom " if they enter that country.


Political scientist Christopher Pyle of Mt. Holyoke College , S. Hadley, Mass. , spoke for many Conference attendees when he said, “The evidence is overwhelming. The torture, kidnapping, and degradation of suspected terrorists was part of a deliberate policy, hatched and concealed at the highest levels of the Bush administration.” Pyle said the nation does not need any “truth commission” that will offer immunity to suspects who confess their crimes because “if there is no threat of punishment, and therefore no prospect of plea bargains, why would underlings admit anything?”


Any attempt by President Bush to pre-pardon himself or any of his aides involved in war crimes and torture would be “an obstruction of justice,” said Pyle.


He suggested one approach could be to appoint “a non-partisan prosecutor with considerable independence,” much as Attorney General Elliot Richardson did when he chose Archibald Cox to lead the Watergate team. “A special prosecutor could be chosen by the next attorney general from among any number of distinguished Republican attorneys.”


Professor Amy Bartholomew of Carleton University , Ottawa , told the conference that the Bush administration was attempting to replace the Nuremberg Principles adopted after World War Two with “a global and transnational state of exception” under which the U.S. can invade countries with impunity.


Peter Weiss of the Center For Constitutional Rights pointed out that there is no need for any new legislation to outlaw aggressive war, since “It is already outlawed by Article 2 of the United States Charter.”


Dean Velvel summarized the conference proceedings by saying, “In a nutshell, this conference was about giving continued life to the Nuremberg principles, which our country itself established, instead of allowing guilty members of the Bush Administration to destroy those principles wholesale by committing aggressive war and torture with impunity.”

(For additional information contact Sherwood Ross, sherwoodr1@yahoo.com)



(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.


Saturday, June 14, 2008

Impeachment, Kucinich and the Independents

By Meg White

with commentary by independents Unbound's D. A. Dedman


"This isn't just about impeachment. It's about reorienting our politics to a position which respects morality. Our moral compass needs to be reset here." -Rep. Dennis Kucinich


In an exclusive interview with BuzzFlash Friday, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) discussed the 35 articles of impeachment he introduced against President George W. Bush earlier this week. Though the word on the Hill is that the call for impeachment will not go anywhere, the Ohio representative is undeterred.


"This is a very grave matter that cannot be and will not be swept under the rug by some kind of a legislative trap," he said.


Wow, does Kucinich know something that we don't about this? Becuase everything else has been swept under the national rug, as in going to committee, which has become another word for black hole, when it comes to justice for the Bush administraion and thier co-conspirators in and out of government.


Representatives Robert Wexler (D-FL), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) and Barbara Lee (D-CA) have signed on to the resolution, and Kucinich expects more co-sponsors in the coming days and weeks.


Can't wait to see who else has the intestinal fortitude and the simple morality to sign on.


"There will be more. I'm quite confident of that, and as members start to read the document it'll keep growing," he said.


The proposal is now in the Judiciary Committee, where many expect it to stay at least until after the November elections.


I am so sick and tired of everything from domestic legislation to troop movements revolving around politics and elections! Is there no one is D.C., with certain notable exceptions, who can stand up for justice and doing the right things for the people, for the country and for the world?


Maybe this is one of the reasons why I am a life long independent and maybe it is the reason that this new generation of Americans, who are coming of age now, are registering as independents in droves.


"Some bills are sent to committee to be acted upon," Kucinich said. "But in this case it's widely assumed, based on statements by House leaders, that it'll be sent to committee and nothing's going to happen."


Yep and I can certainly understand why. There is a long history of just that, unless sex is involved, of course.


Kucinich entered the articles of impeachment as a privileged resolution, which means it can be reintroduced. He said that if the committee does not act on the resolution within 30 days, he will bring the subject up again in more detail.


Way to go, Dennis. We can use all the details you have, because we don't plan to let go of this until our dying day.


"I think it's reasonable to give the committee 30 days," he said. "There are other areas of law that I have not, in the interest of time, put in the resolution that was introduced. But they will be put in the next one if no action is taken."


Good. That is what we need; more details about the laws involved. The more details the better.


When taking over as Speaker of the House in 2006, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said impeachment was "off the table." She has stuck to that statement thus far. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the man in charge of calling Kucinich's resolution up for debate, said at the Take Back America Conference earlier this spring that he would consider waiting until after the presidential elections to pursue impeachment.


Conyers seems to have been told to back off by someone, maybe Pelosi....or maybe the wiretappers.


Kucinich does not see this as an option.


"If we wait, we're licensing further abuses of power. There's been broad concern that this administration could attack Iran. Why should we give them the opening to do so by failing to challenge the lies that they told that took us into war with Iraq?" he asked. "We cannot wait for after the election. We don't know what could happen in the next six months with respect to a further erosion of our democratic process. And what the impeachment process would do would be to have a chilling effect on further abuses of the Constitution and on creating another war."


We all hope that impeachment hearings wold have that the effect Dennis Kunich believes that it would: Stop further abuses of power and, possibly, and esclation of the Neocons war on the Middle East, like bombing Iran back to the stone age. However, we are not as convinced as Mr. Kunich that it would. It could have just the opposite effect. The question becomes are we dealing with rational people in this administration? I am not conviced at all that we are.


Nevertheless, some of us believe it is a chance we have to take. One reason is that we have every indication that Bush intends to launch an air attack on Iran before he leaves office, no matter what and Cheney is is even more in favor of doing so. If I believed for one second that impeachment proceedings would cause an attack on Iran, I would be absolutely against it, but I think that an attack is inevitable and that impeachment is, maybe, the only chance we have of stopping it.


Then there is always the chance of another "terrorist" attack on American soil, leading to the public suspension of the constitution, martial law and, perhaps the postponement of elections, indefinitely. Think it can't happen? Just think about the last 7 years. How much has already happened that we thought never would?


We are at one of the most perilous times in our history. As one of our founders said, "These are the times that try men's souls. " I would add women to the list of souls being tried, but the fact that these are perilous times remains the point. In times such as these, I have found that it is always best to contemplate, as best we can, the facts as we know them and what we strongly suspect to be true and then do the next right thing. For Congress, that means impeachment. For the people it means insistng on impeachment and, if that doesn't happen, we go to plan B.


He's also concerned after the election there could be a drop-off in interest.


How could it get any lower than it has been?


Historically, such conditions led to President Gerald Ford's controversial pardon of his predecessor President Richard Nixon. In addition, Bill Clinton did not pursue the Reagan/Bush I violations of the law, particularly the Iran-Contra and BCCI illegal activity.


And all that led directly to the nightmare in which we currently find ourselves. Politicians are a lot like children. If we keep allowing them to get by with criminal behavior with pardons and the like, they will just do something even more horrible. Gerald Ford should have never pardoned Richard Nixon. I understand why he did it, but it was wrong. To just allow the Iran/Contra crimes to fade away as if they were nothing all that bad has led directly to the crimes of this administration. My God, many of the same people are involved, both in and out of the government.


We must hold these people accountable. I frankly don't care how. If we can do it by the book, if Congress wakes the hell up, fine. If not, we will try regular old law enforcement after the criminals leave office. If they won't do anything, then the people must act in the most lawful way we can find, but what is for sure, is the need to hold these people accountable to the fullest extent of International if not American law. If we have to look to other nations for justice, it will simply prove that we do, in fact, live in a lawless land where the wealthy, powerful and the elite can get by with just about anything, while the American people are almost as much victims of their ruthlessness as the Iraqis and many others around the world


"If they refuse to act, you know what'll happen. The election's over and it's like, 'Well, let's not go back. That was yesterday. Let's move forward.' That's what'll happen," he predicted. "The House leadership, which is above Congressman Conyers, and even the leadership of the Democratic Party now are joining in and saying, 'Well, we just can't do this.' Well, you know what? This isn't about politics anymore. This is about whether or not there's such a thing as the rule of law, and you can't have a political agreement to violate the law."


Yep, that is exactly what will happen. Let's just sweep this under the national rug and move forward. Problem is, there is already so much stinky garbage under the national rug that we may not be able to find a way forward, and I'm not sure we should be able to until the American people demand a real house cleaning.


People, we have nothing to lose and everything to gain by doing the right thing, no matter how much it may hurt our pride as Americans and humilate some of us, because any pride we may feel now is most certainly false pride. The Bush administration has turned our beloved country into a pariah nation. We have lost what moral authority we may have had left after some of the other criminal acts of past administrations. Our national moral compass has been broken for a long time. The Bush administration is simply the last damn straw, or it should be unless we want our progeny to grow up in a world rightly hostile to Americans, because we sat on our over-fed, ignorant, lazy butts and did nothing about the criminals leading this nation and their co-conspirators both in and out of government, not to mention a nation which no longer honors the constitution as law, leaving them in a lawless land, where they could be busted for possessing an ounce of cannabis and never heard from again.


(It does appear that the Supremes did, in their ruling regarding the inmates at Guantanamo, reinstate habeas corpus, the Great Writ. But let us all note who voted against it. The usual suspects: Roberts, Alito, Scalia and, of course, Thomas. Kennedy was the swing vote. Thank You, Justice Kennedy and the rest of the justices who know what the the Great Writ means to the people and that includes even judges and justices who sometimes run afoul of the law themselves. for doing what the Congress did not have the will to do, but who pays any attention to congress any way?)


I love my country, but love of country, especially a country we bill as a Democratic Republic, means making things right when they are so clearly wrong. It doesn't take a federal prosecutor to understand that crimes, terrible crimes, have been committed by this administration and those crimes have led to the deaths of millions, including Americans. Those crimes have led to the horrible maiming of hundreds of thousands more, many of whom are American soldiers, coming home with some of the worst war injuries I have ever seen. These people's lives and those of their families are forever changed and for what? Lies, damned lies...the worst kind of lies; those which involve fear-mongering of the worst sort and those which encourage vengeance seeking.

Of all the lies the American people were told, over and over again, these two were the worst:

1) We don't want the smoking gun to be in the form of a mushroom cloud. The British have learned that Saddam is seeking yellow cake from Africa?

If you want to scare the wits out of Americans, just bring up a nuclear attack on American soil. Admittedly, this type of fear-mongering is an oldie but, apparently, still a goodie. It certainly kept us willingly feeding the beast, known as the military-industrial complex, for years during the cold war. Even after good intelligence had informed the Reagan administration that the Soviet Union was on the verge of collapse, we began funding all kinds of new nuclear weapons and paying hundreds of dollars for toilet seats and hammers. If anyone thinks that war-profiteering has been criminal during this illegal, unjust war in Iraq, you must not have any idea about the money that was flushed down the toilet during the so-called cold war which, as I recall, was hot more than cold most of the time. 57,000 American soldiers, sailors and Marines died in Vietnam, alone. I don't know the death count in the Korean war, I'm ashamed to say, but one was too many. Then there were Reagan's "secret" wars in Central and South America, often covered by his "war on drugs" and God only knows how many innocent people were tortured and killed in those illegal "involvements," or how many innocent people are still dying, being imprisoned and having their lives ruined because of Reagan's war on inanimate objects. Of course, anyone with more than three neurons firing knows that the war on drugs is and was a war on people; people like our own young people, for example Those illegal "involvements" rarely made the news to any great extent, until news of the Iran/Contra crimes finally broke, unless nuns were raped and killed by the very people the administration were supporting with Iranian money which we received from arms sales, routed through Israel of all places, and drug money, in violation of the Boland amendment and all human decency, which forbade support for the Contras. This is just one more example of how Republicans, in particular, never let the law get in the way of their plans.


2) The lie about the connection, which aparently only existed in the twisted mind of Dick Cheney, between Saddam and Osama.


This whopper was necessary for two reasons. One, of course, was to whip the country into a frenzy of vengeance seeking, never a good idea. The second reason was a bit more legalistic. After 9/11 the Congress had O.K.ed money for military action against Al Qaeda and anyone associated with them who were responsible for the attacks on the U.S, such as other terrorist organizations and including states that supported or harbored them. The administration had to find or make up a link between Saddam and Osama because, without the knowledge of Congress, the administration was moving supplies and people in unifom to ready the military forces to attack Iraq, who had nothing to do with 9/11, long before attacking Iraq was even being talked about in Congress or among the people . They couldn't find any connection that would stand up to any real scrutiny, so they made one up. I do not recall any other member of the administration actually saying that there was hard proof of a connection with the exception of Dick Cheney, but other members of the administration played fast and loose with the truth, using a very old propaganda trick. If one continues, every chance one gets, to say Saddam and Osama in the same sentence or paragraph over and over again, along with 9/11, long enough, people will begin to link the two in their minds and the national opinion will be changed to support a war that we never should have started and for which there was little support before the P.R. machine in the White House got rolling.


The biggest problem with this kind of lie, is that a military force that the American president was saying was for purposes of national defense and for the liberation of the people of Iraq from an insane dictator and his sociopathic sons, becomes a war of vengeance and an illegal war....a war of aggression, the mother of all war crimes, which then leads to all kinds of horrific war crimes like those we saw at Abu Ghraib and that was only the tip of the iceberg.


What's worse, is that we later find out that Abu Ghraib and other horrors like it were not just a matter of "hicks with sticks"..."a few bad apples" or whatever. It was Bush administration policy, American policy. A-M-E-R-I-C-A-N policy. That means...us, Dear Reader...you and me and every other American citizen. You see, people, we now know all of this, with the exception of people who are clinically insane or suffer some form of retardation. We can no longer plead ignorance, as many Germans did after WWII, when asked about the concentration camps, where Jewish people and many, many others were used as slave labor for Hitler's war machine, treated as sub-human, used in medical experiments, starved and/or gassed and piled in mass graves. (Yes, President Ahmadinejad, it did happen. One of my uncles was with other Americans who liberated one of the concentration camps. He took pictures; pictures so horrible that I wasn't allowed to see them, until I was a teenager. My family shopped regularly at a dress shop that was owned by a very nice Jewish family. I saw the tatoo the Nazis put on the woman's forearm. I won't name the town or the couple who owned the shop, simply because they might not want to be named on the Net at this time in history. But I wlll never forget them and I will never forget what was done to them and millions of other people. Nevertheless, I will never forget the pictures of Jena several years back; a Palestinian ghetto, where the conditions are terrible and the people are treated inhumanely to say the least. Those news pictures are burned into my consciousness, President Ahamdinejad, in much the same way as my uncles pictures from WWII.


This is about whether or not there is law at all, anymore, in this nation. Does the Democratic Party want anarchy? What starts at the top will begin to happen all over the land, if nothing is done to uphold all the laws which have been broken by this administration.


Kucinich differs with those who have suggested that the hearings could be divisive. He sees impeachment as an opportunity for healing both the partisan divisions between people and the mistrust Americans have for their government.


After this administration, it will be a cold day in hell before I can even think of trusting the government anymore, even to the rather small degree I did in the past. Frankly, I think this nation may well be beyond redemption, especially if the criminals in this administration are not held accountable under the law and to its fullest extent, no pardons or other legal/illegal wrangling, as happened with Scooter Libby.


While law enforcement has no choice but to respect pardons issued by a criminal president (or do they, in the final analysis?), the people of this country do not have to and should not respect such pardons.


"This war has been a wedge, which has driven Americans apart," he said. As for Congress, he said that "there is no logical explanation for their position. We cannot abdicate our responsibilities. If we abdicate our responsibilities, we end up being in collusion. Why are we not acting? There's a reason why the Congress is so low in polls and I think it's because the American people feel we won't stand up."


You got it, Mr. Kucinich. Congress can go straight to hell as far as we are concerned, right along with the criminals they are protecting, unless they get it together fast. For Congress to abdicate their constitutional responsibility does, in fact, make them complicit in some very high crimes and misdemeanors and, again, contributes to the lawlessness beginning to "trickle down," to coin a popular Republican phrase.


Kucinich said Congress is not living up to its responsibilities to the American people. But he has personal feelings about the resolution that drove him to move forward on impeachment.


"Where's our heart here? What is going on that we can't connect with the suffering of other people?" he asked. "We can't say, 'Oh, yeah, we went into a war, they didn't tell the truth and all these people died. Sorry about that. Pass the Grey Poupon.' We can't do that. We cannot become so callous that we don't care that innocent people are killed. This is what's driving me."


We are beginning to think that Congress is just a bunch of sociopathic fools. On the other hand, it may be that many of them know they have been being wiretapped since the early months of this administration and are afraid of what might come out in this election year if they dare take on the Bushes. But, as much as I can understand that, now is a time to set all of their fear aside and do their jobs. It is a time for courage, not only in the Congress but in the public as well.


Any casual reader of the articles of impeachment can tell the Iraq war figures heavily in the resolution. Of the 35 articles, Kunich said around half are at least tangentially related to Iraq. While some articles deal with election fraud and offenses against Medicare, Kucinich is clearly bothered by the lead-up to the war.


"I can't think of any more grave offense than that the people of this country, at a moment of peril in post 9/11, would be lied to in order to get their support for a war," he said. "There's a difference between just being wrong and lying. And there's a pattern of lies here."


I can think of one even more grave offense and that was allowing the events of 9/11 to happen in the first place, and that is exactly what they did and they did it knowingly and were complicit in the worst terrorist attack on America soil in history.


However, Kucinich said that the effort is not only about Constitutional law and his personal feelings. He wants to demonstrate to future U.S. presidents and the international community that this sort of behavior will not be tolerated by Congress.


Or by the people of the United States, so the Congresss or someone in law enforcement had better act or the people will have no choice. Has anyone read the declaration of Independence lately? If not, they should.


These are not just symbolic concerns; Kucinich raised the specter of international involvement:


"How awful it would be if the Congress looks the other way and within the next few years some nation decides to prosecute a member of the Bush Administration for war crimes at a time when we clearly knew that there was sufficient evidence to proceed with hearings?"


Awful? I think it would be awful if someone doesn't prosecute them. Clearly our own government doesn't have the moral compass nor any interest in holding to account some of the worst war criminals in recent history. These people who have attempted to destroy our constitution under the guise of a bogus war on terror should be tried, convicted in the senate and jailed. No more pardons. Let the people enforce it. They will all be safer in prison.



When this administration is finally over, there is going to be the worst economic collapse this world has ever seen, as our economy is pretty much gerry-rigged now, held together with bubble gum and bailing wire, while the Bushites hope and pray it will hold until they are gone.
There is going to be a huge mass of people who aren't going to take that very well at all and they aren't stupid enough to blame the new administration. Is there any wonder that the Bushes are buying land in Paraguay? It won't do them much good. They can run but they can't hide. Just like Poppy's old friend Pinochet, sooner or later they will be taken into custody somewhere, their assets stripped from them and justice will be done.


(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.

Thursday, June 12, 2008

More evidence of U.S. Corporate Media Corruptrion

MEDIA CAUGHT! Irrefutable Evidence of US Media Deception, Bias & Coverup

Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich introduced 35 articles of impeachment against George W. Bush for high crimes ranging from creating a false propaganda campaign to lead the country into an illegal war to felony treason in leaking classified information of CIA operative Valerie Plame to obstructing justice of the investigation of the attacks of September 11th. You can read the articles of impeachment HERE.


The allegations are EXTREMELY serious. If even HALF of them are true (and it's obvious that they are) the president should not only be impeached but should be put in JAIL. George Bush has the lowest approval rating of any sitting president and most of the country believes that he either intentionally lied us into Iraq or did not tell us the whole story. One might think that this is a proposal that would gain massive support. One might think that this would be on the front page of every newspaper and website as well as the lead story on all the major networks. THE STORY IS NOT BEING COVERED even though tonight the articles for impeachment received a co-sponsor. Rep. Robert Wexler of Florida has cosigned the article with Dennis Kucinich.
What is the function of the media if not to inform the people about important decisions facing our country? How are we to take part in a participatory democracy if the media is unwilling to give us all of the information needed to make decisions?

A functioning democracy CAN NOT EXIST without a functioning media.


(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.

Impeachment For 9/11: Three Articles

Blaming Bush for His Greatest Achievement

By David Swanson


For those who stayed riveted through the end of Congressman Dennis Kucinich's five-hour reading of his 35 articles of impeachment against President Bush on Monday night, the three articles at the very end of the list must have come as something of a jarring surprise. As everyone knows, managing to get the World Trade Center blown up, or at least just BEING president when it happened, is George W. Bush's greatest all-time achievement, the only action (or nonaction) that has ever made him truly popular with the American public, the one thing he will brag about until the day he dies. How, then, could Kucinich propose to impeach Bush for such stupendous success? Here's how:


Article XXXIII
REPEATEDLY IGNORED AND FAILED TO RESPOND TO HIGH LEVEL INTELLIGENCE WARNINGS OF PLANNED TERRORIST ATTACKS IN THE US, PRIOR TO 911


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, failed in his Constitutional duties to take proper steps to protect the nation prior to September 11, 2001.

The White House's top counter-terrorism adviser, Richard A. Clarke, has testified that from the beginning of George W. Bush's presidency until September 11, 2001, Clarke attempted unsuccessfully to persuade President Bush to take steps to protect the nation against terrorism. Clarke sent a memorandum to then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice on January 24, 2001, "urgently" but unsuccessfully requesting "a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with the impending al Qaeda attack."


In April 2001, Clarke was finally granted a meeting, but only with second-in-command department representatives, including Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, who made light of Clarke's concerns.


Clarke confirms that in June, July, and August, 2001, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) warned the president in daily briefings of unprecedented indications that a major al Qaeda attack was going to happen against the United States somewhere in the world in the weeks and months ahead. Yet, Clarke was still unable to convene a cabinet-level meeting to address the issue.


Condoleezza Rice has testified that George Tenet met with the president 40 times to warn him that a major al-Qaeda attack was going to take place, and that in response the president did not convene any meetings of top officials. At such meetings, the FBI could have shared information on possible terrorists enrolled at flight schools. Among the many preventive steps that could have been taken, the Federal Aviation Administration, airlines, and airports might have been put on full alert.


According to Condoleezza Rice, the first and only cabinet-level meeting prior to 9/11 to discuss the threat of terrorist attacks took place on September 4, 2001, one week before the attacks in New York and Washington.


On August 6, 2001, President Bush was presented a President's Daily Brief (PDB) article titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." The lead sentence of that PDB article indicated that Bin Laden and his followers wanted to "follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and 'bring the fighting to America.'" The article warned: "Al-Qa'ida members—including some who are US citizens— have resided in or traveled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks."


The article cited a "more sensational threat reporting that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a US aircraft," but indicated that the CIA had not been able to corroborate such reporting. The PDB item included information from the FBI indicating "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York." The article also noted that the CIA and FBI were investigating "a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Laden supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives."


The president spent the rest of August 6, and almost all the rest of August 2001 on vacation. There is no evidence that he called any meetings of his advisers to discuss this alarming report. When the title and substance of this PDB article were later reported in the press, then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice began a sustained campaign to play down its significance, until the actual text was eventually released by the White House.


New York Times writer Douglas Jehl, put it this way: "In a single 17-sentence document, the intelligence briefing delivered to President Bush in August 2001 spells out the who, hints at the what and points towards the where of the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington that followed 36 days later."


Eleanor Hill, Executive Director of the joint congressional committee investigating the performance of the US intelligence community before September 11, 2001, reported in mid-September 2002 that intelligence reports a year earlier "reiterated a consistent and constant theme: Osama bin Laden's intent to launch terrorist attacks inside the United States."


That joint inquiry revealed that just two months before September 11, an intelligence briefing for "senior government officials" predicted a terrorist attack with these words: "The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning."


Given the White House's insistence on secrecy with regard to what intelligence was given to President Bush, the joint-inquiry report does not divulge whether he took part in that briefing. Even if he did not, it strains credulity to suppose that those "senior government officials" would have kept its alarming substance from the president.


Again, there is no evidence that the president held any meetings or took any action to deal with the threats of such attacks.


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 XXXIV

OBSTRUCTION OF INVESTIGATION INTO THE ATTACKS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001


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, obstructed investigations into the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11, 2001.


Following September 11, 2001, President Bush and Vice President Cheney took strong steps to thwart any and all proposals that the circumstances of the attack be addressed. Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell was forced to renege on his public promise on September 23 that a "White Paper" would be issued to explain the circumstances. Less than two weeks after that promise, Powell apologized for his "unfortunate choice of words," and explained that Americans would have to rely on "information coming out in the press and in other ways."



On Sept. 26, 2001, President Bush drove to Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) headquarters in Langley, Virginia, stood with Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet and said: "My report to the nation is, we've got the best intelligence we can possibly have thanks to the men and women of the C.I.A." George Tenet subsequently and falsely claimed not to have visited the president personally between the start of Bush's long Crawford vacation and September 11, 2001.


Testifying before the 9/11 Commission on April 14, 2004, Tenet answered a question from Commission member Timothy Roemer by referring to the president's vacation (July 29-August 30) in Crawford and insisting that he did not see the president at all in August 2001. "You never talked with him?" Roemer asked. "No," Tenet replied, explaining that for much of August he too was "on leave." An Agency spokesman called reporters that same evening to say Tenet had misspoken, and that Tenet had briefed Bush on August 17 and 31. The spokesman explained that the second briefing took place after the president had returned to Washington, and played down the first one, in Crawford, as uneventful.


In his book, At the Center of the Storm, (2007) Tenet, refers to what is almost certainly his August 17 visit to Crawford as a follow-up to the "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US" article in the CIA-prepared President's Daily Brief of August 6. That briefing was immortalized in a Time Magazine photo capturing Harriet Myers holding the PDB open for the president, as two CIA officers sit by. It is the same briefing to which the president reportedly reacted by telling the CIA briefer, "All right, you've covered your ass now." (Ron Suskind, The One-Percent Doctrine, p. 2, 2006). In At the Center of the Storm, Tenet writes: "A few weeks after the August 6 PDB was delivered, I followed it to Crawford to make sure that the president stayed current on events."


A White House press release suggests Tenet was also there a week later, on August 24. According to the August 25, 2001, release, President Bush, addressing a group of visitors to Crawford on August 25, told them: "George Tenet and I, yesterday, we piled in the new nominees for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Vice Chairman and their wives and went right up the canyon."


In early February, 2002, Vice President Dick Cheney warned then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle that if Congress went ahead with an investigation, administration officials might not show up to testify. As pressure grew for an investigation, the president and vice president agreed to the establishment of a congressional joint committee to conduct a "Joint Inquiry." Eleanor Hill, Executive Director of the Inquiry, opened the Joint Inquiry's final public hearing in mid-September 2002 with the following disclaimer: "I need to report that, according to the White House and the Director of Central Intelligence, the president's knowledge of intelligence information relevant to this inquiry remains classified, even when the substance of the intelligence information has been declassified."


The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, also known as the 9/11 Commission, was created on November 27, 2002, following the passage of congressional legislation signed into law by President Bush. The President was asked to testify before the Commission. He refused to testify except for one hour in private with only two Commission members, with no oath administered, with no recording or note taking, and with the Vice President at his side. Commission Co-Chair Lee Hamilton has written that he believes the commission was set up to fail, was underfunded, was rushed, and did not receive proper cooperation and access to information.


A December 2007 review of classified documents by former members of the Commission found that the commission had made repeated and detailed requests to the CIA in 2003 and 2004 for documents and other information about the interrogation of operatives of Al Qaeda, and had been told falsely by a top C.I.A. official that the agency had "produced or made available for review" everything that had been requested.


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 XXXV

ENDANGERING THE HEALTH OF 911 FIRST RESPONDERS


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, recklessly endangered the health of first responders, residents, and workers at and near the former location of the World Trade Center in New York City.


The Inspector General of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) August 21, 2003, report numbered 2003-P-00012 and entitled "EPA's Response to the World Trade Center Collapse: Challenges, Successes, and Areas for Improvement," includes the following findings:


"[W]hen EPA made a September 18 announcement that the air was 'safe' to breathe, it did not have sufficient data and analysis to make such a blanket statement. At that time, air monitoring data was lacking for several pollutants of concern, including particulate matter and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Furthermore, The White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) influenced, through the collaboration process, the information that EPA communicated to the public through its early press releases when it convinced EPA to add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones."


"As a result of the White House CEQ's influence, guidance for cleaning indoor spaces and information about the potential health effects from WTC debris were not included in EPA- issued press releases. In addition, based on CEQ's influence, reassuring information was added to at least one press release and cautionary information was deleted from EPA's draft version of that press release. . . . The White House's role in EPA's public communications about WTC environmental conditions was described in a September 12, 2001, e-mail from the EPA Deputy Administrator's Chief of Staff to senior EPA officials:


"'All statements to the media should be cleared through the NSC [National Security Council] before they are released.'


"According to the EPA Chief of Staff, one particular CEQ official was designated to work with EPA to ensure that clearance was obtained through NSC. The Associate Administrator for the EPA Office of Communications, Education, and Media Relations (OCEMR) said that no press release could be issued for a 3- to 4-week period after September 11 without approval from the CEQ contact."


Acting EPA Administrator Marianne Horinko, who sat in on EPA meetings with the White House has said in an interview that the White House played a coordinating role. The National Security Council played the key role, filtering incoming data on ground zero air and water, Horinko said: "I think that the thinking was, these are experts in WMD (weapons of mass destruction), so they should have the coordinating role."


In the cleanup of the Pentagon following September 11, 2001, Occupational Safety and Health Administration laws were enforced, and no workers became ill. At the World Trade Center site, the same laws were not enforced.


In the years since the release of the EPA Inspector General's above-cited report, the Bush Administration has still not effected a clean-up of the indoor air in apartments and workspaces near the site.


Screenings conducted at the Mount Sinai Medical Center and released in the September 10, 2004, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) of the federal Centers For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), produced the following results:


"Both upper and lower respiratory problems and mental health difficulties are widespread among rescue and recovery workers who dug through the ruins of the World Trade Center in the days following its destruction in the attack of September 11, 2001.


"An analysis of the screenings of 1,138 workers and volunteers who responded to the World Trade Center disaster found that nearly three-quarters of them experienced new or worsened upper respiratory problems at some point while working at Ground Zero. And half of those examined had upper and/or lower respiratory symptoms that persisted up to the time of their examinations, an average of eight months after their WTC efforts ended."


A larger study released in 2006 found that roughly 70 percent of nearly 10,000 workers tested at Mount Sinai from 2002 to 2004 reported that they had new or substantially worsened respiratory problems while or after working at ground zero. This study showed that many of the respiratory ailments, including sinusitis and asthma, and gastrointestinal problems related to them, initially reported by ground zero workers persisted or grew worse over time. Most of the ground zero workers in the study who reported trouble breathing while working there were still having those problems two and a half years later, an indication of chronic illness unlikely to improve over time.


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.



(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, March 16, 2008

It's No Longer A Matter of What We Can Do To Stop It?

Received an email from another I.U. friend.

Her main concern was the resignation of Admiral Fallon, what it means and how impeachment is the only thing that will save us from WWIII. Good point in ordinary times, but these are not ordinary times. If impeachment is the only thing that will save us, we are all goners, because there will be no impeachment, no trial in the Senate and there will never be any accountability for the war criminals in the White House unless it is brought about by the people.

What do you think the chances of that are? My guess would be slim and none. It never occurs to average Americans, that as a Democracy (or so we are billed), we are responsible for the action of our government, unlike the citizens of, say, Iraq, who were under the heavy boot of a dictator, yet they were not spared when BushCo decided to shock and awe its way into Baghdad.

Perhaps it depends on how many people have lost their houses, lost their jobs, are without healthcare, have awakened to their own personal nightmares and realized the national one we all share, unless we are part of the the happy family on Wall Street or are corporate officers of corporate America's war profiteers, and who and what caused it our national nightmare.

One has to wonder, what it's going to take for Americans to really rise up and say, NO MORE! Replace the crooks in congress, every damn one of them, I don't give a damn whether they are Republicans, Democrats, Likuds, Nazis, Communists, whatever. replace them all and make damn sure that the person you're electing knows that we have had all we are going to take and if he or she isn't prepared to take some drastic measures, for the good of the ordinary people of America (which by it's very definition includes the Iraqi people, since Iraq is clearly our 51st state, now, and has managed to rack up more ear marks than Ted Stevens and Bob Byrd could ever imagine), don't even bother making the move to D.C, because if you go up there and have commerce with the real whores in D.C., the corporate lobbyists, instead of listening to "us, the people," we won't wait for the next election to run you out of town and we will burn K-street to the damn ground while we're at it.

We've seen what happens when the heads of corporate America are allowed to write policy:

Energy policy, for example: Kyoto is out, global warming/climate change is an evil myth made up by Al Gore because he lost the election which, by the way, he didn't. Never-ending war in the middle east to control and help deplete the oil supply, making the policy writers rich beyond anyone's wildest dreams.

How shocking! That's what happens when you allow people with a vested interest to make policy and law.

It is the people who are changing things now, not the government.

Admittedly, it sure as hell took a long time The people are buying Priuses faster than Toyota can make them and other hybrids. People who live in small towns are buying scooters and golf carts. I bought a scooter for my small town travel needs (86 miles to the gallon and environment friendly. I may need to fill it up next Christmas.) and I'm looking for a way to convert my Jeep Cherokee to diesel, since I can't afford to trade it, and I' not buying anything I can't afford to pay for in cash and I have friends who are learning how to use cooking oil for diesel. I only use it for trips into the city and necessary travel. I may have to fill it up three times a year, unless I have to travel out of town for any reason.


I want to see the oil companies get a kick in the solar plexus. Doesn't everybody? Well, Americans, make it happen. Change your fuel consumptions habits, ASAP.

It can be fun! I can attest to that. I'm 59 and am in remission from squamous cell carcinoma and am jetting around the island on a Honda metropolitan. One might ask, given that the type of cancer I have, why I give a damn about any of this. There are generations coming, long after I'm gone. Don't they deserve a chance? Being given a bad prognosis is no excuse for not caring about my beloved country and its ordinary folks. I can love my country and despise mt government. It's easy. I've been doing it for years, on and off.

Of course, I realize that that scooting around the island where I live may not seem like sound like much fun to a wealthy guy who already has three gas guzzlers, a Harley and a big ass boat, but it can for poor people and there are more of us than there are them. Furthermore, demand that your city or county leaders make laws that give right of way to small, environmentally friendly vehicles. That's the only way to get rid of the urban assault vehicles like the ones I encounter daily, so those of us who see the writing on the wall and give a damn about our environment and the robber barons of energy can feel a bit safer as we ride on our scooters, bicycles and in our golf carts, not to mention the much smaller cars that are coming out soon.

Can we prevent Bush and Cheney from nuking Iran and starting WWIII? No, we can't. Certainly not by impeachment.

Unless the people are ready to actually over-throw this illegitimate administration and a congress who are, apparently, either in on the war crimes and crimes against the constitution or who are scared stiff of BushCo.

But the people will have to be ready to suffer, because they will, if they take on this government. It's not the soldiers in Iraq who are really fighting for freedom and Democracy, it will be the people, right here on the ground, in America who will either fight the good fight or not.

It's up to us.

Are we really the scared, yellow-bellied cowards that the Bushites, other Rethugs and some Democrats think we are; so scared of some religious fanatic in a cave somewhere that we will watch our constitution shredded and not lift a finger, just to keep from wearing a burka (like anyone actually would)?

Much to the chagrin of some of my liberal friends, we are an armed-to-the-teeth people. Why should we be so scared of some nut case and his deluded followers. Are they all going to come here, invade us? With what man's Navy? Spectacular terrorist events? Not unless they are allowed in, while warning after warning after warning and red-flag intelligence is ignored by the White House.

I don't doubt that there are people out there who would really like to do Americans harm, especially after the last 5 years. But the Americans they want to hurt the most, are to be found on Wall Street, indicative of corporate America and in D.C.. I won't sacrifice my rights for them. They got themselves into this mess, or as my grandmother would say, they made their bed, let them lie in it.

Seems both our corporations (and I use the word, "our," very loosely) and our government have been misbehaving, to say the least, all over the planet for quite some time. Want to know why they hate some of us? Just do a few searches. Start with Bhopal, There are sites which are devoted to keeping up with corporate misbehavior. Give them a read. They aren't making this stuff up.

When it comes to the government, well, it's easy to list the horrors for which it has been responsible, and they have been committed by administrations of both Democrats and Republicans. The Nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was done by the Truman administration, even though Truman was being briefed that Japan was collapsing. There was no excuse for it, except to attempt to scare the pants off Joe Stalin. Mission accomplished. The Soviets just got their own atomic bomb and we were off to the races; for the moon and the militarization of space.

Thanks a lot, Harry!

But the military-industrial-complex was elated and the tax payers should have been cringing but they were too busy looking under their beds for commies and building bomb shelters that wouldn't have protected them from a nuclear cracker ball.

I know very well that there are some Americans who don't give a hoot what happens to anyone but themselves and their immediate family and believe that the USA is so strong that we can do any damn thing we please to just about anyone in that third world place, without consequences. They are living in the past. We have been weakened in just about every way imaginable since the 2000 election.

We might be able to commit the ultimate shock and awe in Tehran, as my friend is afraid will happen; the nuclear kind. But how will that really change anything except for putting more radiation in the environment for us all to enjoy, not to mention rid the world of god knows how many Iranians, 99.999999% of whom are just ordinary Joes (or Ahmeds or Mohammeds) trying to get a good education, find a good job, have a family and be able to give their kids the basics, perhaps a bit more, if they are lucky. Do I approve of everything their government does. Hell no. Not anymore than I approve of what our government has done. I don't approve of any government that has a human rights record like Iran does. Gay men shouldn't be hung, but I will tell you this, there are people right here in our own country that believe they should be and if they took over the government, gays and a number of other people would be executed. We are just one religious coup away from being Iran.

So what good would come of attacking Iran when such an act could very well set off a nuclear holocaust during which the USA would be target Making oil in short supply for China? Is that real bright, since China now owns us? Such an act may make Saudi Arabia and Israel happy, but who cares? Certainly not I.

Thanks to BushCo. we have horrendous problems over here, in our own country. As far as I'm concerned, everyone else should be on their own. It's time for the USA to pull back and begin to find solutions for our own mounting problems and leave the rest of the world alone.

I have been talking to ordinary people in quite a few countries in so-called enemy territory; you know all Arab/and or Muslim countries since around Dec., 2001. I wanted to hear directly from them about 9/11, because what my own government was saying wasn't making any sense and it still doesn't. What they said did make sense, especially after I spent some time reviewing the history of the world since WWI; not the history that's taught in American schools.

Do you know how brainwashed you are?

There are Muslims in Pakistan who know that there are many Americans who live in horrendous poverty. Other Muslims also know that many, many Americans live in abject poverty and that knowledge doesn't endear the American government to them and they don't understand it. How can a nation so wealthy care so little for so many of its citizens? Most of the Arab world was shocked by Katrina and the way the Bush administration handled it and is still handling it. They always ask about the people of NOLA when they email or chat with me. It's almost as if they have something deeply in common with them. They probably have more in common with the people of New Orleans than Bush and his ilk does.

Ordinary, every -day citizens from other nations, in what we humiliatingly refer to as the Third World, (I think I must have missed the Second World because I am clueless as to who they are.) want the same things we want, except that they also want our government to stop propping up sociopathic dictators in their own countries until it becomes inconvenient for whatever administration we elect (or don't elect but that has grabbed power anyway), when they can expect to be bombed to smithereens just to get the one guy, a guy they all despise, but don't want to die for.

Does anyone really believe that the women of Iraq grieve any less for their sons, daughters and husbands who have been killed by shock and awe and tortured by our military than the ones who were tortured and killed by Saddam and his insane sons?

Just ask yourself, how would you feel if it were you? If we were bombed, invaded and occupied by another power, would we fight back? What about a coup from within? Would we fight it? Apparently not, because that's already happened.

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

Thursday, February 7, 2008

Elsberg: Here We Go Again! IMPEACH NOW

Whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg: Bush Likely to Attack Iran, Impeachment a Must


By Sari Gelzer, TruthOut.org
Posted on February 7, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/76241/

Daniel Ellsberg, perhaps the country's most famous whistleblower, fears that before the Bush administration leaves office, it will try to attack Iran.

Indeed, Ellsberg's argument gained merit as George W. Bush increased his rhetoric against Iran when he delivered his final State of the Union Address. Bush accused Iran of training militia extremists in Iraq and emphasized the United States will confront its enemies.

In a wide-ranging interview with Truthout, Ellsberg uses insight from his experience as a Pentagon analyst under the Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard M. Nixon administrations to discuss Bush's plans to begin a war with Iran, the role of the press to give whistleblowers exposure and how American democracy can be restored.

Due to Ellsberg's experience working within the government, I wanted his insight into how the Bush administration is attempting to begin a war with Iran.

When I highlighted his experience working for Secretary of Defense Robert Macnamara in 1965 to draft a speech with the goal of rationalizing and gaining public support for the Vietnam War, Ellsberg gave a very long sigh.

"That was not my finest hour that I look back on. That was something that I am ashamed of," he tells me with a heavy heart.

Ellsberg wishes he had spoken out against the Vietnam War sooner. As a civilian working for the government, he says his oath was always to the Constitution, and he violated that oath until the day he decided to leak the Pentagon Papers in 1971 to reveal the war was unlawful.

Ellsberg now spends his time ardently encouraging and supporting whistleblowers to come forward when they see constitutional violations. He emphasizes the importance of documents as evidence and of timeliness so that lies are exposed before an actual war occurs.

Pending war with Iran or Gulf of Tonkin deja vu

The recent announcement in December by the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) revealed, counter to the president's claims, that Iran did not have an active nuclear program. This was unexpected, says Ellsberg.

The administration had said, weeks before this release, it had no intention of putting out NIE summaries, Ellsberg says. However, the information was released because, according to newspaper reports, there was a threat of leaks:

"As one news story put it, intelligence officials were lined up to go to jail if the administration did not release those findings," says Ellsberg, emphasizing his creed in the need to take risks for the sake of revealing truth.

"I wish I could say it made an attack on Iran zero, and it hasn't, but it has reduced it and confirms, in my opinion, the power of being willing to risk prosecution, willing to give up your career, your clearance, which these people would have done if they'd put that information out -- and the mere threat was enough to get it out in this case," emphasizes Ellsberg.

Ellsberg says Bush will simply find a different pretext from the nuclear program.

"After all, it was about a year ago that he really stopped pressing the nuclear program as the main reason to start attacking Iran and start talking about what they were doing against U.S. forces in Iraq," says Ellsberg, who claims people in the military have recently undercut this statement by saying there is no evidence of Iran's involvement against U.S. forces in Iraq.

Bush could also use an incident that is blamed on Iran as a means to begin a war with them.

Early this year, Ellsberg experienced deja vu when the White House and a complicit media portrayed an incident in the Strait of Hormuz that deeply paralleled the Tonkin Gulf incident of 1964.

The Gulf of Tonkin incident was an alleged attack by North Vietnamese ships upon American boats. As a result of this alleged aggression, Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which gave former President Johnson the permission to expand the Vietnam War.

The recent incident involving Iran alleged serious threats were being made to U.S. ships by Iranian speedboats. Within days of the events in the Straight of Hormuz, information revealed the details of the entire event had been fabricated. Ellsberg sees promise in the quickness of this revelation because, in contrast, it was only in 2005 and 2008 that the inaccuracies and deceptions of the Gulf of Tonkin incident were revealed by the declassification of National Security Administration reports.

Ellsberg is worried Congress has not put forth an effort to demand it be informed before an attack on Iran should occur. Currently, there is a Senate resolution to demand Congress be consulted in the event of plans to attack Iran, but it has not gotten out of committee.

Instead, the Senate has virtually endorsed the president's power to begin a war with Iran, says Ellsberg, with the passage of legislation last September declaring that Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps is a terrorist organization.

"To say that the Revolutionary Guards in Iran are a terrorist organization ... is very close to saying that the president is able to attack them at his discretion. Now to give this president that discretion is inexcusable, outrageous," says Ellsberg.

The Democratic Congress should be having open hearings on Iran, says Ellsberg, as well as on how we got into the war against Iraq and regarding Guantanamo. But the Democratic chairmen are not holding such hearings.

The American public, and media in general, have not picked up on the urgency surrounding a pending war with Iran, Ellsberg says. For over two years, Sy Hersh and others have been writing detailed articles stating operational plans against Iran are being updated to the minute, so that within hours or a day they can be implemented.

The problem with these articles, says Ellsberg, is not that Hersh, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, lacks credibility, it's that his sources are not willing to go beyond their anonymity. Ellsberg emphasizes the sources in Sy Hersh's reports, and others within the government, must reveal documents, risk their career and testify before Congress if they wish to profoundly alter the course of a pending war with Iran.

Gateway for whistleblowers: the press

Whistleblowers depend strongly on the press to relay their information to the American public, who will then be able to exert pressure in politics. When I ask Ellsberg if he believes the press is doing a good job of this, he gives me the most matter-of-fact answer of the evening: "No."

In October of 2004, whistleblowers gave the New York Times knowledge of an illegal and unconstitutional domestic spying program that was being carried out by the U.S. government. The newspaper waited a year to reveal this information.

This was not just any year, says Ellsberg. The Times held this information at the request of the White House until after the 2004 election, avoiding the possible impact it could have had in swaying voters.

The New York Times, says Ellsberg, was pressured to publish the article because its internal reporter, James Risen, was going to release a book regarding the Times' decision to remain silent at the White House's request.

The New York Times received a Pulitzer Prize for releasing this story. Ellsberg says he believes not only reporters but whistleblowers who reveal important information should also receive a prize in recognition of their public service. This is not a retroactive attempt on his part, he says, to receive an award.

Ellsberg smiles. "In my case my prize was the indictment," which he says he has taken to be as great an honor as he needs in life.

The press in America, says Ellsberg, is currently avoiding the story of an explosive whistleblower by the name of Sibel Edmonds. A former FBI translator of Turkish and Persian, he says she has been attempting to speak before Congress for five years.

Early last month, Sibel Edmonds appeared on the front page of the London Sunday Times to reveal information she learned as an FBI employee. Ellsberg describes her claims that the U.S. government is giving nuclear materials, equipment and expertise to countries, including Turkey, which in turn sell them to other countries, including Pakistan. In effect, says Ellsberg, criminal bribery is occurring.

Ellsberg says Edmonds is also revealing the U.S. government is allowing a drug trade that finances terrorist operations, such as al-Qaeda, to continue. Ellsberg describes her revelations further, saying the U.S. government is turning a blind eye to the drug trade of U.S. allies such as Turkey and Pakistan, as well as countries such as Uzbekistan, where the United States wants to gain military base rights.

These allegations are only part of the knowledge Edmonds wishes to share before Congress, and she awaits the chance to do so, claiming she knows people in the FBI, CIA and NSA who will corroborate her statements, says Ellsberg.

This is in direct parallel, says Ellsberg, to what happened to Catherine Gunn, a British whistleblower whose actions, he believes, were more important than the release of the Pentagon Papers, because she provided information early enough to have prevented the Iraq war.

Gunn, who worked as an employee for British Intelligence, Government Communication Headquarters, revealed a document showing the United States was "tapping the U.N. Security Council members in order to influence their votes in support of an aggressive war, which was about to take place," says Ellsberg.

This was front-page news, not only in London, says Ellsberg, but all over the world, except the United States, where it did not appear for about 11 months. Ellsberg says it was reasonable to believe Gunn could have stopped the war, and he believes she prevented a U.N. Security Council vote in support of the war.

"The same thing is happening to Sibel Edmonds as we speak," says Ellsberg, intensely.

How to restore American democracy

As the days of Bush's final term in office dwindle, Ellsberg emphasizes that, no matter how much time is left, impeachment is one thing that must happen for the sake of preserving American democracy.

Impeachment proceedings are essential, says Ellsberg, "both for the information that it will produce and above all to make it clear that Congress perceives the illegal and unconstitutional acts taken by this administration to be high crimes and misdemeanors, and for the deterrent effect that they will have on future presidents."

In addition to impeachment hearings, Ellsberg says Congress must reverse the laws that have "outrageously" passed under "intimidation" by Bush. These include say Ellsberg: "The Patriot Act; the Military Commissions Act, which among other things essentially denies habeas corpus; the signing statements, which essentially give the president the power to ignore constraints on torture; and they could change the so-called Protect America Act which legalized much of the unconstitutional surveillance that the NSA was doing without Congress even knowing what they were legalizing."

For those things that Congress cannot overturn, Ellsberg suggests hearings by Congress to show, for example, that "not only was torture illegal, it should continue to be illegal because it hurts our national security."

None of these changes will happen without an active American movement, says Ellsberg, which must demand Congress members uphold their oath to support the Constitution rather than their political career.

Looking at the current primaries and the future presidential election, Ellsberg says the American public must create priorities that are different from those offered by the current candidates.

The changes that need to occur are drastic, and given the stakes, Ellsberg believes the American public should be willing to invest its time so that the crisis we currently find ourselves in can be met with strong action:

"If enough people simply look clearly at what we are doing in our course towards an abyss right now, they do have the power with the remaining democracy we have still in this country to turn it around."

© 2008 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/76241/


(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, November 13, 2007

Hey Nancy, Set The Table....

We, the people, want a real Thanksgiving Dinner.

Maybe, then, we can all remember what Thanksgiving is all about.

Nancy! Set the Table!


A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION
by Rainlillie

Nancy, set the table! The American people are hungry, so put a large bowl of truth and a side dish of integrity on the table. I'd also like to see a huge serving of subpoenas for those who have failed to turn over important documents and are impeding investigations.

Let's not forget to add a side dish of courage, it seems the Democrats aren't getting enough of this dish, they're suffering from a major deficiency, which is why they appear so weak.

We'll also need a huge helping of ... obeying your constitutional duties. The table wouldn't be complete without the main entrees, a pan of "the will of the people" and a dish of Impeachment ... Nancy set the table!


(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.

Thursday, November 8, 2007

Kucnich Stands Tall

Dave Lindorff:

Dennis Kucinich Standing Tall in the House as Cheney Impeachment Bill Advances



Rep. Dennis Kucinich, the candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination that the mainstream media like to ignore or belittle, stands head and shoulders above the moral midgets and shriveled sophists in that contest, especially after he successfully forced the full House to vote to send his bill to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney to a hearing in the House Judiciary Committee.

Kucinich, whose Cheney impeachment bill, despite having 22 co-sponsors, has been stalled for over six months thanks to the unconscionable machinations of the Democratic Congressional leadership and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, should now get at least a genuine debate in the House Judiciary Committee. With enough pressure from constituents, his bill might even go into hearings.

At first, it appeared that the Democratic leadership in the House was going to simply slap down Kucinich's attempt to move the bill -- technically a member's privilege motion for a full vote of the House. Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), House majority leader and thus the number two member of the House leadership (and an insufferable hack), offered a motion to table H Res. 799, the impeachment bill. But Republicans, sensing an opportunity to embarrass the Democrats, began voting as a block against the tabling motion. In the end, caught completely off guard, even Democrats who had dutifully backed the shameless leadership in voting for the tabling motion, began switching their votes and opposing it. The final vote was 242 (164 Republicans and 78 Democrats) against tabling, and 170 (28 Republicans and 142 Democrats) for tabling.

A subsequent vote to send the Kucinich Cheney impeachment bill to the Judiciary Committee passed 218-194, with three Republicans voting with 215 Democrats in favor of the measure.

Republicans clearly don't want impeachment hearings, but have recognized something that the Democratic leadership, lame and tactically deficient as it is, does not, namely that particularly among Democratic voters and Democratic-leaning voters, impeachment is enormously popular. According to polls, some three in four Democrats, and a majority of all Americans, favor impeaching the vice president (a majority of Americans also favor impeaching President Bush). As long as the Democratic Party leaders keep blocking impeachment, they lose support and anger voters among this group. Clearly Republicans saw a chance today to further alienate those voters by forcing the Congressional Democratic leadership, which has stalled Kucinich's bill for over six months since it was filed last April 24, to more actively and visibly block it.

But Democratic leaders have an alternative. They can recognize the growing disaster of Pelosi's "impeachment is off the table" position -- which has contributed significantly to Congress' record-low poll ratings (now well below Bush's) -- and can turn around and get those impeachment hearings going.

If they were to do this, with just a year to go until the presidential election, they would electrify progressive voters and independent-minded voters, who are frightened and disgusted by what this administration has been doing to the country and to the Constitution.

I was just at a polling station in my Republican-leaning area (Montgomery County, PA), and when a Republican activist standing outside the polling center saw my "Impeach Bush and Cheney" T-shirt, he said, "It would be great for Republicans too, if they could dump both those guys."

Clearly, the public, even including many Republicans, wants Congress to act.

Rep. Kucinich, who has been a consistent and bold opponent of the Iraq War from the start, and who was quick to expose and condemn administration moves towards a new war with Iran, deserves enormous credit for his lonely drive in the House to impeach the vice president. Maybe this bold move in Congress to push past the obstacles that the Democratic leadership has thrown up in his path will wake up primary voters to the fact that you cannot judge a candidate by his height.

If voters in the Democratic primaries make their decisions based upon actions, principles, and courage, instead of on what the corporate media tells them, and if the impeachment movement will rally to back him, Kucinich should win by a landslide.

DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His latest book, co-authored by Barbara Olshansky, is "The Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin's Press, 2006 and now available in paperback edition). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net.

(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.