'?> mission:impeachable

Cheney is Impeachment Bait

Mission Control wrote this in the late evening:

by Allen L. Roland

Libby and his mentor Paul Wolfowitz laid out the case for the illegal invasion of Iraq just one week after the Twin Towers fell in 2001 ~ and both reported to Dick Cheney.

Guy Dinsmore, Financial Times UK, profiled Libby and writes;

” Together with the vice-president, Mr. Libby launched the push to invade Iraq …. And, together with Cheney, Libby has “worked hard to block signs of engagement with Iran, resist direct talks with North Korea, and undermine U.S. legislation prohibiting torture and degrading treatment of detainees.”

As such, Libby was Cheney’s disciple and hit man and was obviously chosen to out Valerie Plame by Darth Vader himself ~ Dick Cheney.

Expect a Bush pardon and eventually a medal if Libby is found guilty. Loyalty to the chief outweighs everything in this den of thieves.

However, the last thing Cheney wants is now happening ~ Fitzgerald digging deeper into Cheney’s secret government and other more flagrant crimes against peace.

Read More at OpEdNews.com

Activists Call for Cheney’s Impeachment

by Allison Brophy Champion

Two political activists from Leesburg set up outside the Culpeper post office Tuesday afternoon to hand out literature and call for the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney.

“Impeach Satan first,” said a poster hanging from their table, and at its center was a photo of Cheney with devil horns and a pitchfork. “Go with Larouche.”

“We’re out here to make sure everybody knows Dick Cheney is at the end of his rope,” said Gene Schenk, 52. “That we’ve got to stop Cheney from going to war with Iran.”

Both Schenk and co-activist, Leslie Vaughan, represented the political action committee of 84-year-old Lyndon LaRouche, a controversial political figure who has run, unsuccessfully, for president in every election since 1976. Vaughan declined to elaborate on her reasons for coming to Culpeper, saying, “Cheney is not a very nice man.”

Read More at the StarExponent

Lobbying for Impeachment

Mission Control wrote this in the late evening:

by David Swanson

It’s an honor to be part of this obviously growing movement for peace and justice. Our president took us into war before Congress gave its so-called authorization. He did so without telling Congress or the American people and without Congress appropriating any funds for the purpose. In the summer of 2002, Bush took $2.5 billion – according to the Congressional Research Service – away from other projects, including Afghanistan, and used it to build airfields in Qatar and to begin bombing Iraq in preparation for the full-scale invasion.

That is a crime.

In fact, it’s what the founders of this country would have called a high crime and misdemeanor.

And what do we do about high crimes and misdemeanors?

Our Department of so-called Defense has this kind of money lying around. And this is about the same amount of money that would be needed to bring our troops home in a safe and orderly manner. And if we persuade Congress to cut off funding to extend the war, it may be that Bush will bring our troops home without us having to impeach him. But when Congress found the nerve to cut off the funds for the Vietnam War, it was the pressure of impeachment that persuaded Nixon not to veto, and it was the pressure of the peace movement that drove impeachment forward. Impeachment helps end the war even if we never get all the way to impeachment.

Read More at the American Chronicle

Bush Impeachment Poster Boy

Mission Control wrote this in the wee hours:

by Mick Youther

I know the Democratic leaders in Congress have said that impeachment is “off the table”, but that is one campaign promise that should not be kept. Oversight of the Bush Administration is not enough.

How do you oversee a torture program? How do you oversee “extraordinary renditions” and secret prisons? How do you oversee the destruction of the U.S. Constitution? What is Congress going to do when Bush starts bombing Iran–watch closely?

You don’t oversee these kinds of things. You stop them. That is why the Founding Fathers wrote impeachment into our Constitution.

The power of impeachment was one of the first proposals presented to the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The Founding Fathers felt it was important enough to mention it six times in the Constitution and once more in an amendment. They believed the new government needed a strong executive, but having just thrown off the rule of one King, they did not want another one–even an elected one.

Read More at OpEdNews.com

Kucinich Speaks of Impeachment

Mission Control wrote this late at night:

by Mike Sheehan

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) says the White House is “up to its old tricks” as it preps for a U.S. attack on Iran, according to a press release.

The 2008 Democratic presidential candidate warns that Bush’s actions could result in impeachment.

Kucinich accuses the Bush administration “of mounting a media blitz to prepare the U.S. public for an eventual attack on Iran,” according to the release, which cites a report that the President authorized the military to kill Iranians operating inside Iraq.

“The White House is up to its old tricks again,” says Kucinich, accusing the administration of “providing information by anonymous sources and portraying Iran as an aggressor in Iraq.” He continues, “The President is mischaracterizing U.S. action vis à vis Iran. In fact, the U.S. is already engaged in offensive and provocative acts against Iran.

“The President’s strategy, by portraying our involvement as only being on the defensive, is laying out the groundwork for him to attack Iran and bypass authorization by Congress.”

The six-term Congressmember, a long-time advocate for peace, blasts “the White House spin machine” for “providing justification for a new war … against Iran.” He adds, “The Washington Post is quoting strategically placed Administration sources who are providing justification for an attack… This new twist on Iran, a country this Administration refuses to have free and open diplomatic talks with, is stating the Administration’s case for war.”

Kucinich closes by warning, “The degree to which this President continues to take steps to go to war against Iran without consulting with the full Congress is the degree to which he is increasingly putting himself in jeopardy of an impeachment proceeding.”

The full release is available at Rep. Kucinich’s official site.

Read More at Raw Story

Back On Pelosi’s Table

Mission Control wrote this in the wee hours:

by John Nichols

The news from former vice presidential chief of staff “Scooter” Libby’s trial on charges of obstructing a federal investigation — particularly the revelation that Vice President Dick Cheney wrote a memo that effectively confirms his intimate involvement in strategizing about how to counter the inquiry into the Bush administration’s politically-motivated outing of CIA operative Valarie Plame — should slowly but surely edge the prospect of impeachment back onto the table from which Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi removed it.

Cheney is expected to testify in the Libby trial and, if a federal jury rejects his testimony as less than credible, that would seem to create an appropriate opening for members of the House who take seriously their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution to entertain a discussion of impeaching the vice president.

Intriguingly, Cheney almost found himself in the middle of the discussion this week.

Prior to CNN personality Wolf Blitzer’s testy-if-not-particularly substantive interview with the vice president on Wednesday, the network’s resident rabble rouser, commentator Jack Cafferty, presented a reasonably favorable feature on a move by New Mexico state Senators Jerry Ortiz y Pino, D-Albuquerque, and John Grubesic, D-Santa Fe, to get that state’s legislature to petition Congress to impeach both Cheney and Bush.

Read More at The Nation

VIDEO:



More Coverage:

Dave Lindorf: Conyers Puts Abuse of Power “On the Table”

Speaker Nancy Pelosi may have taken impeachment “off the table,” but House Judiciary Chair John Conyers (D-MI) is about to put it back on the menu.

Conyers may have been blocked by a timid Pelosi from initiating impeachment hearings immediately into President Bush’s crimes against the Constitution, but he’s taken the first step anyway, with the anouncement of plans to hold hearings into what is surely the President’s gravest abuse of power.

The congressman, a veteran of the Nixon impeachment hearings who recently published a book on Bush’s crimes, today announced plans to have his Judiciary Committee hold hearings on Bush’s rampant use of so-called “signing statements.” These are the documents the president has claimed give him the power, as a commander-in-chief, to ignore laws duly passed by the Congress.

Bush has used this bogus claim to ignore all or parts of some 1,200 laws
passed by Congress. He has done it willfully, and he has done it
deceptively, often adding the signing statement saying he will be ignoring a law after having first hosted a friendly photo-op signing session at which he offer no indication that he had any problem with a measure.

The first Judiciary Committee hearing is set for January 31.

Hopefully this will be followed by more Judiciary hearings into the president’s other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Readers should encourage Conyers in his efforts, and urge him to follow through, by sending messages of support to John Conyers.

source: BuzzFlash.com

No Remedy Short of Impeachment

Mission Control wrote this in the wee hours:

by Elizabeth Holtzman

Approximately a year ago, I wrote in this magazine that President George W. Bush had committed high crimes and misdemeanors and should be impeached and removed from office. His impeachable offenses include using lies and deceptions to drive the country into war in Iraq, deliberately and repeatedly violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) on wiretapping in the United States, and facilitating the mistreatment of US detainees in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the War Crimes Act of 1996.

Since then, the case against President Bush has, if anything, been strengthened by reports that he personally authorized CIA abuse of detainees. In addition, courts have rejected some of his extreme assertions of executive power. The Supreme Court ruled that the Geneva Conventions apply to the treatment of detainees, and a federal judge ruled that the President could not legally ignore FISA. Even Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’s recent announcement that the wiretapping program would from now on operate under FISA court supervision strongly suggests that Bush’s prior claims that it could not were untrue.

Despite scant attention from the mainstream media, since last year impeachment has won a wide audience. Amid a flurry of blogs, books and articles, a national grassroots movement has sprung up. In early December seventy-five pro-impeachment rallies were held around the country and pro-impeachment efforts are planned for Congressional districts across America. A Newsweek poll, conducted just before election day, showed 51 percent of Americans believed that impeachment of President Bush should be either a high or lower priority; 44 percent opposed it entirely. (Compare these results with the 63 percent of the public who in the fall of 1998 opposed President Clinton’s impeachment.) Most Americans understand the gravity of President Bush’s constitutional misconduct.

Read More at The Nation

Democrats “Surge” in Response

Mission Control wrote this in the early evening:

Sen. Jim Webb handles the response to Bush’s State of the Union Address. “The (American) Middle Class … is losing its place at the table ….”

BUSH ESCALATES CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS IN UNION SPEECH

Mission Control wrote this in the late afternoon:

by David E. Sanger and Jim Rutenberg, New York Times

It was a speech that reflected Mr. Bush’s difficult circumstances. It was limited in ambition and political punch at home, with no proposals to rival his call two years ago to remake Social Security, no mention of rebuilding New Orleans and no allusions to limiting stem cell research or banning gay marriage.

And when it came to his plan to send additional troops to Iraq, he was forced to plead with the Democrats who now control Congress — and with a growing number of Republican critics — to “give it a chance to work.”

In an admission that the United States now finds itself trapped in the cross-fire of a sectarian conflict, Mr. Bush said, “This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we are in.” While he insisted that America could not afford to fail, he also warned the Iraqi government that “our commitment is not open-ended.”

Read More at the NEW YORK TIMES

More Coverage

Bush brought subdued tone to State of Union
New Zealand Herald, New Zealand
By Steve Holland. WASHINGTON - President George W. Bush, bearing the weight of six years in office, down in the polls and under fire from all sides,
Constituents grumble over missing topics
Seattle Post Intelligencer, WA
By JENNIFER LOVEN. AP WRITER. WASHINGTON — On the day after came the grumbling. The White House warned for days ahead of President Bush’s State of the
Bush enters final two years with subdued tone
ABC News
By Steve Holland. Jan 24, 2007 — WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush, bearing the weight of six years in office, down in the polls and under
A night of firsts
Daily Times, Pakistan
WASHINGTON: It was a night of firsts for President George W Bush’s State of the Union address to Congress: a Democratic Congress, a woman seated in the
Constituents grumble over missing topics
Kansas City Star, MO
AP. WASHINGTON - On the day after came the grumbling. The White House warned for days ahead of President Bush’s State of the Union address that changed

DOWNLOAD: State of the Union Speech 2007

The Genius of Impeachment

Mission Control wrote this in the wee hours:

From Booklist
Arguing that regular elections are an insufficient democratic guardian against corrupt officeholders, Nichols, a writer for the liberal journal the Nation, exhorts his readers to support an impeachment of President George Bush. The impediment, as Nichols assesses current affairs, is not doubt that Bush (and British Prime Minister Tony Blair) by invading Iraq deserves this constitutional ejection from office but the wariness of politicians on the Left to consider the procedure. Nichols rejects the view that impeachment is unrealistic in the course of surveying the history of the impeachment power, citing cases from England, commentaries about the U.S. Constitution, and the impeachment proceedings against Nixon. As if to deflect a charge of partisanship, Nichols extols Republicans who demanded Truman’s impeachment, as well as Nixon’s. And to mobilize the anti-Bush grassroots, Nichols lauds impeachment activists in Vermont and Wisconsin. Substantively slight on constitutional analysis of the war power, this work relies on its power-to-the-people persona for its appeal, which may extend past the moment should Democratic victory in the November elections augment the author’s advocacy.
Gilbert Taylor

Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved

The Indictment of George W. Bush

Mission Control wrote this in the late evening:

By Nathanael

Impeachment is only a political act with limited consequences that bear one’s ability to retain or hold elected office. The convicted Party (such as the President or Judge or Congressperson) of an Impeachment is still liable and subject to Indictment and prosecution for any criminal acts according to Law.

There is no language in the Constitution or the US Code that requires an impeachment proceeding to come before a criminal indictment or prosecution. Any Constitutional Scholar, retired Assistant US Attorney, Supreme Court Justice, Attorney General, Congressperson or any Court stating such prior constraint is in violation of the Constitution and the Law. No one is above the law, not even the President. The Constitution cannot be altered by statute, a legislative act, a bill passed by Congress and signed by the President or an Executive Order. A valid Article V procedure must be accomplished before the Constitution is lawfully modified.

(more…)

Congress Can Stop Iran Attack

Mission Control wrote this at around evening time:

by Jorge Hirsch

However, Congress could pass a law making a nuclear attack on a non-nuclear nation in the absence of Congressional authorization illegal. In so doing, Congress would effectively be preventing Bush from launching any attack against Iran without its authorization, thus reclaiming its broader constitutionally assigned duties. Because Bush will not dare putting 150,000 American lives in Iraq at risk of Iranian retaliation without having the nuclear option on the table. By removing the nuclear option from the Bush toolkit, Congress would be forcefully imposing its will and that of the American people on an administration gone mad.

If Congress chooses not to face the fact that US military action against Iran is likely to lead to the first US use of nuclear weapons since Nagasaki, each one of its members will share responsibility for the nefarious chain of events that is likely to follow, and should be preparing to face his/her very own nuclear Nuremberg trial.

Read More at antiwar.com 

The Spy Who Flip-Flopped

Mission Control wrote this in the late evening:

source: The Capital Times, Madison WI

Does it matter that Democrats took charge of the Senate this month?

President Bush seems to think so.

In a letter sent to Senate Judiciary Committee leaders, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales writes that “the president has determined not to reauthorize the Terrorist Surveillance Program when the current authorization expires.

“Any electronic surveillance that was occurring as part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program will now be conducted subject to the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court,” explains the attorney general’s letter.

The court was created by Congress in 1978 under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act with the specific intent that it would supervise electronic eavesdropping within the United States. But the Bush administration, which launched its spying program in 2001, had refused to obey the court’s authority.

When it was learned late in 2005 that Bush had repeatedly authorized the monitoring of the phone conversations and e-mails of Americans, the president and his lawyers claimed that the White House did not need to consult with the court before engaging in such surveillance.

With Pennsylvania Republican Arlen Specter, a somewhat critical but cautious player, was in charge of the Judiciary Committee, the administration showed no inclination to seek proper authorization.

But Specter lost his chairmanship when Democrats took charge of the Senate after the Nov. 7 elections.

With Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy, a critic of warrantless wiretapping, now in charge of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and with Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold, who proposed censuring the president for failing to obtain proper authorization for his surveillance program, now in charge of the Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, the White House has suddenly developed a newfound respect for the rule of law.

Hagel: This is Not a Monarchy

Mission Control wrote this in the wee hours:

by David Edwards and Mike Sheehan

On CNN’s ‘Situation Room,’ Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE), who has joined key Democratic senators on a resolution to stop the Iraq troop ’surge’ being pushed by the Bush administration, tells host Wolf Blitzer that “a bipartisan consensus” was needed for Iraq policy to succeed. The bill he co-sponsored was called a “slap at the president” by Blitzer.

“The best interests of our country” are not served by American escalation in Iraq, Hagel explained. He said that America cannot just pull out, and “a few more years” would be required before the US withdrew. But he added that more Americans must not be “thrown in” to Iraq, and the Iraqis should deal with the problem themselves.

He also sought to remind the president that the Congress is a co-equal branch of government, “this is not a monarchy,” and that on “November 7th, the people changed the management” in Congress. The bill Hagel was now getting behind “is just the beginning,” the Vietnam Veteran senator pledged.

Read More at Raw Story

The Mad Emperor

Mission Control wrote this in the wee hours:

by George Ochenski

It’s hard to believe anyone could find ambiguity in the message Americans sent with the November elections. In an open repudiation of President Bush’s policies and the rubber-stamp approval of his Republican-controlled Congress, voters said clearly that we want out of the Iraq war, we are embarrassed by the level of open corruption in D.C. politics, and we have had it with the snooping and spying on Americans by our own government. Yet President Bush, like some mad emperor, has decided that the American people are wrong, that only he and his pals Condi and Cheney are right, and that even if his popularity ratings hit rock bottom, he won’t change his course: to escalate the war, the spying and the torture. If ever there was a time for Congress to exercise its duty as an independent body to check an out-of-control presidency, that time has arrived.

Well before she ever stepped into her historic role as the first woman to be elected Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, firebrand Nancy Pelosi took impeachment of President Bush off the table. It seems likely that Pelosi wanted to assure a politics-weary public that the Democrats were going to get down to the business of running the country rather than spend their time fooling with Articles of Impeachment.

For his part, President Bush also mouthed such phrases as “bipart- isan cooperation” with the new Congressional majorities. Those who have been paying attention to the president and his actions should have been immediately suspicious. What he was saying was a radical departure from the previous six years, in which he did virtually everything possible to destroy the Democrats and ensure what he once envisioned as a permanent Republican majority.

Read More at The Independent Online

Nixon Impeachment Figure Says Bush is Dangerous

Mission Control wrote this in the early evening:

By William Hughes

Washington, D.C. - On Jan. 4, 2007, at the National Press Club, the World Can’t Wait organization put on a first rate program, entitled, “Voices for Impeachment.” (1) It featured speakers, like: “Peace Mom” Cindy Sheehan, pundit John Nichols of “The Nation,” activist Sunsara Taylor from World Can’t Wait, Michael Ratner, Esq., of the Center for Constitutional Rights, and the man who released the “Pentagon Papers”–Daniel Ellsberg. (2) Author Gore Vidal made an appearance, too, via a video hookup. Journalist David Swanson of Afterdowningstreet.org served as the moderator for the lively affair. (3) It was held before a capacity audience. In fact, another room had to be opened up to handle the overflow crowd.

Ellsberg said: “I think [President George W.] Bush and [V.P. Dick Cheney] Cheney have to go for a number of reasons. One of them is that, frankly, if there is…another 9/11, while they are in power, then I think you will not distinguish this country very much from the police state in Germany in the summer of 1933…We have to get them out. If we don’t try to impeach them, then we accept the legitimacy of the criminal moves that they have already made…Cheney is Bush’s insurance, just as [Spiro T.] Agnew was [President Richard M.] Nixon’s [during Watergate, in 1973]. (4)

Read More at SF-Indy Media

No Justification for Delay

Mission Control wrote this in the early evening:

By Dave Lindorff

One of the most common criticisms I get when I discuss the impeachment issue among Democrats and progressives is that I’m impatient and that I’m asking too much of the new Congress–that Democrats need time to get settled into their new role as majority party.

As one person wrote in a comment to my latest essay in Daily Kos, calling for immediate action to end the war and to initiate impeachment proceedings, “…let the subpoenas do their work, the committees get the dirt…. These hearings will shatter the Republican Party for years to come. Let the process work.”

The problem with this go-slow line of thinking is two-fold.

First of all, it assumes that the Congressional Democrats and especially the party leaders want the process to work. And that is taking a lot for granted.

Clearly, Congress has the power to force a halt to the war in Iraq. The Democrats in Congress claim that they heard the voters in November and that they want the war wound down and the troops brought home, but then the same people whine that they don’t have the power to cut funding for further war, and that they don’t have the power to stop Bush from sending in more troops and expanding the war. This is nonsense! It’s not power they lack; it’s spine. Increasing troop levels in Iraq by 20,000 or more is increasing the troop numbers by over 15 percent, which certainly qualifies as a “substantial” increase, and means that the War Powers Act is in play. According to that act, Bush must first gain Congressional approval for the escalation, and if he goes ahead without that approval, he is committing an impeachable crime. Clearly too, Congress, which has the power of the purse under the Constitution, can say how it wants that money used. If the House and Senate were to allocate money to the war effort but with the stipulation that it could only be used for purposes of organizing a safe departure from Iraq, that would be all that the Pentagon would be allowed to do with the money.

Read More at BuzzFlash.com

Kennedy Will Not “Surge”

Mission Control wrote this in the early evening:

by John Nichols, The Nation

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, is today introducing legislation to uniquivocally “prohibit the use of funds for an escalation of United States forces in Iraq above the numbers existing as of January 9, 2007.”

Kennedy voted against authorizing President Bush to invade Iraq and he has been a consistent critic of the war. But this targeted piece of legislation specifically addresses the “surge” being proposed by the president.

Even more importantly, Kennedy’s bill reasserts the role of Congress in a time of war. The Constitution allows the president to serve as commander-in-chief and affords him reasonable war-making powers in that role. But it reserves for Congress the power of the purse, and the founders were clear in their believe that the House and Senate should use that power to constrain a president who is waging war without reason or sound strategies.

The Congress has frequently used the power of the purse to control presidential war-making. Kennedy points to examples from the Vietnam era, but there are also examples from just the past quarter century of the Congress specifically embracing troops caps in Lebanon, in the European NATO countries and in Colombia. Indeed, as the Center for American Progress notes in a detailed new report, “Congressional Limitations and Requirements for Military Deployments and Funding,” the Congress has a rich record of stepping in to prevent presidents from expanding U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts.

Read More at The Nation

McKinney on Conyers investigations “they say they aren’t even going to issue subpoenas.”

Mission Control wrote this terribly early in the morning:

source: indybay.org

Will other members of congress support the action Congresswoman McKinney has brought forth?

At the table in what could be considered her impeachment “war room” the question is brought up a number of times.

Mike, an advisor to McKinney, mentions, “Conyers was supposed to have investigations. They were chomping at the bit 6 months ago to do subpoenas.”

McKinney quietly replies, “Now they say they aren’t even going to issue subpoenas.”

Looking up from her papers she takes a deep breath, “I’m going in alone on this one because now it is all about them playing majority politics.”

CONSTITUTION ON FIRE

Mission Control wrote this late at night:

Senate Passes Detainee Bill

WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 — The Senate approved legislation this evening governing the interrogation and trials of terror suspects, establishing far-reaching new rules in the definition of who may be held and how they should be treated.

The vote, 65-to-34, came after more than 10 hours of often impassioned debate touching on the Constitution, the horrors of Sept. 11 and the nation’s role in the world, but it was also underscored by a measure of politics as Congress prepares to break for the final month of campaigning before closely fought midterm elections.

The legislation sets up rules for the military commissions that will allow the government to prosecute high-level terrorists including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, considered the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. It strips detainees of a habeas corpus right to challenge their detentions in court and broadly defines what kind of treatment of detainees is prosecutable as a war crime.

Read More at The New York Times

DOWNLOAD: Bill Number H.R.6166 for the 109th Congress

Bush Faces Wave of Challenges to Terror Law

The Bush administration yesterday faced a raft of legal challenges to a sweeping new regime for Guantánamo that would deny court oversight to detainees in the war on terror, and would bar prosecution of US personnel for war crimes.

Mr Bush is expected to move within days to sign into law proposals for the treatment and trial before military tribunals of the detainees. The legislation, approved by the senate on Thursday, is a victory for the White House over senate Republicans, who had resisted attempts to relax standards on the treatment of detainees, and depart from standard rules of evidence in their trials.

Read More at Guardian Unlimited, UK

FACT

Subsection 4(b) (26) of section 950v. of HR 6166 - Crimes triable by military commissions - includes the following definition.

“Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct.” (emphasis added)

Response from The Center for Constitutional Rights

“Under this legislation, our clients at Guantánamo and hundreds of others detained by the U.S. around the world may remain locked up for the rest of their lives without ever having a chance to prove their innocence. Congress will be forfeiting one of the founding principles of the democratic tradition, and one of the most basic checks on executive power.

Congress gives the president the power to lock up almost anyone he thinks is a terror threat.

Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman states in the L.A. Times, “The compromise legislation….authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights.”

Read “The White House Warden” at the Los Angeles Times

More coverage:

Bush Given Authority To Sexually Torture American Children (Prison Planet)

Legal Residents’ Rights Curbed in Detainee Bill (Boston Globe)

Continuing the Case for Impeachment

Mission Control wrote this mid-afternoon:

By Elizabeth Holtzman

I want to start with a point I made in my new book, The Impeachment of George W. Bush, about why the framers of the Constitution created the impeachment power.

They were afraid that despite the system of checks and balances, a president could subvert the constitution and threaten our democracy.In other words, the framers anticipated George W. Bush. They knew that sooner or later someone like him–someone who tramples on the rule of law–would appear on the scene. The framers told us what to do about such a president: Impeach him.

Read More at the Huffington Post

As If Bush Owned the World

Mission Control wrote this terribly early in the morning:

By Ron Fullwood

Bush and his warmongering supporters are dangerous for America. Anyone can pick fights, as Bush seems obsessed with doing. The question for America is, are we ready to fight more of Bush’s battles for him? The leaders of the world are lining up against him/us. Only blundering idiots would allow Bush to turn the world into his personal fight club. We’re the ones who are going to end up defending ourselves as we defend against his blundering interference in so many other nation’s affairs. His manufactured mandate supported less by the will of the American people than by his corrupt exercise of the awesome strength of our military and the sacrifices of those who do the fighting and the dying.

That’s why seeking impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney is such an imperative. The ideological battle that we should be waging is against the Bush regime’s hijacking of our country and the crashing of our democracy into the Iraqi desert. Now they want more bodies to fuel their occupations as they plot yet another assault on yet another sovereign nation. It’s clear that Bush won’t pull back from his military slap-fights with eyes closed unless he’s forced to by the American people through the action of our representatives. We have to demand that they step up and hold him accountable, or face removal and censure for their own complicity in the imperious charade.

Read More at OpEdNews.com

Senate Bill Would Sanctify Bush

Mission Control wrote this in the early evening:

By Susan Jones

A bill now pending in the Senate would make the Bush administration’s enemy wiretapping program more practical and flexible, removing all doubt about its legality. But that worries some of Bush’s fiercest critics.

According to one anti-Bush group, the bill “would pardon President Bush for breaking the law by illegally wiretapping innocent Americans without warrants.”

MoveOn.org’s political action committee has accused Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) of caving in to pressure when he introduced a bill that “justifies everything the president did.”

The group quotes Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) as saying that Specter’s bill would “immunize officials who have violated federal law by authorizing such illegal activities.”

Read More at CNSNews.com

Signs of Fear at the White House

Mission Control wrote this in the wee hours:

By Dave Lindorff

The Bush administration’s full-court press against the Constitution is on, with the president getting closer to Senate, and possibly full Congressional approval of his warrantless spying program by the National Security Agency, and with a lobbying campaign on to get his program for kangaroo courts and life-time detention without trial for terror “war” detainees approved by Congress.

It’s staggering to see this happening after a federal court just ruled that NSA spying without a show of probable cause is a violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Fourth Amendment, and after the US Supreme Court just ruled that Bush was in violation of the Geneva Convention on the Treatment of POWs for refusing to treat the detainees at Guantanamo in accordance with US and International Law.

One might think this to be a case of a powerful president just steamrolling the courts and the Congress, but I think it is not a sign of strength, but rather the desperate act of a man who sees impeachment in his future, and who is acting while he can to try to cover up a few of his crimes.

For while the list of this president’s crimes against the Constitution, the Republic and the People of the United States is long and ugly, the truth is that the two areas where he is the most vulnerable to impeachment are precisely the two that he is working so hard now to make go away: the warrantless NSA spying program and the abuse of the detainees at Guantanamo and elsewhere.

This is because the president has already been found, in the first instance by a federal district court judge, and in the second by the full Supreme Court, to be a criminal (if you violate the law, you are by definition a criminal). It’s just that as president he cannot simply be indicted and put on trial. That’s why we have impeachment.

Read More at OpEdNews.com

Bush “Salutes” Constitution

Mission Control wrote this in the late evening:

source: Capitol Hill Blue

The often illegal and un-Constitutional administration of President George W. Bush is not giving up on its program to use the National Security Agency to spy on Americans. The administration Friday asked a federal judge to delay enforcing her order for a halt to the NSA’s warrantless communications surveillance program.

The Justice Department argued that ending the intelligence-gathering program threatens “the gravest of harms to the government and to the American public” and leaves the country “more vulnerable to terrorist attack.”

Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley of George Washington University says the government’s argument is a crock and says the court’s decision, if upheld on appeal, could provide grounds for impeachment of the President.

“This ruling is a bad situation that just got worse for the White House,” says Turley. “These crimes could constitute impeachable offenses.”

Turley says the ruling has “serious implications” for Bush and that the President has violated federal law at least 30 times.

Read More at Capitol Hill Blue

VIDEO: Watch Jonathan Turley Comment on MSNBC

Impeachment or Empire. You Decide.

Mission Control wrote this in the wee hours:

By Sherwood Ross

If anyone knows anything about international law it’s Dr. Francis A. Boyle of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and he’s more than a little ticked off at the moment at President Bush. Dr. Boyle’s credentials are little short of amazing.

He was the expert who drafted the U.S. domestic implementing legislation for the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 — approved unanimously by both Houses of Congress and signed into law by President George H.W. Bush.

Boyle has also served as legal counsel for Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, the Blackfoot Nation of Canada, and as Legal Advisor to the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East Peace Negotiations.

He has written eight books including “Destroying World Order”(Clarity Press) and “Defending Civil Resistance Under International Law.”

Now he’s written an article with a ring of urgency, saying the House of Representatives “must impeach President Bush for war, lying about war, and threatening more wars.”

The Bush Administration “demonstrates little if any respect for fundamental considerations of international law, international organizations, and human rights, let alone appreciation of the requirements for maintaining international peace and security,” Boyle asserts.

“What the world has watched instead is a comprehensive and malicious assault upon the integrity of the international legal order by a group of men and women who are thoroughly Machiavellian in their perception of international relations and in their conduct of both foreign policy and domestic affairs,” Boyle wrote in “The Long Term View: a Journal of Informed Opinion” published by the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover.

Read More at OpEdNews.com