Friday, March 31, 2006
104 Days and Counting
If the President’s legal theory, which is shared by some of our witnesses today, is correct, then FISA is a dead letter, all of the supposed protections for civil liberties contained in the reauthorization of the Patriot Act that we just passed are a cruel hoax, and any future legislation we might pass regarding surveillance or national security is a waste of time and a charade. Under this theory, we no longer have a constitutional system consisting of three co-equal branches of government, we have a monarchy.How much longer will this President be permitted to break the law with the willing assistance of this Congress?
Sunday, March 26, 2006
99 Days and Counting
The National Security Agency could have legally monitored ordinarily confidential communications between doctors and patients or lawyers and their clients, the Justice Department said yesterday of its controversial warrantless surveillance program.As much as some Republicans would like to make this a partisan issue, every day that members of Congress do nothing to stop this crime makes each and everyone of them an accomplice.
Responding to questions from Congress, the department also said it sees no prohibition to using information collected under the NSA's program in court.
Saturday, March 25, 2006
Day 97 and Counting
Hey everyone,Posted by Anonymous to The Impeachment Clock at 3/25/2006 03:15:43 AM
I rarely ever post to draw attention to my shows here, but I thought this weekend’s show was worth doing a little pre-publicity for.
On Sunday, March 26, I have Matt Rothschild, the Editor of The Progressive magazine, as a guest and the topic will be impeachment. Mr. Rothschild has laid out a very convincing case for impeachment of the President, and you can read about it here:
You can also listen to a 16 minute audio recording of Mr. Rothschild laying out the case for impeachment here:
The show starts at 10pm and runs until 12am. If you don’t listen live, you can also go to http://whiterosesociety.org/ATR.html for audio archives of the show, generally available within a couple hours after the program ends. All my archives are there, and also at the website, http://allthingsreconsidered.org
To listen live: http://allthingsreconsidered.org/listenlive.htm You will need either Windows Media Player, Winamp, Itunes, or other streaming media player.
Hope you join me!
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Day 89 and Counting
SRES 398 ISWhile this reolution is not articles of impeachment, which can only emanate from the House of Representatives, it is a welcome and accurate indictment of Bush's violations of American law.
S. RES. 398
Relating to the censure of George W. Bush.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
March 13, 2006
Mr. FEINGOLD submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
Relating to the censure of George W. Bush.
Whereas Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), and in so doing provided the executive branch with clear authority to wiretap suspected terrorists inside the United States;
Whereas the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 has been amended multiple times since 1978, to expand the surveillance authority of the executive branch and address new technological developments;
Whereas the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 states that it and the criminal wiretap law are the `exclusive means by which electronic surveillance' may be conducted by the United States Government and makes it a crime to wiretap individuals without complying with this statutory authority;
Whereas the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 permits the Government to initiate wiretapping immediately in emergencies as long as the Government obtains approval from the court established under section 103 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803) within 72 hours of initiating the wiretap;
Whereas the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 authorizes wiretaps without the court orders otherwise required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 for the first 15 days following a declaration of war by Congress;
Whereas the Authorization for Use of Military Force that became law on September 18, 2001 (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note), did not grant the President the power to authorize wiretaps of Americans within the United States without obtaining the court orders required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978;
Whereas the President's inherent constitutional authority does not give him the power to violate the explicit statutory prohibition on warrantless wiretaps in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978;
Whereas George W. Bush, President of the United States, has authorized and continues to authorize wiretaps by the National Security Agency of Americans within the United States without obtaining the court orders required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978;
Whereas President George W. Bush has failed to inform the full congressional intelligence committees about this program, as required by the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401 et seq.);
Whereas President George W. Bush repeatedly misled the public prior to the public disclosure of the National Security Agency surveillance program by indicating his Administration was relying on court orders to wiretap suspected terrorists inside the United States, by stating--
(1) on April 20, 2004, that `When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so.';
(2) on July 14, 2004, that `the government can't move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order'; and
(3) on June 9, 2005, that `Law enforcement officers need a federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone, a federal judge's permission to track his calls, or a federal judge's permission to search his property. Officers must meet strict standards to use any of these tools.';
Whereas President George W. Bush has, since the public disclosure of the National Security Agency surveillance program, falsely implied that the program was necessary because the executive branch did not have authority to wiretap suspected terrorists inside the United States, by making statements about the supposed need for the program, including--
(1) on January 25, 2006, stating at the National Security Agency that `When terrorist operatives are here in America communicating with someone overseas, we must understand what's going on if we're going to do our job to protect the people. The safety and security of the American people depend on our ability to find out who the terrorists are talking to, and what they're planning. In the weeks following September the 11th, I authorized a terrorist surveillance program to detect and intercept al Qaeda communications involving someone here in the United States.'; and
(2) on January 31, 2006, asserting during the State of the Union that `The terrorist surveillance program has helped prevent terrorist attacks. It remains essential to the security of America. If there are people inside our country who are talking with al Qaeda, we want to know about it, because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again.'; and
Whereas President George W. Bush inaccurately stated in his January 31, 2006, State of the Union address that `Previous Presidents have used the same constitutional authority I have, and federal courts have approved the use of that authority.', even though the President has failed to identify a single instance since the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 became law in which another President has authorized wiretaps inside the United States without complying with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, and no Federal court has evaluated whether the President has the inherent authority to authorize wiretaps inside the United States without complying with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the United States Senate does hereby censure George W. Bush, President of the United States, and does condemn his unlawful authorization of wiretaps of Americans within the United States without obtaining the court orders required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, his failure to inform the full congressional intelligence committees as required by law, and his efforts to mislead the American people about the authorities relied upon by his Administration to conduct wiretaps and about the legality of the program.
Monday, March 13, 2006
Day 86 and Counting
Impeachment NowAct Now on Impeachment!
Tomorrow the President of the United States will visit the Rochester area. Yesterday, Senator Feingold called for the Senate to censure the President for his illegal spying on Americans. It was 85 days ago that Congressman John Conyers introduced House Resolution 635: A resolution creating a select committee ... to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment. Now is the time for our Congressional representatives to get behind Conyers and Feingold.
On December 19, 2005, I heard George W. Bush say that he authorized a program of illegal intercepts in 2001; that he had reauthorized this program more than 30 times since; and that he intends to continue this illegal activity in the future. Since then, the President, the Vice President and the Attorney General have lied about the supposed legal basis for this illegal activity. Every other competent lawyer has said that it is a violation of the law of the land.
If we are silent now, we are complicit in this impeachable violation of American law.
Sunday, March 12, 2006
Day 85 and Counting
Day 84 and Counting
“There has been massive support for House Resolution 635 from a very vigorous network of grassroots activists and people committed to holding the Bush Administration accountable for its widespread abuses of power,” US Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) said in a statement prepared for Atlanta Progressive News.
The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) also released a book, Articles of Impeachment Against President Bush. The Center is extremely influential in high-profile court fights over issues such as wiretapping, the treatment of detainees by the US, and felon voting rights.
“We have the book, we are calling for the impeachment of the President, and we’re supporting Conyers’ resolution,” Bill Goodman, CCR Legal Director, told Atlanta Progressive News.
“The fraudulent basis on which the President got us into the war in Iraq; the obvious criminality of the warrantless wiretapping; indefinite detention in violation of the Constitution; torture as a part of indefinite detention and other ways; special rendition and torture, which is the outsourcing of torture... All of these violate various laws of the US, and they also violate his oath office which he swears to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, and he’s doing just the opposite, he’s undermining the Constitution and attempting to destroy certain parts of it,” Goodman said.
For news on what you can do, read Are you working for impeachment? by Carol Wolman on OpEdNews.com.
Impeachment is a legal, judicial process, the ultimate recourse of "we the people" against tyranny. It has been politicized, and the Republican majority in Congress refuses to let it go forward. "We the people" have the RESPONSIBILITY to vote them out of office in November, and to replace them with honest people who PLEDGE DURING THEIR CAMPAIGN that they will work to impeach Bush and Cheney as soon as they take office.
Friday, March 10, 2006
Day 83 and Counting
David S. Kris, a former associate deputy attorney general who now works at Time Warner Inc., concludes that a National Security Agency domestic spying program is clearly covered by a 1978 law governing clandestine surveillance, according to a legal analysis and e-mails sent to current Justice officials.An illegal act plus a concerted effort to cover the trail equals a criminal conspiracy!
Kris, who oversaw national security issues at Justice from 2000 until he left the department in 2003, also wrote that the Bush administration's contention that Congress had authorized the NSA program by approving the use of force against al-Qaeda was a "weak justification" unlikely to be supported by the courts.
Kris acknowledged in his paper that many facts about the program are not known, suggesting that he was not briefed on the NSA program despite his senior position at Justice during the first two years of its existence. But he says that many of the key arguments made by the Justice Department in favor of the program's legality do not hold up under scrutiny.
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Day 75 and Counting
I think the administration chose not to go to Congress in the first place because it feared that any significant departures from FISA would trigger Fourth Amendment challenges which, if successful, would erect permanent legal barriers to certain surveillance practices.Take that, Troll!