Wednesday, July 12, 2006
207 Days and Counting
David Swanson over at OpEdNews was more successful than Diogenes of ancient Greece in finding an honest man. The man is none other than Texas Congressman Ron Paul who Swanson writes about in Republican Congressman Says Bush Should Be Removed from Office.
A radio show reported yesterday that Republican Texas Congressman Ron Paul said the following:I'd like to second Swanson's motion and invite you to write an encouraging email to Congressman Paul and get the bipartisan impeachment ball rolling!
"I would have trouble arguing that he's been a Constitutional President, and once you violate the Constitution and be proven to do that I think these people should be removed from office."
And this: "Congress has generously ignored the Constitution while the President flaunts it, the courts have ignored it and they get in the business of legislating so there's no respect for the rule of law."
And Paul said the United States had entered a period of "soft fascism."
I phoned up Congressman Paul's communications director [Jeff Deist] in Washington this morning. More than confirming this report, I wanted to ask Rep. Paul why he would declare that the President should be removed from office, yet fail to introduce an article of impeachment or even sign onto Congressman John Conyers' (D., Mich.) bill, H. Res. 635, to create a preliminary investigation.
While Deist made it very clear through his defensiveness and hostility that I'd never get an interview on this topic, I'm not sure it wouldn't have an impact if, say, 10,000 people sent an Email to that address thanking Paul for his statements and asking him to do more than talk. Can you do that please?
Sunday, July 09, 2006
203 Days and Counting
I want to take this opportunity to move a reader's comment right up here to the first page. Yes, my friends, it's just too good to hide.
My most faithful commenter, the City Troll, wrote the following in reply to another commenter's thoughts on the recent US Supreme Court decision (Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, available in PDF here) striking down Bush's attempt to use military commissions to try detainees.
The Supremes decision did NOT say that they had to be tried by a court of law, what it said was that the President didn't have the authority to make the decision on how they should be tried, they said that is the job of congress.It is heart warming to see that the Troll supports my position on the legal grounds for Impeachment. The President's wishes to conduct foreign surveillance as he is now doing would be legal except for the fact that Congress already stepped up to the plate and created rules for conducting foreign surveillance when it passed FISA.
The question is will congress step up to the plate and create rules for trying combatents that were traditionaly defined as spies/terrorists under the Geneva conventions (those who engage in battle without a uniform). What the Supremes have done is added a clasification and it is now up to congress to define their treatment, but without that definition like it or not the President's wishes will stand.
Saturday, July 01, 2006
195 Days and Counting
See Experts: Ruling Weakens Bush Spying Plan in Forbes.
A Supreme Court ruling striking down military commissions seriously weakens the foundation of the Bush administration's domestic surveillance program, critics said Friday.That's one less phony legal argument for the criminal enablers in the House of Representatives to hide behind!
A congressional resolution President Bush relied on in creating commissions is a key rationale for the National Security Agency to listen in on phone calls without first obtaining a judge's permission.
The court "reinforces our view that the NSA operation was unlawful," said George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley. "The Supreme Court cut away the administration's principal legal argument for the NSA operation - the congressional resolution following Sept. 11."
Enacted a week after the Sept. 11 attacks, the congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force resolution cannot be seen as authorization for military commissions, the court ruled.
In January, the Justice Department invoked the resolution 92 times in a 42-page paper designed to quell the outcry that the White House had broken the law with its program of warrantless surveillance. A centerpiece in the administration's counter-attack against its critics, the DOJ entitled the white paper "Legal Authorities Supporting the Activities of the National Security Agency Described By the President."