Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: geode00 who wrote (52279)	1/24/2006 7:39:29 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

Some activists, politicians speaking openly about impeachment By Jim Puzzanghera Knight Ridder Newspapers Posted on Tue, Jan. 24, 2006 contracostatimes.com WASHINGTON - The word "impeachment" is popping up increasingly these days and not just off the lips of liberal activists spouting predictable bumper-sticker slogans. After the unfounded claims about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and recent news of domestic spying without warrants, mainstream politicians and ordinary voters are talking openly about the possibility that President Bush could be impeached. So is at least one powerful Republican senator, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. So far, it's just talk. And with Republicans controlling Congress - and memories still fresh of the bitter fight and national distraction inflamed by former President Clinton's 1998 impeachment - even the launching of an official inquiry is a very long shot. But a poll released last week by Zogby International showed 52 percent of American adults thought Congress should consider impeaching Bush if he wiretapped U.S. citizens without court approval, including 59 percent of independents and 23 percent of Republicans. (The survey had a margin of error of 2.9 percentage points.) With numbers like that, impeachment could become an issue in this fall's congressional elections - and dramatically raise the stakes. If Democrats win control of the House of Representatives, a leading proponent of starting an official impeachment inquiry, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., would become chairman of the House committee that could pursue it. Conyers introduced legislation last month to create a special panel to investigate the Bush administration's alleged manipulation of pre-Iraq war intelligence and "make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment." He's not the only one dropping the "I word." A day later, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., wrote to four presidential scholars asking whether domestic spying by the National Security Agency was an impeachable offense. Former Vice President Al Gore said last week that the NSA wiretapping could be an impeachable offense. He delivered a blistering speech accusing Bush of "breaking the law repeatedly and insistently" and calling for a special counsel investigation and for Congress to stand up to the Bush White House. Impeachment also came up at a televised town-hall-style forum in San Francisco on Jan. 14 by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Some in the audience chanted for Bush's ouster and booed when the San Francisco Democrat said she wouldn't sign on to Conyers' bill. "I think that we should solve this issue electorally," said Pelosi, who told the crowd to channel its energy toward electing a Democratic House majority. Bush contends that he holds authority as commander in chief to order the eavesdropping on international calls of terrorism suspects without court approval. He also claims that Congress' resolution authorizing him to use force against terrorists implicitly authorized his NSA spying. But a 1978 law requires court-issued warrants for wiretapping people in the United States. And many in Congress, along with the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, said Bush is on shaky legal ground in ordering NSA spying without warrants as required by that 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Tucker Bounds, a Republican National Committee official, said talk of impeachment is "nonsense." But asked Jan. 15 what recourse there would be if Bush broke or ignored the law in authorizing wiretaps, Senate Judiciary Committee chair Specter mentioned impeachment. "I'm not suggesting remotely that there's any basis, but you're asking, really, theory, what's the remedy?" he said on ABC's "This Week." "Impeachment is the remedy." Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., said of a Bush impeachment, "I'm not saying it would happen, but I think it should be explored." She was one of a handful of House members to co-sponsor Conyers' bill, which is unlikely to get a hearing or vote as long as Republicans rule the House of Representatives. Stanford University historian Jack Rakove, a constitutional expert, said breaking the law on domestic spying would qualify as an impeachable offense, but that Congress should be hesitant to pursue it. The Clinton impeachment was a major distraction for the nation, he said. Some have suggested it hurt the U.S. effort against al-Qaida before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Despite such concerns, some liberal activists say it's time to impeach Bush. Bob Fertik, president of Democrats.com, has formed ImpeachPAC to fund campaigns of congressional candidates who support impeachment. It has raised more than $52,000 in 10 weeks. "If the truth comes out," Fertik said, "there will be an open-and-shut case for a high crime of breaking the law."

To: geode00 who wrote (52279)	1/29/2006 6:10:49 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 93284

Daily news about the coming fall of Bush, Blair and other war criminals & dictators... marcosolo.journalspace.com Voice of the White House January 27, 2006 Category: Bush-Lies posted on:01/28/06 [ my mood: here we go... ] TBR News.com "I know from the private Republican polls (the ones you never see and never get into the media) that they are in serious danger of losing control of the government come November. The problem is that although the rank and file, and the leadership, know this, they cannot communicate to Bush that sea changes have to be made, at least cosmetic ones, or public anger will get to the point that impeachment is a probability. Frankly, our President is a nut. He won't listen to anyone and does what he wants. The stupid twit actually believes he is some kind of God and can do anything he likes whenever he likes it. Thank God Bush doesn't get the urge to shoot a hunting rifle at passing tourists. His bizarre and distasteful sex life coupled with his binge drinking makes him a true menace. People thought a lecherous Clinton was bad but this one makes Clinton look like St. Vincent DePaul by comparison. The leadership has more or less decided that since Bush will not change, he will simply have to go to save the rest of them or, if they are ideologues, for the common good. For themselves, not necessarily for the American people. Although Bush stubbornly refuses to release any document which he feels might make him look bad, others are doing just that. Tens of thousands of pages of memos, reports, notes, tapes, and all kinds of priceless milestones on George W. Bush's journey to the underworld are being assembled and studied for possible "leaks." I have seen some of these and am now going to do my frightened friends a huge favor by publishing some of the more awful ones. For example: According to in-house memos now circulating, the DHS has issued orders to banks across America which announce to them that "under the Patriot Act" (whatever that crap means) the DHS has the absolute right to seize, without any warrant whatsoever, any and all customer bank accounts, to make "periodic and unannounced" visits to any bank to open and inspect the contents of "selected safe deposit boxes." Further, these boxes, taken from a DHS list of people who are considered "hostile to the present government, citizens who have visited outside the United States before or after 9/11 to countries now considered to be hostile to this country?" " :Russia, Peoples Republic of China, Mexico, Guatemala, Spain, Italy, Egypt, France, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Turkey or the Sudan?" or any citizen who has a bank account in any of those listed countries are considered to be of legitimate interest in the "ongoing investigations into foreign and domestic terrorism." Further, the DHA "shall, at the discretion of the agent supervising the search, remove, photograph or seize as evidence?" any of the following items?"bar gold, gold coins, firearms of any kind unless manufactured prior to 1878, documents such as passports or foreign bank account records, pornography or any material that, in the opinion of the agent, shall be deemed of to be of a contraband nature." DHS memos also state that banks are informed that any bank employee, on any level, that releases "improper" "classified DHS Security information" to any member of the public, to include the customers whose boxes have been clandestinely opened and inspected and "any other party, to include members of the media" and further "that the posting of any such information on the internet will be grounds for the immediate termination of the said employee or employees and their prosecution under the Patriot Act." Currently, the two major targets of these completely illegal and warrantless searches and seizures, are the California-based Bank of America and the Compass Bank. The former is one of the largest banks in the United States and Compass Bank ( Compass Bancshares, Inc). is a $30.1 billion Southwestern financial holding company which operates 385 full-service banking centers including 139 in Texas, 89 in Alabama, 73 in Arizona, 42 in Florida, 32 in Colorado and 10 in New Mexico. Of extraordinary interest to the DHS are Bank of America records relating to their Bank Of America <>'SafeSend Money to Mexico'<> program. It should be noted that the DHS states that "in the event that the owners of these confiscated objects do not file an administrative complaint within three (3) months subsequent to said confiscation, the aforesaid items shall pass to the permanent custody of the DHS" Isn't that wonderful? You and your wife are visiting relatives in France, Uncle Einar's $100,000 collection of gold coins is lifted out of your box and you don't get back to the United States for two months and don't check your looted box for another four months. My, some nice DHS person, or maybe two, has a nice new BMW to show off to his neighbors. Tough luck, Uncle Einar! Oh, and you might like to know that the spate of "robberies" of bank credit card and personal data that took place in and around February of 2005, were not robberies at all. The DHS, using its muscle, simply went off with trucks full of data to mine at their leisure. The banks involved said nothing, and will say nothing. If they do, their people will be at a nice Federal country club, making shoes for the Army while the DHS bosses, to include the FEMA thieves, will be buying property on Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills or Palm Desert. Or some nice marina like Marine del Ray to keep their nice new 150' yacht. To date, in California alone (the only report I have seen) over 1,500 banks have been "visited" and boxes rifled between January, 2005 and January, 2006. Next time, something about DARPA to amuse and entertain you all." tbrnews.org See our Inside the White House archive: thetruthseeker.co.uk

To: geode00 who wrote (52279)	1/30/2006 10:28:31 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

Impeaching the President by David Coffee wnymedia.net

To: geode00 who wrote (52279)	3/10/2006 9:33:31 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93284

Oversight by Capitulation By Robert Parry* consortiumnews.com March 10, 2006 Despite a dip in his opinion polls, George W. Bush’s transformation of the United States into an authoritarian society continues apace, with new “compromises” with Congress actually consolidating his claims to virtually unlimited executive power. Bush’s latest success came as part of a supposed “concession” to Congress that would grant two new Republican-controlled seven-member subcommittees narrow oversight of Bush’s warrantless wiretapping of Americans. While “moderate” Republican senators – Mike DeWine of Ohio, Olympia Snowe of Maine, and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska – hailed the plan as a retreat by the White House, the deal actually blesses Bush’s authority to bypass the courts in spying on Americans and imposes on him only a toothless congressional review process. Indeed, the congressional plan may make matters worse, broadening the permissible scope of Bush’s wiretaps to include Americans deemed to be “working in support of a terrorist group or organization.” Given Bush’s record of stretching words to his advantage – and his claim that anyone who isn’t “with us” is with the terrorists – the vague concept of “working in support” could open almost any political critic of the Bush administration to surveillance. Plus, the only check on abuses would be the closed-door oversight work of the seven-member panels, which would only be informed of a warrantless wiretap after it had been in place for 45 days. Republicans also would have four of the seven seats on each subcommittee and any dissent from the minority Democrats would be kept secret. In other words, the plan would let Bush and his Republican congressional loyalists conduct wiretaps of anyone whose activities might be called supportive of terrorists, while any Democratic critic would be muzzled from saying anything publicly under penalty of law. Chilling Powers Under such an arrangement, it would not be difficult to envision the wiretapping of journalists writing critical articles about the abuse of terrorism suspects, or of disarmament experts who disagree with Bush’s claims about some “rogue” state’s weapons of mass destruction, or of a political rival who challenges Bush’s interpretation of his Commander-in-Chief powers. Indeed, many Bush supporters have lobbed accusations of “treason” against the likes of journalist Seymour Hersh, weapons inspector Scott Ritter and former Vice President Al Gore – because they have presented information that clashes with Bush’s agenda. Other influential Republicans, such as Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, have urged Bush to move aggressively against suspected “fifth columnists” inside the United States who supposedly sympathize with the enemy. Graham also has called on Bush to use high-tech surveillance techniques to “map the battlefield electronically,” which in the Internet Age means going beyond assessing the physical battlefield to examine the political connections among potential enemies so they can be neutralized at a time of crisis. “Here’s where I think I’m your biggest fan,” Graham told Attorney General Alberto Gonzales during Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Feb. 6. “During the time of war, the administration has the inherent power, in my opinion, to surveil the enemy and to map the battlefield electronically – not just physical, but to electronically map what the enemy is up to by seizing information and putting that puzzle together. “And the administration has not only the right, but the duty, in my opinion, to pursue Fifth Column movements,” Graham said. “I stand by this President’s ability, inherent to being Commander in Chief, to find out about Fifth Column movements, and I don’t think you need a warrant to do that.” Though the Bush administration has denied abusing its four-year-old warrantless wiretapping program, it has been unwilling to give details about the numbers of people swept up in the surveillance or define the precise criteria for who’s wiretapped. Bush has insisted that the wiretaps are limited to the international communications of people in the United States who have gotten calls from al-Qaeda or its affiliates. Newspaper investigations, however, indicate the spying is much more extensive than Bush has admitted. The New York Times and the Washington Post have reported that the wiretapping by the National Security Agency has scooped up communications from thousands of innocent Americans. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Talkin’ Texan Means Lyin’ Big.”] Investigation Blocked Congressional Democrats have called for an investigation to ascertain the scope of the warrantless wiretaps before addressing the administration’s assertion that the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act doesn’t give the nation’s spy agencies the flexibility they need. But congressional Republicans and the White House torpedoed plans for an investigation and instead began drafting legislation that would effectively endorse Bush’s claim to an unfettered right to bypass the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of a court order before a legal search can be conducted. The new legislation, sponsored by Sen. DeWine, would permit the N.S.A. to intercept international phone calls and e-mails of U.S. residents if the administration saw “probable cause to believe that one party to the communication is a member, affiliate, or working in support of a terrorist group or organization.” [NYT, March 9, 2006] After 45 days, the law would require the Attorney General to take one of three steps: end the wiretap, get a warrant from the secret FISA court, or inform the new oversight panels about the wiretap. White House spokesman Dana Perino said the administration was willing to give the new seven-member panels information about the wiretaps but that the members would be prohibited from divulging what they learn. [Washington Post, March 9, 2006] Congressional Democrats have criticized the DeWine plan as insufficient to prevent violations of civil liberties. Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Congress first needed to exercise its responsibility to conduct oversight of the Executive Branch. “It is ‘undersight’ when they tell us what they want us to know,” Rockefeller told the Washington Post. “It’s ‘oversight’ when we know enough to ask our own questions.” However, with hard-line Republicans like Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts of Kansas joining with more moderate Republicans like Snowe and Hagel, the Democrats appear to have been out-flanked and out-muscled again. A similar process occurred in December 2005 when Congress passed legislation outlawing cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees in U.S. custody. But an amendment, promoted by Graham and co-sponsored by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., limited legal appeals that Guantanamo Bay inmates could make in U.S. courts. Bush administration lawyers have since gone into federal court, citing the Graham-Levin amendment to prevent Guantanamo detainees from stopping alleged torture. In other words, the anti-torture law is being interpreted as granting Bush the sole right to decide how to interpret its provisions and when to enforce them. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Bush Flummoxes Kafka, Orwell.”] The legislation on warrantless wiretaps now promises to be the next White House “concession” that will, in reality, consolidate Bush’s autocratic power in what looks like an inexorable march toward an end of the American democratic Republic. *Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'