HA! I get it, too...
Here is a little something to take the "edge" off.
****
McKinney Introduces Bill to Impeach Bush
By Ben Evans
The Associated Press
Friday 08 December 2006
Washington - In what was likely her final legislative act in Congress, outgoing Georgia Rep. Cynthia McKinney announced a bill Friday to impeach President Bush.
The legislation has no chance of passing and serves as a symbolic parting shot not only at Bush but also at Democratic leaders. Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has made clear that she will not entertain proposals to sanction Bush and has warned the liberal wing of her party against making political hay of impeachment.
McKinney, a Democrat who drew national headlines in March when she struck a Capitol police officer, has long insisted that Bush was never legitimately elected. In introducing her legislation in the final hours of the current Congress, she said Bush had violated his oath of office to defend the Constitution and the nation's laws.
McKinney has made no secret of her frustration with Democratic leaders since voters ousted her from office in the Democratic primary this summer. In a speech Monday at George Washington University, she accused party leaders of cowing to Republicans on the war in Iraq and on military mistreatment of prisoners.
McKinney, who has not discussed her future plans, has increasingly embraced her image as a controversial figure.
She has hosted numerous panels on Sept. 11 conspiracy theories and suggested that Bush had prior knowledge of the terrorist attacks but kept quiet about it to allow friends to profit from the aftermath. She introduced legislation to establish a permanent collection of rapper Tupac Shakur's recordings at the National Archives and calling for a federal investigation into his killing.
But it was her scuffle with a Capitol police officer that drew the most attention. McKinney struck the officer when he tried to stop her from entering a congressional office building. The officer did not recognize McKinney, who was not wearing her member lapel pin.
A grand jury in Washington declined to indict McKinney over the clash, but she eventually apologized before the House.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congresswoman McKinney Files Articles of Impeachment
By Matt Pascarella
t r u t h o u t | Report
Friday 08 December 2006
On Monday, gathering in a conference room in Washington, DC, Georgia congresswoman Cynthia McKinney and her advisors worked on a draft copy of articles of impeachment against President Bush.
At the heart of the charges contained in McKinney's articles of impeachment is the allegation that President Bush has not upheld the oath of presidential office and is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.
Article I states that President Bush has failed to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. Specifically cited in this article is the charge that Bush has manipulated intelligence and lied to justify war: "George Walker Bush … in preparing the invasion of Iraq, did withhold intelligence from the Congress, by refusing to provide Congress with the full intelligence picture that he was being given, by redacting information … and actively manipulating the intelligence on Iraq's alleged weapons programs by pressuring the Central Intelligence Agency and other intelligence agencies."
This manipulation of intelligence was done, the charge continues, "with the intent to misinform the people and their representatives in Congress in order to gain their support for invading Iraq, denying both the people and their representatives in Congress the right to make an informed choice."
Article II, "Abuse of office and of executive privilege," states that President Bush has disregarded his oath of office by "obstructing and hindering the work of Congressional investigative bodies and by seeking to expand the scope of the powers of his office." The president has "failed to take responsibility for, investigate or discipline those responsible for an ongoing pattern of negligence, incompetence and malfeasance to the detriment of the American people."
This article continues by indicting Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in their actions to manipulate or "fix" intelligence and mislead the public about Iraq's weapons programs. Ultimately, this article calls not only for Bush's impeachment and removal from office but also asks the same actions to be taken against Cheney and Rice.
Article III states that President Bush has failed to "ensure the laws are faithfully executed" and that he has "violated the letter and spirit of laws and rules of criminal procedure used by civilian and military courts, and has violated or ignored regulatory codes and practices that carry out the law."
Specifically, McKinney cites illegal domestic spying as a result of failing to obtain warrants thereby subverting Congress and the judiciary in the process: "… by circumventing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act courts established by Congress, whose express purpose is to check such abuses of executive power, provoking the presiding judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to file a complaint and another judge to resign in protest, the said program having been subsequently ruled illegal; he has also concealed the existence of this unlawful program of spying on American citizens from the people and all but a few of their representatives in Congress, even resorting to outright public deceit."
The article continues by citing public statements Bush has made that were blatantly contradictory to his policy and actions regarding domestic spying.
While the staff was editing the document, one advisor told me, "As we sat down and worked on this, a pattern became very clear … a pattern to specifically undermine the Constitution and establish a unitary presidency."
The charges addressed in McKinney's resolution are nothing revelatory or new. Rather, they are issues which have been in the public eye for quite some time and have increasingly been covered in the media over the last year.
Despite winning the Congressional majority, the Democrats have yet to put forth a plan to investigate what have become somewhat ubiquitous allegations.
Speaker-Elect and Congresswoman Pelosi dismissed any possibility of impeachment, saying it is "off the table" and that it is "a waste of time … making them lame-ducks is good enough for me," although, in the November election, 60 percent of the voters in her own district cast ballots in favor of Proposition J, a measure calling for the impeachment of President Bush.
In 2005, Congressman John Conyers sponsored a resolution, HR 365, to create a special committee to investigate allegations against the Bush administration - a move that would likely lead to the discovery of impeachable offenses. This resolution was passed to the House Committee on Rules and was never brought up for a vote.
At that time it was widely believed that if the Democrats took control of Congress, Conyers would reintroduce the resolution since he would have subpoena power if selected as leader of the House Judiciary Committee.
A few days after the Democrats won control, Conyers echoed Pelosi's statement, saying, "I am in total agreement with her on this issue … impeachment is off the table." Last week, a spokesperson from Conyers's office said that the resolution would not be reintroduced and that the congressman had no intention to pursue the matter.
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."
This is McKinney's last week as a member of Congress and this act, to impeach the president, is the final resolution she will enter into the Congressional record.
For those who know anything about Cynthia McKinney, it may come as no surprise that she would file this resolution as her parting gift to Congress.
McKinney is no stranger to being attacked by the media and has been isolated from her own party.
From her inquiries into election fraud in 2000 to her calls for a transparent and thorough investigation into 9/11, not to mention the widely covered run-in she had with the Capitol Hill Police, the congresswoman is aware that this resolution will likely be ignored and that she will be ruthlessly attacked upon its filing.
"What do you think they are going to do to me this time?" she asks her staff. Everyone uncomfortably shifts in their seats, and after no answer comes, McKinney explains: "We have to do this because this is simply the right thing to do. The American people do want to hold this man and his office accountable for the crimes they have committed, and if no member of Congress is willing to do it, than I will."
It is questionable as to how effective this move could be in gaining support because of her reputation as a firebrand congresswoman and because, ultimately, she is on her way out of office.
The congresswoman and her staff realize this, but hope that by filing the articles of impeachment it will, at the very least, open up a discussion on whether or not President Bush and key members of his administration have committed impeachable offenses and whether our officials should be held to account.
"My duty as a member of Congress is merely to uphold and preserve the Constitution and to represent the will of my constituency. Ultimately, it isn't up to me or any other member of Congress - it is up to the American people to decide."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Pascarella is a freelance journalist & producer who was present during the drafting of the Articles of Impeachment that Congresswoman McKinney filed today.
truthout.org
Have some more!
***
from the December 08, 2006 edition - The Christian Science Monitor
Suit by Iraqis and Afghans claims Rumsfeld ordered torture
The Justice Department has asked the judge to throw out the ACLU-supported case against the former defense secretary.
By Warren Richey | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON
As Donald Rumsfeld prepares to leave his job as secretary of Defense, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is seeking to hold him responsible for what it says was widespread torture carried out at his direction. [Editor's Note: The original version was changed because the American Civil Liberties Union says its civil suit is not intended to prove a war crime.]
Lawyers representing Mr. Rumsfeld and three US Army commanders are set to appear in federal court here Friday in response to a lawsuit charging that the Defense secretary authorized torture and other illegal abuse of military detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq - including at the infamous Abu Ghraib prison.
The case is important because it represents an attempt to hold US officials accountable for alleged illegal abuse of Iraqi and Afghan civilians who were never detained as enemy combatants or charged with any crime. But some legal analysts say the suit may be aimed more at shaping public opinion than winning in court because such cases are difficult to pursue.
The Justice Department lawyers representing Rumsfeld have not responded directly to the torture charges. Instead, they are asking Chief US District Court Judge Thomas Hogan to throw the suit out because Rumsfeld is entitled to immunity from lawsuits challenging his official actions as Defense secretary. Chief Judge Hogan has scheduled two hours of argument on the dismissal request.
The five Iraqi citizens and four Afghan citizens identified in the suit claim that they were subject to beatings, cutting with knives, sexual humiliation, confinement in a wooden box, sleep deprivation, mock executions, and stress positions, the suit says.
"The secretary of Defense personally issued orders and authorized illegal interrogation techniques and caused torture," says ACLU lawyer Lucas Guttentag. "[Rumsfeld] was directly and personally involved."
Mr. Guttentag says that Rumsfeld also "failed to take the required actions to stop abuse in the face of overwhelming uncontroverted evidence that he received and was aware of."
The Defense secretary had been notified of the abuses via Red Cross reports, human rights organization reports, military internal reports, and FBI reports, according to documents obtained by the ACLU under the Freedom of Information Act, Guttentag says.
In addition to Rumsfeld, the suit names Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, commander of coalition forces in Iraq in 2003 and 2004, Col. Janis Karpinski, commander of the military unit that ran detention facilities in Iraq, and Col. Thomas Pappas, commander of the military unit that gathered intelligence in Iraq.
The civil suit was filed by lawyers with the ACLU and Human Rights First. It says Rumsfeld and the officers violated constitutional protections, international law, and the Geneva Conventions. The suit seeks compensatory damages and a judicial declaration that the legal rights of the detainees were violated under the Constitution, the Geneva accords, and other international law.
Government lawyers counter that Iraqi and Afghan citizens do not enjoy rights under the US Constitution or the Geneva Conventions to sue senior US officials for official actions taken overseas.
"I think it is a very uphill battle for the litigants here. I don't think this case is going to go very far," says Scott Silliman, a Duke University law professor and director of the Center on Law, Ethics and National Security.
"When you are dealing with the secretary of Defense what you have got to do is show that he was so far outside the scope of his duties as to be culpable," Professor Silliman says. "That is a hard standard to meet."
What makes it a particularly hard standard, Silliman and other legal analysts say, is that Rumsfeld was authorizing new interrogation techniques at the same time Justice Department lawyers were issuing legal memos justifying harsh, coercive interrogation tactics.
To prevail, ACLU lawyers must show that Rumsfeld knew what the law required and intentionally ignored those clearly established requirements. Short of that, Rumsfeld is entitled to immunity, says Richard Samp, a national security and constitutional law expert at the Washington Legal Foundation. "I've seen no document that says 'I hereby command you to inflict the following torture on individuals.' "
Others say immunity is not warranted in Rumsfeld's case. "Accountability, not immunity, for the conduct of military personnel within defendants' command is fundamental to military law, discipline and the law of war," writes Sidney Rosdeitcher in a friend-of-the-court brief filed on behalf of a group of military law experts.
Although allegations in the suit are the equivalent of war crimes, it is a civil case, not a criminal one. Only the US government is empowered to prosecute war crimes in criminal court or before a military court. Various commissions identified command-level problems as contributing to interrogation abuses, but government prosecution has focused on punishing "rogue individuals."
csmonitor.com
truthout.org |
