SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: American Spirit who wrote (74524)3/1/2007 12:05:40 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
David Remnick has a piece on Al Gore in this week's New Yorker that is very well done...

newyorker.com

It's extremely painful to think just how different our world would be IF the Supreme Court had the wisdom to "select" Al Gore as the winner back in 2000...

-----
COMMENT
PARTY TALK
by David Remnick
Issue of 2007-03-05
Posted 2007-02-25

“Saturday Night Live” is erratic in middle age but rarely cruel. An exception came late last spring, when, at the stroke of eleven-thirty, an NBC announcer gravely told the American people to stand by for a “message from the President of the United States,” and Al Gore, surrounded by Oval Office knickknacks, came into focus to deliver what could best be described as an interim report from a parallel, and happier, galaxy. President Gore reviewed some of his actions and their unintended consequences:

In the last six years we have been able to stop global warming. No one could have predicted the negative results of this. Glaciers that once were melting are now on the attack. As you know, these renegade glaciers have already captured parts of upper Michigan and northern Maine. But I assure you: we will not let the glaciers win.

Nor was this the only problem. Although Social Security had been repaired, the cost had been high: the budget surplus was “down to a perilously low eleven trillion dollars.” The price of gas had dropped to nineteen cents a gallon, and the oil companies were hurting. (“I know that I am partly to blame by insisting that cars run on trash.”) After winning the plaudits of a grateful world—and turning Afghanistan into a premier “spring-break destination”—Americans could no longer risk travelling abroad, for fear of “getting hugged.” Even the national pastime was in danger. “But,” Gore added hopefully, “I have faith in baseball commissioner George W. Bush when he says, ‘We will find the steroid users if we have to tap every phone in America!’ ”

The cruelty here was not to Gore, who probably requires no prompting to brood now and then about what might have been, but to the audience. It is worse than painful to reflect on how much better off the United States and the world would be today if the outcome of the 2000 election had been permitted to correspond with the wishes of the electorate. The attacks of September 11, 2001, would likely not have been avoided, though there is ample evidence, in the 9/11 Commission report and elsewhere, that Gore and his circle were far more alert to the threat of Islamist terrorism than Bush and his. But can anyone seriously doubt that a Gore Administration would have meant, well, an alternate universe, in which, say, American troops were sent on a necessary mission in Afghanistan but not on a mistaken and misbegotten one in Iraq; the fate of the earth, not the fate of oil-company executives, was the priority of the Environmental Protection Agency; civil liberties and diplomacy were subjects of attention rather than of derision; torture found no place or rationale?

In increasing numbers, poll results imply, Americans are disheartened by the real and existing Presidency, and no small number also feel regret that Gore—the winner in 2000 of the popular vote by more than half a million ballots, the almost certain winner of any reasonable or consistent count in the state of Florida—ended up the target of what it is not an exaggeration to call a judicial coup d’état. Justice Antonin Scalia routinely instructs those who question his vote in Bush v. Gore to stop their ceaseless whinging. “It’s water over the deck,” he told an audience at Iona College last month. “Get over it.” But it is neither possible nor wise to “get over it.” The historical damage is too profound.

And yet, despite the burden of injury and injustice, Gore, more than any other major Democratic Party figure, including the many candidates assembled for next year’s Presidential nomination, has demonstrated in opposition precisely the quality of judgment that Bush has lacked in office. Gore’s critiques of the Administration’s rush to war in Iraq and of the deceptions used to justify it were early, brave, and correct. On the issue of climate change, of course, he has exercised visionary leadership. With humor and intelligence, and negligible self-pity, he dispensed with the temptations of political martyrdom and became a global Jeremiah. Beginning in the nineteen-eighties, he waged what was at first a fairly lonely campaign to draw attention to the problem; now, as a popularizing propagandist, he has succeeded in registering it as a crisis with nearly everyone, from field-tripping schoolchildren to reality-dubious members of the Administration. With his documentary film, “An Inconvenient Truth,” Gore made the undeniability of the crisis a matter of consensus; thanks largely to him, an environmental issue will be an electoral issue. His secular evangelism has earned him an honored night at the Academy Awards and—almost as glittering—a nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize.

For the moment, Gore has absented himself from the 2008 Presidential race with a deliberately provisional explanation: He has no plans to be a candidate. He doesn’t expect to be a candidate. (Or, as he satirized his language for Jay Leno when talking about his future in the movies, “I just want to clarify: I have no plans to do a nude scene. I have no intention to do a nude scene. I don’t expect to do a nude scene. But I haven’t made a Shermanesque statement about it.”)

Gore’s reluctance is understandable. The balloting in Iowa and New Hampshire is nearly a year away. He is in no rush. He may have shared Bill Clinton’s love of policymaking but not his relish for full-immersion politicking. In the view of former aides still close to him, Gore can’t lose by staying on the electoral sidelines. While Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama start competing––warily at first, and then, inevitably, taking direct aim at one another’s weaknesses––Gore can stand unbruised, nursing the lingering glamour of his popular margin in 2000 and, perhaps, demanding by quiet inference that we take stock of a distinguished public career that began three decades ago, when Gore was a twenty-eight-year-old Vietnam veteran freshly elected to Congress.

If only to take an honest man’s word for it, Gore’s entry into the race is unlikely. Clinton, Obama, Bill Richardson, John Edwards, Joseph Biden, Christopher Dodd—the field already provides a pool of talent and a range of possibilities infinitely more encouraging than the status quo. Moreover, the nomination and election of any one of the first three would take America a long way toward keeping the unfulfilled promise of “We the people”—not least because the appeal of all three is based only incidentally upon gender, race, or ethnic heritage.

If the next few months produce an obvious and relatively intact nominee, fine. Gore can stay active in his new role, and perhaps carry that role further, as a kind of climate czar in a Democratic Administration. But, as someone once said, stuff happens. The campaign may get nasty quickly. Clinton’s Iraq position may prove untenable in any of its iterations. Obama’s youthful charisma may look like inexperience after prolonged exposure to electoral gamesmanship. David Geffen might grow claws. A year is a very long time in politics, especially in the circular shooting contests that the Democrats so often convene.

There will still be Gore, patient and untrammelled. In any case, he will not have embarrassed himself. Post-lock-box, he has developed a keener sense of that. When the writers at “Saturday Night Live” suggested that he take part in a sketch featuring some scatological themes, Gore demurred with a combination of ironic self-preservation and his customary good judgment. “I’m sure this is funny,” he said, “but at the end of this I want to have some bread crumbs left leading back to my dignity.”



To: American Spirit who wrote (74524)3/1/2007 1:32:36 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
"there are those who up till today couldn't fathom that the 9/11 attack was an inside job but todays events in England regarding the BBC film and the supposedly "lost" live newscast from New York proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that 9/11 was scripted. The shit has just hit the fan. No wonder Blair wants to get out of Iraq...before they try him for treason and war crimes"...

Message 23329680

bbc.co.uk



To: American Spirit who wrote (74524)3/1/2007 5:53:52 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Warming Up To Al Gore
______________________________________________________________

By Robert Guttman

03.01.2007

He's back.

He's tan.

He's rested.

But is he ready to run again for president? Give Al Gore credit. He has gone from being known as the man who lost the presidency in 2000 to being the man who just won an Oscar for best documentary for his film entitled An Inconvenient Truth, about the perils of global warming.

Gore has re-invented himself. No he did not invent the Internet and no he did not run a particularly stellar presidential campaign in 2000 even managing to lose his home state of Tennessee.

But he has an Oscar in hand, has been nominated for the Nobel peace prize and has managed to be a successful businessman and entrepreneur in his years out of office.

He has friends not only in Hollywood but in business and labor circles that would be willing to raise funds for a presidential campaign in 2008.

The question has to be asked: Is Gore this popular or are the other Democratic presidential candidates failing to wow the crowd who will eventually vote in the primaries next year?

Does Senator Clinton's high negatives in the 40's mean that she is too polarizing to win the presidency?

Does Senator Obama's lack of experience on the national scene and in foreign policy matters make many Democrats nervous?

Does former Senator John Edwards lack the gravitas needed as a president?

Can New Mexico Bill Richardson raise the necessary funds for a campaign?

Are Senators Joe Biden and Chris Dodd serious candidates?

The former Vice-President of the United States begins to look good again in the eyes of many Democrats who feel the above mentioned candidates just might not have the overall appeal to make it to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in 2008.

The former United States Senator and U.S. Representative from Tennessee certainly has the foreign policy experience needed to be president. Gore is a self-taught arms control expert and has been consistently against the war in Iraq.

He is certainly one of the leading voices speaking out against global warming and in defense of preserving the environment. He has been in the White House for eight years as one of our most active vice-presidents.

As people continue to say, he was groomed by his family to be a president of the United States. On paper Gore looks to be as good or better than any of his fellow Democrats to capture the presidency in 2008.

But, one has to look back at his campaigning skills in 2000 and we see that he has much to be desired. He was stiff and rather smug in 2000. His debate performances were not that good. He appeared condescending towards Bush in the debates.

Gore can come off as somewhat of a preacher. He can be the know-it-all type that we all remember from high school. He is the class president who we admire and respect but not certain we want to be friends with.

Would any sensible person who is now making money, enjoying life, winning Oscars and traveling the world want to give all this up to be in the fishbowl of running again for public office?

The answer would be no. But, then again, anyone running for president is not sensible. And, the one goal that has eluded the former journalist is the presidency.

He was so close in 2000. No one could have expected his re-emergence as a serious presidential possibility for 2008.

Would Gore want to put himself through a campaign again? Would Tipper and his daughters be against another campaign?

If he decides to run again for president and if he doesn't want to be the new William Howard Taft who was a bit on the hefty side Gore will have to begin to lose a little of his new found weight.

Having interviewed Gore when he ran briefly for president in 1988 and again when he was in the Senate I would have to say he is one of the more knowledgeable politicians we have in the country. He has a strong intellectual curiosity. He is a person who likes to learn everything he can about topics in which he has an interest.

He has enough name recognition and access to money that he could wait until later and decide to run if he isn't satisfied with how the Democratic candidates are doing. He could eve run as an independent in the fall of 2008 if he didn't think the chosen Democratic candidate was speaking out enough on the environment or against the war in Iraq.

The decision, of course, in the final analysis is up to Gore. But, it is good to know the former vice-president is out there and could make the race if the current crop of Democratic candidates stumble or fail to excite the crowds as the campaign season continues.

Gore is qualified and has been around the track. However, as everyone in politics knows once you throw your hat in the ring your approval ratings seem to decline.

No pun intended but Gore is a heavyweight now basking in his Oscar glory who could give up his teaching and his corporate boards for another run for the White House. The presidential campaign and our political process would be the better for it.

huffingtonpost.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (74524)3/1/2007 10:59:07 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
A Clear Case for Impeachment

dailykos.com

by Mayor Rocky Anderson [Kos]

Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 07:33:54 PM EST

Dear Kossacks,

This afternoon, I testified before a Washington State Senate committee supporting Sen. Eric Oemig's resolution that calls for Congress to consider impeaching President Bush and Vice President Cheney. I also spoke twice at a rally supporting the impeachment of President Bush. My extended remarks are given below, while my other remarks at the rally and my testimony at the hearing can be read here.

I also submitted to the Washington State Senate a detailed written statement that enumerates a clear and compelling case for the impeachment of President Bush. I appreciate any comments or feedback you may have about this statement.

To restore some modicum of decency and accountability for our nation, and to protect our nation against those who would rule without regard to established law, we must commit ourselves to the rule of law and call for the impeachment and removal from office of President Bush.

:: Mayor Rocky Anderson's diary ::

Remarks of Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson
Rally in Favor of Impeachment of the
President of the United States

Olympia, Washington
March 1, 2007

Part Two

The people of this great nation deserve a government that promotes our interests and is accountable to our laws. Yet Congress and the Bush administration have consistently evinced a deliberate, flagrant, arrogant disrespect for the law and the common good. Rather than pursuing policies that benefit the American people and further the cause of justice and peace, many of our nation’s political leaders have betrayed a breathtaking dedication to a culture of corruption that encourages blatant dishonesty and willful disregard of US and international law. We are here today to raise our voices out of deep concern for our nation – and for our world.

That’s what true patriots do. Patriots speak up when their nation is suffering tragically from corrupt, incompetent, destructive leadership. Patriots demand that their leaders be held accountable to the law and to the electorate. Patriots call on their elected representatives to impeach their president if he abrogates his responsibilities, violates the law, or evinces a cruel disregard for basic principles of human dignity, in violation of international treaty obligations.

Impeachment of the President of the United States is not to be undertaken, as in the case of Andrew Johnson, simply because of partisan disagreements regarding policies or presidential appointments, or, as in the case of Bill Clinton, because of a partisan desire to exploit a personal violation of the law not involving grave breaches of official responsibilities or serious abuses of power. However, impeachment and removal from office, a vital protection against evisceration of the balance of power among the three branches of government and against betrayals of trust and abuses of power injurious to our nation, should be pursued when, as in the case of George W. Bush, a president misleads Congress and the American people in taking our nation to war; authorizes and supports the kidnapping, incarceration without charge, and torture of human beings; demonstrates utter contempt for the rule of law; and blatantly violates fundamental constitutional protections intended to safeguard individuals against governmental abuse.

Many nations throughout history have been ruled by corrupt, despotic, dishonest leaders. To some, this is simply the way of a world in which, as expressed by the ancient Greek historian Thucydides, "the strong do what they will, and the weak do what they must."

Our nation, however, has prided itself since its founding in fighting against, and distinguishing ourselves from, the sort of tyranny, cruel immorality, and disdain for the rule of law exemplified by George W. Bush. Our nation’s moral standing in the world, our nation’s principled commitment to basic freedoms and individual rights, our nation’s essential democracy – all now depend upon a conscientious, non-partisan determination that our representatives in Congress will, with integrity and without partisan bias, make it clear that a president will not be permitted to hold the office he has abused by egregiously violating the trust, the laws, and the essential principles upon which our country was founded and our Constitution was based.

Anything less than full accountability through the impeachment process betrays our history, our principles, and our notion of what it means to be an American. Anything less betrays the sacrifices so many brave men and women have made to secure freedom and the rule of law in our nation and around the world. If Congress continues its pattern of timid inaction and fails to impeach the president, future generations of Americans will have cause to fear the rise of another corrupt president who will find encouragement from President Bush’s legacy of lawless, authoritarian governance and flagrant fraud—and who, as in the case of President Bush, at least so far, will not be held to account.

Consider the corruption and dishonesty that have led our nation into an unnecessary war, based upon false justifications. Consider the lies that have led to the deaths of over 650,000 people, with many more having been seriously maimed, brain damaged, or rendered mentally ill. As a result of this war, our nation’s reputation throughout much of the world has been destroyed. We have many more enemies bent on our destruction than before our invasion of Iraq. And the hatred toward us has grown to the point that it will take many years, perhaps generations, to overcome the loathing created by our invasion and occupation of a Muslim country.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq has been tragic at every level. More than three thousand American lives have been taken; tens of thousands of US servicemen and servicewomen have suffered serious injuries; hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis have been killed and maimed; many billions of dollars have been wasted; our country is viewed throughout much of the world as a rogue nation that ignores with impunity international law and basic principles of decency; and the future safety and security of our children and grandchildren have been placed at great risk because of the increasing hatred and resentment toward our country in much of the Muslim world arising from what is reasonably perceived as an occupation of a Muslim nation.

Our nation was led into this tragedy through dishonesty – either explicit lies or by means of withholding vital information – by President Bush and members of his administration. A few examples make clear the astounding violations of trust and abuses of power by President Bush, each of them meriting impeachment and removal from office.

On September 7, 2002, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and President Bush met with members of the press at Camp David. President Bush referred to a "new" report from the International Atomic Energy Agency—the IAEA—allegedly stating, according to President Bush, that Iraq was "six months away" from building a nuclear weapon. "I don’t know what more evidence we need," stated the President.

He was lying. There was no such report. In fact, numerous IAEA reports consistently denied any indication that Iraq had any nuclear capability, and the IAEA’s chief spokesperson stated that no such report had been issued by the IAEA.

President Bush further betrayed the tremendous trust bestowed upon him after the events of September 11, 2001 by instilling in many of us the fear that Saddam Hussein was seeking to purchase nuclear materials from an African nation. In fact, much of the US intelligence community disagreed. Just as an issuer of stock defrauds investors by withholding material information about a corporation, so too did President Bush defraud our Congress, our country, and much of the international community by failing to disclose information that was provided to him and which was directly contrary to his representations about Hussein’s supposed efforts to build nuclear weapons.

In his January 28, 2003, State of the Union message, President Bush stated: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." He obviously limited his statement to what "the British government" supposedly had learned because he knew, but did not disclose, that our own intelligence services disagreed with the statement.

In an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), presented at a White House background briefing on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, "Key Judgments" included an assessment "that Saddam does not yet have nuclear weapons or sufficient material to make any." President Bush failed to disclose that assessment to Congress and the American people. To make matters worse, he did not disclose the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research—known as INR—conclusion in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, that "the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR’s assessment, highly dubious."

The failure by President Bush to disclose that conclusion to Congress and to the American people rendered his statement about Hussein seeking to purchase uranium from an African country fraudulently misleading. That is clearly an impeachable offense.

The fraud about Hussein building up a nuclear capability did not stop with the phony Niger story. During September 2002, Condoleezza Rice and President Bush represented to the public that Hussein was purchasing aluminum tubes to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. The next month, a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) was delivered to the President. That document virtually screams out the view of various intelligence agencies that the tubes were of no use in a nuclear program. That did not stop President Bush, however, from stating in a major speech the next month that "Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

In a January 9, 2003 report to the UN Security Council, the IAEA reported that the aluminum tubes were not directly suitable for the manufacture of centrifuges. Again, not allowing the findings of the IAEA or of various US intelligence agencies to get in the way of his fraud upon Congress and the American people, President Bush outrageously represented in his State of the Union Message on January 28, 2003 that "Our intelligence sources tell us that [Hussein] has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." No greater cause for impeachment can be imagined than misleading our Congress and misleading the American people about whether we are facing a nuclear threat while leading our nation to a tragic, illegal war of aggression.

The fraud was dramatically compounded when a so-called summary of the NIE was distributed to Congress, stating, falsely, that: "All intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons and that these tubes could be used in a centrifuge enrichment program." The DOE and INR dissents, which expressed the accurate situation, were omitted. That omission rendered the representation to Congress, and to the public, false and misleading – a fraud clearly meriting impeachment and removal from office.

The tragic, bloody invasion and occupation of Iraq, by order of President Bush, is a clearly impeachable offense, violating the UN Charter, the Kellogg- Briand Pact, and the Nuremberg Tribunal Pact. All of these agreements are international treaties that the US has signed. Under Article VI of the Constitution, international treaties are, along with the Constitution, the "supreme law of the land." In carrying out the invasion and occupation of Iraq, President Bush violated not only numerous international conventions, but also US domestic law.

If there is any hope for the United Nations and international law to further the cause of peace, the provisions of the UN Charter prohibiting wars of aggression must be honored. To permit President Bush to be unaccountable for his contemptuous disregard of the UN Charter would not only undermine the rule of law, but would set a disastrous precedent destroying the very essence of the UN Charter – to provide for the peaceful resolution of disputes between nations.

In addition to the treaty obligations of the US under the UN Charter, the Nuremberg Tribunal Charter, to which the US committed itself, provides that the "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties" is a crime against peace punishable under international law. In short, the invasion and occupation of Iraq, a war against a nation posing no imminent threat to the United States, was and continues to be a crime under the Nuremberg Charter.

To describe President Bush as a war criminal is not hyperbolic. He has blatantly violated every relevant treaty and constitutional provision in leading the US to a so-called "pre-emptive" war against Iraq, without any justification in law or in fact. He must be held accountable, through impeachment and removal from office, or the many violated treaties and constitutional provisions are nothing more than paper and pretense.

Following September 11, 2001, President Bush illegally authorized the warrantless wiretapping of American citizens, in clear violation of the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution and in direct violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. After engaging in the practice for more than two years, President Bush misled the public by stating that "any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires – a wiretap requires a court order." It was not until a New York Times reporter broke the story in December 2005, that Bush admitted he had authorized warrantless wiretapping through the National Security Agency. He also claimed, in complete disregard of the US Constitution and relevant domestic law, that what he was doing was legal. Last August, a U.S. District Court judge declared that Bush has violated the First Amendment, noting, "It was never the intent of the framers to give the president such unfettered control, particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights." A judge on the FISA panel even quit in protest of the Bush administration’s outrageous violations of the law.

Impeachment and removal from office is the only appropriate remedy for a President who asserts such abusive, authoritarian power, in contravention of fundamental rights and liberties embodied in the US Constitution. It is the only means by which we can make it clear in the future that no President can so casually override our precious freedoms.

President Bush has also tremendously undermined the moral standing of the United States by allowing the CIA to kidnap people in other countries, incarcerate them without charges, and torture them. His shameful dereliction of duty in this regard is a blight on our nation’s honor that can be remedied only by impeachment.

Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen, was deported to Syria from JFK Airport. Once in Syria, he was beaten with electrical cables for two weeks, then imprisoned in an underground cell for the better part of a year.

Muslim cleric Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr was kidnapped in Milan, Italy, by US and Italian intelligence agents and sent to Egypt, where he was tortured during his four-year detention.

Khaled El-Masri, a German citizen, was kidnapped by CIA agents and flown to a secret prison in Afghanistan, where he was tortured during his five months in prison there. Apparently after it was discovered he was not who his captors thought he was, he was taken to Albania and left in a forest. To this day, he has no idea why he was kidnapped, imprisoned, and tortured.

Those are among approximately 150 foreign nationals who have been victims of "extraordinary rendition." Under this CIA program, intelligence agents kidnap people and send them to secret sites abroad for interrogation. Numerous people detained under this program have experienced severe physical and psychological torture, and inhumane and humiliating treatment. We are left to ask: What has our great nation become when our president orders and condones such atrocities?

The practice of sending a person to a country where there are substantial grounds for believing he or she will be tortured is clearly prohibited by the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment, which, as an international treaty to which the US is a party, is the "supreme law of the land." A separate federal statute also prohibits the practice. The CIA’s role in kidnapping and imprisoning people without charges in countries infamous for torturing detainees, such as Egypt, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Jordan, and Uzbekistan, constitutes a clear violation of US and international law.

Bush administration policies and statements stripping detainees of basic protections under international law have led to the torture and murder of prisoners, many of whom have never been charged with any crime. Consider the case of Abed Hamed Mowhoush.

Mowhoush turned himself over to US forces in Iraq in November 2003. Chief Warrant Officer Lewis Welshofer, who did not receive anything other than "sparse" guidelines about how to conduct prisoner interrogations, received a captain’s memo saying there were no specific rules of engagement for interrogations in Iraq. Captured detainees were considered "unprivileged combatants," a status the Bush Administration had suggested meant detainees were not to be afforded the protections of the Geneva Conventions. With little guidance and the sense that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to Mowhoush, Welshofer called in a team that beat Mowhoush with sledgehammer handles. Later, Mowhoush’s hands were bound, he was struck repeatedly in the painful spot near the humerus, and was doused with water. Finally, Welshofer shoved Mowhoush, who was wrapped with electrical cord, head-first into a sleeping bag. Welshofer sat on Mowhoush’s chest and blocked his nose and mouth. Mowhoush, whose autopsy revealed "massive" bruising and five broken ribs, died of asphyxia due to smothering and chest compression.

The torture and killing of Mowhoush is only one of dozens of cases of murder – and hundreds of cases of cruel torture – at the hands of US personnel in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo. Given the scale and moral depravity of these circumstances, Congress must investigate the extent to which President Bush has been directly involved in orchestrating the unconscionable treatment of foreign nationals detained by US personnel as part of the "war on terror" or the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

While we urgently need to know the precise extent to which President Bush directed US military personnel to torture detainees and prisoners of war, we already know the President has utterly abrogated his duty to ensure the laws of the United States are carried out. Under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, the president must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." With respect to the treaties and other laws prohibiting torture and other mistreatment of detainees, President Bush has utterly failed to meet his constitutional duty. President Bush even added a signing statement to the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 that states, contrary to the separation of powers so crucial to our constitutional system of government, that he has the sole authority to interpret and enforce the act. For his gross dereliction of duty in not ensuring the faithful execution of US law, President Bush should be impeached and removed from office.

In addition, under the Nuremberg principle of "command responsibility," President Bush’s failure to stop and punish atrocities renders him culpable for them. For that, he should be held accountable through impeachment and removal from office. The Nuremberg principles are not to be applied solely to the vanquished. They are to be given effect as to all who subscribed to them, including the United States.

Sexual humiliations, incarceration for years without charges being brought, lit cigarettes put out in detainees’ ears, inmates hanging by their arms, brutal beatings, attacks by unmuzzled dogs, false executions, sensory deprivations, psychological torture, waterboarding, dozens of killings, and other forms of heinous torture of human beings—if these acts—consonant with Bush administration policy yet in violation of numerous treaty obligations and US domestic law—are not deserving of impeachment and removal from office, nothing ever would be.

The lies and the callous immorality of President Bush, and the outrages on human dignity he has perpetrated or countenanced, are a disgrace to our great nation. The President has weakened our country and sullied our reputation around the world. The time is long past due for the American people to stand up and speak out against this disastrous presidency and the Congress that refuses to hold it accountable. We are here today to say, "No more!"

No more Iraq war.

No more God-is-on-our-side religious nonsense to justify this immoral, illegal war.

No more torture of human beings.

No more denial of the right of habeas corpus.

No more kidnapping of people and sending them off to secret prisons in nations where they will be tortured.

No more glorification of torture by the entertainment industry.

No more centrally-owned, hysteria-driven, corporate news media complicit in selling the Bush administration’s lies to the American people.

No more unconstitutional warrantless wiretapping of American citizens.

No more manipulation of national intelligence for political purposes.

No more manipulation of our news media with false propaganda.

No more authoritarian assertions of power by the president.

No more silence by the American people.

This is a new day. We can unify in our insistence upon the truth, upon peace-making, upon more humane treatment of our brothers and sisters around the world.

We will continue to call for the impeachment of President Bush, a most appropriate response to his blatant abuses of power. We will continue to resist the lies, the deception, the outrages. We will insist that peace be pursued, and that, as a nation, we help those in need. Let us join together to break the cycle of hatred, of intolerance, of violence. As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."

We urge Congress, be silent no more.

We urge all Americans, regardless of party, be silent no more.

Let impeachment be the first step toward national reconciliation – and toward penance for the outrages committed in our nation’s name.



To: American Spirit who wrote (74524)3/2/2007 12:26:40 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
For the Super-Rich, Too Much Is Never Enough
______________________________________________________________

By AUSTAN GOOLSBEE
The New York Times
March 1, 2007

For voyeurs of billionaires, a brief period from mid-February to mid-March serves up two of the juiciest glimpses they will get all year. In February, the Slate 60 list of the year’s biggest philanthropic gifts comes out, followed in March by the Forbes magazine list of the world’s richest people.

This time, one name — Warren E. Buffett — will appear conspicuously on both. His fortune will probably rank second in the world behind only Bill Gates’s, as it has for some years. In philanthropy, however, Mr. Buffett is No. 1 by a wide margin. Last year, he shook the world of billionaires by pledging more than $42 billion for charity — by far the largest philanthropic donation in history and close to the total of all the Slate 60 donations for the last six years combined.

You could almost see the editors at Forbes airbrushing the perplexed and stricken looks off the faces of their other billionaires. He’s giving away $42 billion? Is he crazy? Certainly that is not what most of them had in mind for their fortunes.

But the move by Mr. Buffett raises the question of exactly what the other billionaires do have in mind for their money. According to the economist Christopher Carroll at Johns Hopkins University, in his article “Why Do the Rich Save So Much?,” the seemingly obvious question of why people would want so much money turns out to be a real puzzle.

The rational economic argument for accumulating wealth says that people want to use it for something: to spend, to give to their families to enhance their future standard of living or to do something philanthropic.

When you look at the Slate 60 list, however, you see that philanthropy can’t be the main reason. For all of their amazing generosity, the super-rich typically do not give away their entire fortunes, or even a big share. That’s what makes Mr. Buffett so notable.

For 2006, the Slate 60 not including Mr. Buffett pledged or gave a little over $7 billion to charity. Yet as of September 2006, the 60 richest Americans had an estimated $630 billion of wealth, up more than $62 billion (about 10 percent) from the year before. People are accumulating money much faster than they are giving it away.

Professor Carroll says the super-rich can’t be accumulating the money with the intention of spending it, either, because no one could spend that much.

To see his point, take Oracle’s founder, Lawrence J. Ellison. Mr. Ellison’s net worth last year was around $16 billion. And it will probably be much bigger when the list comes out in a few weeks. With $16 billion and a 10 percent rate of return, Mr. Ellison would need to spend more than $30 million a week simply to keep from accumulating more money than he already has, to say nothing of trying to spend down the $16 billion itself.

He spent something like $100 million on his Japanese-style mansion in Woodside, Calif., making it among the more expensive private residences ever built. But that is only about three weeks worth of the interest he earns on his wealth. And a house doesn’t actually spend down his net worth because it is an asset that can be resold. At least part of the $100 million is just a different way of saving.

Mr. Ellison would have to spend that $30 million a week — $183,000 an hour — on things that can’t be resold, like parties or meals, just to avoid increasing his wealth. While somebody might be able to spend like that — Paris Hilton, maybe — it certainly wouldn’t be easy, and it can’t explain why the super-rich accumulate.

The last of the seemingly rational explanations is that the billionaires want to pass it on to their children. But, again, their fortunes are growing far faster than their number of heirs, so each of the children will have the same problems spending the money that their parents had.

Sam Walton’s fortune is now divided among his family, and the Forbes list will probably show that his children account for 4 of the 10 richest Americans in the world (with his wife being No. 11). The children are in their 50s and 60s, and if they live to be 80, and their wealth grows at 10 percent a year, their fortunes will rise by four to eight times and they will each have more than they can ever spend or their children can spend, and so on.

Further, the data, according to Professor Carroll, just doesn’t indicate that children make much of a difference. He found in the government’s 1992 Survey of Consumer Finances, for example, that only 4 percent of the richest Americans said that providing an inheritance ranked in their top five reasons for saving. On top of that, he says, the data shows that elderly super-rich people who do not have children save just as much as the ones who do.

If it isn’t to spend, to give to their children, or to give to charity, then why do the rich save so much? Professor Carroll says maybe they love money, not for what it can buy but just for its own sake. Perhaps they get something different from having money — clout, power, the ability to dominate an industry. Or perhaps these are just competitive people who care about their position compared with other people on the list.

They accumulate more so they can lord it over the other families who have less — a bit like having enough nuclear weapons to blow up the world several times but making more to stay ahead of the other guy.

However you look at it, though, it isn’t for the reasons that everyone else saves money.

In a few weeks, you will see the list of the world’s wealthiest people and how vastly their wealth has increased. Warren Buffett will probably be the only one pledging to give his fortune away. The other billionaires will probably think he’s crazy, but it may make him the most rational person on the list.

-Austan Goolsbee is a professor of economics at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business and a research fellow at the American Bar Foundation. E-mail: goolsbee@nytimes.com.

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company