impeach bush for peace peach
Grassroots Nonpartisan Efforts to
Impeach Bush & Cheney

(Go to our Main Page:ImpeachForPeace.org)

Add to Google

Daily Impeachment News:

November 21, 2008

Feingold hopes, expects new AG to say president is not above the law

Filed under: Impeachment News — Mikael @ 1:39 pm

feingold3.jpgtherawstory
Nick Juliano

In exclusive interview, Democratic Senator outlines hopes for next administration

President-elect Barack Obama prepares to enter the White House with his plate full of domestic and international crises — financial markets in free-fall, auto companies nearing collapse, millions of Americans struggling to keep their homes, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Along with those pressing, front-page issues Obama also will have to swiftly redefine President Bush's attempts to institutionalize expansive executive power and work to reverse many of the president's most egregious policies, say lawmakers and civil libertarians.

Sen. Russ Feingold has been among Bush's most vocal critics. The Wisconsin Democrat says Obama needs to indicate a clean break with the view advanced by the Bush White House that the president's Commander in Chief powers, laid out in Article II of the constitution, allow the president to ignore the whims of Congress.Bush used this interpretation to justify his warrantless wiretapping program that was conducted outside the boundaries of the law and to authorize a host of controversial policies regarding detainees rounded up in the war on terror.

"They just take the view they can do whatever they want, and they use it in many contexts," Feingold told RAW STORY. "So, in a variety of ways, that doctrine has to be rejected, by executive orders, by legislation, I think even, ideally, by the president making a brief statement with regard to it in his inaugural address."

During a brief interview from his office in the Heart Senate Office Building Thursday morning, Feingold outlined his expectations for an Obama administration. (A full transcript of the interview is available here.)

A member of the Intelligence, Judiciary and Foreign Relations Committees, Feingold sits at the nexus of many of Bush's most controversial policies. He also will play a key role in confirming many of President-elect Obama's appointees. When Attorney General nominee Eric Holder comes before the committee, Feingold promises to press him for his views on the limits of executive power.

"There's no question that one of the things that will be important to me and many other senators will be … Mr. Holder's view of the role of the powers of the president, particularly under Article II of the Constitution, and whether they trump Congressional acts," Feingold said. "Mr. Gonzales was unable to give me a satisfactory answer to that question, as a result, I voted against him. Because if the attorney general cannot say that the president isn't above the law, basically, I'm not voting for him.

"And so I'm very confident Holder's answer will be excellent," he continued. "But that will be one of many areas that I will be taking up."

While Feingold acknowledges that issues like civil liberties, government transparency and privacy may not be at the front of voters minds amid all the other troubles facing the country, Feingold says he will continue to work quietly to improve conditions that have worsened over the last eight years.

"It's on the front page when really awful things are being done. When we fix 'em, maybe it won't get any press at all. That's OK," he said. "I'm not looking for big headlines, I'm just looking to fix it."

Earlier this year, he led the charge to attach protections for Americans' privacy to an update of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and to prevent the FISA Amendments Act from granting legal immunity to telecommunications companies.

While his attempts to modify the bill were largely unsuccessful, Feingold is optimistic about writing extra privacy protections into surveillance law now that Bush is leaving office. When FISA was being debated, Bush vowed to veto any bill that was not completely in line with his own proposal. That ultimatum — combined with the administration's penchant for questioning opponents patriotism — made it difficult for Feingold to garner enough support for his privacy fixes.

"The problem that we had under President Bush is that what he would do is present unacceptable packages of legislation that involved anti-terror and other measures that we all supported, but he refused to put in the protections that were needed. And they would say, well … then you're voting against the whole bill," Feingold said, predicting an Obama administration would be more accommodating.

"Even if they oppose some of the fixes, they're not going to use the same tactics that the Bush administration did, which was basically calling into question people's patriotism, or desire to stop terrorism," he continued. "I don't think we're going to get that kind of monkey business from this administration."

Feingold also has sharply criticized the practice of holding prisoners indefinitely without charge at Guantanamo Bay and was an early critic of Bush's decision to invade Iraq.

Obama "has said all the right things," regarding those issues, Feingold said. As an Illinois senator, Obama voted for a timetable to withdraw troops from Iraq. He also voted in favor of Feingold's amendments to FISA, although the two split on the final bill. Soon after his election, Obama reiterated his pledge to close Guantanamo.

"This is going to be, I think, a wonderful cooperative effort, where we're going to get action right away," Feingold said. "Some of the things are going to get taken care of right away, some of the things are going to take longer. But I'm committed to working on this over the next few years, and I can't imagine a better person than President Obama."

Independent civil liberties advocates are cautiously optimistic about the prospects of an Obama presidency.

"There have been expressed commitments, and we expect people to follow through with them," Caroline Fredrickson, the American Civil Liberties Union's top Washington lobbyist, told RAW STORY recently.

Congressional inquiries into President Bush's alleged abuses and executive power grabs didn't really get off the ground until after 2006, when Democrats regained control of Congress, ending a period of unified party control. Now that the same party is back in charge on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, there are fears that Democrats may be more sympathetic to claims of executive power from President Obama.

"We're going to be just as critical of President Obama and Democrats in Congress as we were of Republicans if they don't do the right thing," Fredrickson promises. "Everyone has such high expectations, and I tell them, 'You have to understand, it's going to be hard."

Feingold likewise hopes his colleagues would be critical of Obama if he snubs Congress like Bush has had a habit of doing.

"But I don't think that's going to happen," he says. "My sense is that the people that President Obama will have around him will want to accommodate Congress."

A big question facing Bush administration critics looking forward to an Obama presidency revolves around how much time and attention should be given to continuing to flesh out the details of the outgoing president's transgressions. The ACLU wants an independent commission, akin to the Church Committee of the mid-1970s, established to fully examine President Bush's time in office, and the idea has gained a bit of support in Congress.

Feingold said he's not opposed to such an idea but seemed more concerned with moving forward.

"My focus is on what I can do working with the new administration to repair these things apart from any commission," he said.

The senator chairs the Senate Judiciary's Subcommittee on the Constitution; earlier this summer he presided over a hearing on proposals to restore the rule of law after Bush leaves office. Obama's transition chief John Podesta, a former Clinton administration official who runs the liberal Center for American Progress, was a witness at the hearing.

There also is a question of how to bring accountability for officials who may be guilty of crimes. Feingold called on Bush not to issue blanket pardons before leaving office, which would essentially "let folks off the hook in advance." Inquiry into Bush administration actions can't supersede issues like the financial crisis or wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Feingold said, but it should be a priority.

"Whether it be through prosecutions, investigations, oversight, legislation … there's a wide range of things we can do in the context of accountability without getting carried away," he said.

The public should pressure Bush not to issue pardons to government officials "so that we can consider whether criminal [charges] or other accountability would be appropriate," he continued. "I'm not ready to say that it is, but I don't want it taken off the table by presidential, by abuse of the presidential pardon power."

(Source)


November 20, 2008

[VIDEO] World Leaders Refuse to Shake Bush's hand at G20 Summit

Filed under: Impeachment Progress News — Mikael @ 4:52 pm

Lamest of lame ducks, soon-to-be-ex-President George W. Bush is roundly ignored by world leaders at the G20 summit conference recently. Ouch. Maybe the judgement of the world will accomplish what attempts at impeachment most likely will not.


November 19, 2008

[Video] First Lady of France Carla Bruni Disses Bush on Letterman

Filed under: Impeachment News — Mikael @ 5:56 pm

When asked on last night's 'Late Show with David Letterman' about French reaction to the recent election of President-elect Barack Obama, Bruni gushed: "Oh! France is thrilled… yes, delighted. I think the whole world is delighted."
When asked how her husband, the President of France gets along with Bush she said: "They have to… No choice." which was met with audience laughter and applause.


Prison-Industrial Complex Investment Brings Unexpected Dividends!

Filed under: Related to Impeachment, GoodNews — Marshalldoc @ 8:50 am

Texas grand jury indicts Cheney, Gonzales of crime

Wed Nov 19, 2008 2:49am EST
Copyright 2008 Reuters. All rights reserved.

HOUSTON (Reuters) - A grand jury in South Texas indicted U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney and former attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Tuesday for "organized criminal activity" related to alleged abuse of inmates in private prisons.The indictment has not been seen by a judge, who could dismiss it.

The grand jury in Willacy County, in the Rio Grande Valley near the U.S.-Mexico border, said Cheney is "profiteering from depriving human beings of their liberty," according to a copy of the indictment obtained by Reuters.

The indictment cites a "money trail" of Cheney's ownership in prison-related enterprises including the Vanguard Group, which owns an interest in private prisons in south Texas.
Former attorney general Gonzales used his position to "stop the investigations as to the wrong doings" into assaults in county prisons, the indictment said.

Cheney's office declined comment. "We have not received any indictments. I can't comment on something we have not received," said Cheney's spokeswoman Megan Mitchell.

The indictment, overseen by county District Attorney Juan Guerra, cites the case of Gregorio De La Rosa, who died on April 26, 2001, inside a private prison in Willacy County.

The grand jury wrote it made its decision "with great sadness," but said they had no other choice but to indict Cheney and Gonzales "because we love our country."

Texas is the home state of U.S. President George W. Bush.

Bush and his Republican administration, which first took office in January 2001, leave the White House on January 20 after the November presidential elections won by Democrat Barack Obama. Gonzales was attorney general from 2005 to 2007.

(Reporting by Chris Baltimore and JoAnne Allen, Editing by Frances Kerry)

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE4AI11B20081119


November 16, 2008

'Lingering Executive Privilege' - The Privilege That Wouldn't Die!!

Filed under: Impeachment News — Marshalldoc @ 11:41 am

Democrats' plans to investigate Bush administration may be blocked

By Charlie Savage
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Copyright © 2008 The International Herald Tribune

WASHINGTON: When a congressional committee subpoenaed Harry Truman in 1953, nearly a year after he left office, he made a startling claim: Even though he was no longer president, the Constitution still empowered him to block subpoenas."If the doctrine of separation of powers and the independence of the presidency is to have any validity at all, it must be equally applicable to a president after his term of office has expired," Truman wrote to the committee.

Congress backed down, establishing a precedent suggesting that former presidents wield lingering powers to keep certain doings of their administration secret. Now, as congressional Democrats prepare to move forward with investigations of the Bush administration, they wonder whether that claim may be invoked again.

"The Bush administration overstepped in its exertion of executive privilege, and may very well try to continue to shield information from the American people after it leaves office," said Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, who sits on two committees, Judiciary and Intelligence, that are examining Bush policies.

Topics of open investigations include the harsh interrogation of detainees, the prosecution of former Governor Don Siegelman of Alabama, secret legal memorandums from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel and the role of the former White House aides Karl Rove and Harriet Miers in the firing of federal prosecutors.

Bush has used his executive powers to block congressional requests for executive branch documents and testimony from former aides. But investigators hope that President-elect Barack Obama's administration will open the filing cabinets and withdraw assertions of executive privilege that Bush officials have invoked to keep from testifying.

"I intend to ensure that our outstanding subpoenas and document requests relating to the U.S. attorneys matter are enforced," said Representative John Conyers, Democrat of Michigan, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. "I am hopeful that progress can be made with the coming of the new administration."

In addition, two advocacy groups, the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights First, have prepared detailed reports for the new administration calling for criminal investigations into alleged abuses of detainees.

It is not clear, though, how Obama will handle such requests. Legal specialists said the pressure to investigate the Bush years would raise tough political and legal questions.

Because every president eventually leaves office, incoming chief executives have an incentive to quash investigations into their predecessor's tenure. Bush used executive privilege for the first time in 2001, to block a subpoena by congressional Republicans investigating the Clinton administration.

Obama has expressed worries about too many investigations. In April, he told The Philadelphia Daily News that people needed to distinguish "between really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity."

"If crimes have been committed, they should be investigated," Obama said, but added, "I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt, because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve."

But even if his administration rejects the calls for investigations, Obama cannot control what the courts or Congress do.

Several lawsuits are seeking information about Bush policies, including an Islamic charity's claim that it was illegally spied on by Bush's warrantless wiretapping program.

And congressional Democrats say that they are determined to pursue their investigations - and that they expect career officials to disclose other issues after the Bush administration leaves.

"We could spend the entire next four years investigating the Bush years," Whitehouse said.

But if Obama decides to release information about his predecessor's tenure, Bush could try to invoke executive privilege by filing a lawsuit, said Peter Shane, a law professor at Ohio State University.

In that case, an injunction would probably be sought ordering the Obama administration not to release the Bush administration's papers or enjoining Bush's former aides from testifying. The dispute would be likely to go to the Supreme Court, Shane said.

The idea that former presidents may possess residual constitutional powers to keep information secret traces back to Truman.

In November 1953, the House Un-American Activities Committee subpoenaed Truman to testify about why he had named a man suspected of being a Communist to the International Monetary Fund.

Truman decided not to comply and asked his lawyer, Samuel Rosenman, for help. But there was little time for research.

Edward Cramer, then an associate at Rosenman's law firm, recalled being summoned to the boss's office at 6 p.m. and told to come up with something. The next morning, he helped dictate Truman's letter telling the committee that Truman did not have to testify - or even appear at the hearing.

"I think, legally, we were wrong" about whether Truman had to show up, Cramer, now 83, said in an interview. But the committee did not call the former president's bluff. It dropped the matter, and Truman's hastily devised legal claim became a historical precedent.

In 1973, President Richard Nixon cited Truman's letter when he refused to testify or give documents to the committee investigating the Watergate scandal.
Recalled Cramer, "Nixon used it, and we said, 'Oh, Jesus, what have we done?"'

The first judicial backing for the idea that former presidents possess such executive privileges came in 1977, as part of a Supreme Court ruling in a case over who controlled Nixon's White House files. The decision suggested that Nixon might be able to block the release of papers in the future. But it offered few details, and Nixon never sought to do so.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/13/america/bush.php


Next Page »

"I just want you to know that,
when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace."
-Bush, June 18, 2002

"War is Peace"
-Big Brother in George Orwell's 1984

Powered by WordPress

Do-It-Yourself
Impeachment
Blog Categories
Our Whole Site

Not-For-Profit. 100% goes to efforts to Impeach Bush!

Donations are not tax-deductible for federal income tax purposes.
or Donate by U.S. mail...
Sign up for Action Alerts:
Learn of events/protests.
Email
As heard on
the radio...
Bush hears the voices logo
KFAI radio interview
"I Hear The Voices"
Oct 5th Ad
• Oct 5th Interview
Mike Malloy
Peter Werbe
Get Impeach For Peace Stuff!
(pins, bumper stickers, hats, etc.)
Impeach Bush for Peace Stuff logo
organize pictStart a Chapter in your city!

protest picture
Calendar

Picts/Vid
Why Impeach Bush?Charges against Bush

Charges & Evidence


Videos

Bush's Defense
Arguments Against Bush Impeachment...

• If we impeach Bush, we’ll get President Cheney!
The first impeachment resolution introduced by McKinney included Bush, Cheney, and Rice. Although, even if we only initially pursue Bush, initiating the impeachment process will lead to an investigation that will implicate lots of people in the Bush administration who are guilty of committing crimes, including Cheney.

No matter who we get to replace Bush, we’ll be showing those in power that anyone who breaks the law will be held accountable.

• Promoting impeachment will seem too “extreme.”
Demanding that crimes be investigated is NOT extreme. Some previous impeachment attempts were considered extreme because they were pursued for actions that didn't rise to the level of a Constitutional crisis, which is what the impeachment tool is meant to be used for. Nixon's impeachment, however, was bipartisan.

  • We should wait to impeach...
Wait to impeach? We've waited 3 or more years too long already. We had enough evidence to impeach years ago. Remember, an impeachment only means you have enough evidence to warrant a trial, just like an indictment. Our congress people didn't take an oath to bipartisanship. They took an oath to the Constitution. Besides which, our troops, Iraqi civilians, and our own civil liberties are all waiting for this.
 
• Before we impeach, we should get some legislation passed...
And with unconstitutional Presidential Signing Statements, veto power, and the power of "Commander in Chief" at his disposal, how do you think Congress is going to get anything accomplished without first impeaching Bush?

If your tire blows while you're driving, do you stop to fix it? Or do you continue driving on your rim because to stop would take too much time?

• It hurts the democracy to go through a presidential impeachment. And Bush is a lame duck anyway.
Holding government officials accountable for their actions strengthens our democracy. Letting lawlessness stand weakens it.

Sometimes reprimanding a child (president) doesn't make the family (Washington) a happy place. But you still have to do it so the child and his siblings (future presidents) learn about accountability. Impeachment is horribly UNDERUSED, which is part of why there's so much corruption at the top. Politicians must learn to fear it. People think things are better because we improved the make-up of our law-making body, Congress. But Bush is BREAKING LAWS. So, it doesn't matter how many laws Congress passes if they don't serve their OVERSIGHT duties as well by impeaching. They swore to defend the Constitution. What are laws without enforcement?

Besides, considering Bush's track-record of breaking laws, he can still do a lot of damage. Our troops, Iran, and our Supreme Court are all endangered so long as he remains in office. Waiting until Bush is out of office will leave us complicit in any further crimes he commits. The Union of Concerned Scientists has estimated that the death toll from a "tactical" nuclear weapon of the kind Bush is contemplating using in Iran would be at minimum 3 million men, women, and children. The path of death would stretch across country boundaries into India.

Perhaps worst of all, we set a terrible precedent by allowing Bush to stay in office after he's broken so many laws. Impeachment will stop future presidents from using Bush's actions as justification for even more lawbreaking and erosion of civil liberties.

• I'm a Democrat/
Republican. If we support impeachment it will lower the chances of my party winning in 2008.

So, your party would rather win elections than do what's right for the country? I hope you're wrong. I also hope the public is willing to throw additional support to any party that holds our elected officials accountable for their actions. This has been historically true with every single impeachment effort launched. And this impeachment effort would begin with majority support (unlike most past impeachments including Nixon).

• Impeachment will never happen. Congress members will block it.
Well, all we need is a majority of support in the House. And 2/3rds vote in the Senate to remove Bush from office will happen once the evidence gets aired on the floor of the House, and subsequently the national media outlets. The political pressure will become too great.

Today's impossibility is tomorrow's reality. Congress members will realize that tying their political future to Bush reduces their chances of getting elected. Remember, one way or another, Bush is gone by 2009— but members of Congress may retain their offices beyond that date. Bush's poll numbers are extremely low, and most Americans support impeachment. This is a bipartisan movement. This means that if we make the pressure unbearable for Members of Congress, they'll turn on him to keep their own seats (like they did with Nixon). It's already starting to happen. While many Members of Congress have behaved unethically in the last few years, it's important to understand that this is related to their warped view of what's in their self-interest. Let's wake them up to their true self-interest (impeaching the president), by showing them our support for impeachment.

And even if we only impeach, and the Senate fails to do their duty and remove him from office, it will only implicate the Senators who fail to do their sworn Constitutional duty.

• But Speaker of the House Pelosi said that Impeachment was "off the table."

Pelosi most likely said this to remove any appearance of conflict-of-interest that would arise if she were thrust into the presidency as a result of the coming impeachment. What we need to do is to pressure Pelosi not to interfere with impeachment maneuverings within her party. Sending her Do-It-Yourself impeachments legitimizes her when she joins the impeachment movement in the future.

(Read More)
BuzzFeed
Add To Your Site