{Iran Issue}Two years ago the NY Times revealed George Bush has been illegally wire tapping our phones and emails for years. Bush publicly admitted signing the authorizations for illegal wiretaps over 30 times. Bush's warrantless wiretaps are a flagrant violation of the Fourth Amendment. And under the 1978 FISA law the penalty for each of Bush's illegal wiretaps is up to $10,000 and 5 years in prison. Bush may have wiretapped millions of Americans so he should not only be impeached but he should spend the rest of his life behind bars. Incredibly. "Bush Dog" Democrats led by House Majority Steny Hoyer not only refuse to impeach Bush - they want to immunize Bush and his co-conspirators the telephone giants so they never pay a penny or spend a day behind bars for their crimes. Stop Bush's Warrantless WiretappingCongress needs to hear from all of us today; Email your Representatives to demand impeachment not immunity:I am one of the 73% of Americans who oppose George Bush's warrantless wiretapping of American citizens in violation of the Fourth Amendment and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA):I am outraged that George Bush admits he broke the FISA law at least 30 times by authorizing activities that were illegal - and I am outraged Congress has not impeached Bush for doing so. I am outraged that the Bush Administration has lied about its illegal activities for years especially former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' perjury before Congress - and I am outraged Gonzales has not been prosecuted for doing so. I am outraged that George Bush used a false terrorist threat in August to terrorize Congress into legalizing his illegal wiretapping - and I am outraged Congress has not impeached Bush for doing so. I am outraged that nearly every Republican and a few dozen Democrats voted for Bush's wiretapping bill. I therefore demand the following:(1) Immediate repeal of the "Protect America Act of 2007" enacted in August or at a minimum allowing it to expire in January.(2) Defeat of any further legislation to legalize warrantless wiretapping or give immunity to telephone companies or Bush Administration officials who participated in the illegal wiretapping of American citizens(3) Prosecution of Alberto Gonzales for lying to Congress when he testified that there was no "serious disagreement" inside the Justice Department over the illegal program even though then-Attorney General John Ashcroft and his top aides dramatically threatened to resign over the program.(4) Impeachment of George Bush for violating the Fourth Amendment and FISA over 30 times and for falsely terrorizing Congress into passing the Protect America Act.(5) Criminal prosecution of Bush. Gonzales and everyone else who committed these crimes. Democrats Seem Ready to Extend Wiretap PowersBy and Published: October 9. 2007WASHINGTON. Oct. 8 — Two months after insisting that they would roll back broad eavesdropping powers won by the Bush administration. Democrats in Congress appear ready to make concessions that could extend some crucial powers given to the. Administration officials say they are confident they will win approval of the broadened authority that they secured temporarily in August as Congress rushed toward recess. Some Democratic officials concede that they may not come up with enough votes to stop approval. As the debate over the eavesdropping powers of the National Security Agency begins anew this week the emerging measures reflect the reality confronting the Democrats. Although willing to oppose the White House on the Iraq war they remain nervous that they will be called soft on terrorism if they insist on strict curbs on gathering intelligence. A Democratic bill to be proposed on Tuesday in the House would maintain for several years the type of broad blanket authority for N. S. A eavesdropping that the administration secured in August for six months. In an acknowledgment of concerns over civil liberties the bill would require a more active role by the special foreign intelligence court that oversees the interception of foreign-based communications by the security agency. A competing proposal in the Senate still being drafted may be even closer in line with the administration plan with the possibility of including retroactive immunity for telecommunications utilities that participated in the once-secret program to eavesdrop without court warrants. No one is willing to predict with certainty how the question will play out. Some Congressional officials and others monitoring the debate said the final result might not be much different from the result in August despite the Democrats’ insistence that they would not let stand the extension of the powers.“Many members continue to fear that if they don’t support whatever the president asks for they’ll be perceived as soft on terrorism,” said William Banks a professor who specializes in terrorism and national security law at and who has written extensively on federal wiretapping laws. The August bill known as the Protect America Act was approved in the final hours before Congress went on its summer recess after heated warnings from the administration that legal loopholes in wiretapping coverage had left the country vulnerable to another terrorist attack. The measure significantly reduced the role of the foreign intelligence court and broadened the security agency’s ability to listen to foreign-based communications without court warrants.“We want the statute made permanent,” a spokesman for the Justice Department. Dean Boyd said Monday. “We view this as a healthy debate. We also view it as an opportunity to inform Congress and the public that we can use these authorities responsibly. We’re going to go forward and look at any proposals that come forth. But we’ll look at them very carefully to make sure they don’t have any consequences that hamper our abilities to protect the country.”House Democrats overwhelmingly opposed the bill in August and said the administration had been forced them into a corner. As Congress takes up the new bills a senior Democratic aide said. House leaders are working hard to ensure that the administration does not succeed in pushing through a bill that would make permanent all the powers it secured in August.“That’s what we’re trying to avoid,” the aide said. “We have that concern too.”The bill to be proposed on Tuesday by the Democratic leaders of the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees would impose more controls over the powers of security agency including quarterly audits by the Justice Department inspector general. The measure would also give the foreign intelligence court a role in approving in advance. “basket” or “umbrella” warrants for bundles of overseas communications a Congressional official said.“We are giving the N. S. A what it legitimately needs for national security but with far more limitations and protections than are in the Protect America Act,” said Brendan Daly a spokesman for Speaker. Democrat of California. Perhaps most important in the eyes of Democratic supporters the House bill would not give retroactive immunity to the telecommunications utilities that participated in the eavesdropping. That has been a top priority of the administration. The temporary measure gave the utilities immunity for future acts but not past deeds. Private groups are trying to prove in federal court that the utilities violated the law by participating in the program. A former senior Justice Department lawyer seemed to bolster their case last week when he told Congress that the program was a “legal mess” and strongly suggested that it was illegal. The House bill would also require the administration to disclose details of the program. Democrats say they plan to push the administration to turn over internal documents laying out the legal rationale for the program something the administration has refused to do. In the Senate the chairman of the Intelligence Committee. John D. Rockefeller IV. Democrat of West Virginia is working with his Republican counterpart. Christopher S. Bond of Missouri a main proponent of the August plan to come up with a compromise. Wendy Morigi a spokeswoman for Mr. Rockefeller said that retroactive immunity for the utilities was “under discussion” but that no final proposal had been developed. The immunity issue may prove to be the crucial sticking point between whatever proposals the House and Senate ultimately pass. Representative a New York Democrat who was among the harshest critics of the temporary bill said in an interview he would vigorously oppose any effort to grant retroactive legal protection to telecommunications utilities.“There is heavy pressure on the immunity and we should not cave an inch on that,” Mr. Nadler said. Mr. Nadler said that he was worried the Senate would give too much ground to the administration in its proposal but that he was satisfied with the bill to be proposed on Tuesday in the House.“It is not perfect but it is a good bill,” he said. “It makes huge improvements in the current law. In some respects it is better than the old FISA law,” a reference to the foreign intelligence court.
Civil liberties advocates and others who met House officials on Monday on the proposed bill agreed that it was an improvement over the August plan but were less charitable in their overall assessment.‘This still authorizes the interception of Americans’ international communications without a warrant in far too many instances and without adequate civil liberties protections,” said Kate Martin director of the Center for National Security Studies who was in the group that met House officials. Caroline Frederickson director of the Washington legislative office of the said she was troubled by the Democrats’ acceptance of broad blanket warrants for the security agency rather than the individualized warrants traditionally required by the intelligence court.“The Democratic leadership philosophically is with us,” Ms. Frederickson said. “But we need to help them realize the political case which is that Democrats will not be in danger if they don’t reauthorize this Protect America Act. They’re nervous.“There’s a ‘keep the majority’ mentality which is understandable,” she said. “But we think they’re putting themselves in more danger by not standing on principle.”Behind The Scenes. Liberals Ponder Supporting FISA LegislationBy - October 9. 2007. 7:21PMThings are in flux tonight behind the scenes as House Dems struggle to decide whether to support the that two House committees unveiled today. So here's what we're able to gather about the state of play right now. The entire House leadership is supporting the bill confirms Stacey Bernards a spokesperson for House Dem leader Steny Hoyer. But where are the House liberals? They are the key group to watch because their last week was taken as a sign that there would be heavy pressure on the House leadership not to capitulate by giving the administration too much power over wiretapping. So where are they? According to House Dem aides. House liberals appear to be leaning in the direction of supporting the legislation -- though nothing is at all certain. Earlier today an aide says an internal count of House members showed very strong opposition among liberals to the bill unveiled today. But later in the day some liberals appeared to be privately concluding that many of their demands -- which they in hopes of influencing the process -- had been met this aide says. Indeed one key House liberal who'd taken a stand against earlier manifestations of the measure -- Jerrold Nadler -- announced today that he would support the bill. In a his office claimed the bill "reinforces the role of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in regards to electronic surveillance programs," and "requires that FISA warrants are required when targeting domestic communications," though it doesn't require them for foreign ones. Still things are in flux and the aide cautions that a key sticking point for liberals remains -- the measure's embrace of "basket" wiretapping. House liberals are meeting behind closed doors as we speak to debate what their stance should be on the legislation. The House liberals' efforts are being coordinated by Bill Goold an aide to Rep. Lynne Woolsey (D-CA) one of the key House libs behind last week's mini-revolt. What's more some voices on the left are strongly urging House liberals to hold the line on "basket" warrants. As Matt Stoller over at Open Left the ACLU issued a statement today blasting the legislation over this provision saying that it is "a crucial sticking point. There is no specific target when you use basket warrants which contradicts the heart of the Fourth Amendment. Essentially a basket warrant really means no real warrant." A spokesman for Rep. Nadler was unable to immediately say why he backed the legislation despite this feature. I'm told that House liberals are privately discussing refusing to yield on this point but it won't be clear how willing they are to hold the line on it until some internal decisions are reached and the House libs start taking public positions in earnest. We'll know more in the A. M. Is Steny Hoyer the Stupidest Democrat in HISTORY?by Tue Oct 09. 2007 at 06:51:12 PM PDT found this :A top Democratic leader opened the door Tuesday to granting U. S telecommunications companies retroactive legal immunity for helping the government conduct electronic surveillance without court orders but said the Bush administration must first detail what those companies did. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. D-Md. said providing the immunity will likely be the price of getting President Bush to sign into law new legislation extending the government's surveillance authority. About 40 pending lawsuits name telecommunications companies for alleged violations of wiretapping laws. Democrats introduced a draft version of the new law Tuesday _ without the immunity language."We have not received documentation as to what in fact was done for which we've been asked to give immunity," Hoyer said. If this report is accurate. Steny Hoyer has just proved that he is the stupidest person in the Democratic Party alive today - and perhaps for all time. As we all know. George Bush and his subordinates have broken the law repeatedly - perhaps thousands of times perhaps millions perhaps even billions - by illegally capturing the phone calls and emails of American citizens without a warrant. Under FISA the is a fine up to 10,000 dollars up to five years in jail or both. George Bush personally authorized these massive illegal wiretaps through executive orders at least 30 times. If George Bush were prosecuted he'd spend the rest of his life in jail. If Democrats wanted to impeach Bush they'd have a slam-dunk case.(Of course Democrats don't have the smoking-gun evidence of Bush's crimes in hand. Why not? Because Bush refuses to give it to them even though they started asking for it two years ago (under then-Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter) when the NY Times first exposed the scandal. But all they need to do to get the evidence is through Inherent Contempt (locking up stonewalling officials in a DC jail like they do to anti-Bush protesters) or starting impeachment hearings which would make enforcement of the subpoenas by Federal courts easier.)In other words. Democrats have Bush over a barrel - or as they say in Texas they have him by the balls. So what does Steny Hoyer want to do with this unbelievable leverage?He could use it for many things. For example or face impeachment and prosecution for violating FISA. He could tell Bush to appoint a Special Prosecutor to prosecute the hundreds of billions in corrupt contracts to his cronies from Iraq to the Gulf Coast or face impeachment and prosecution for violating FISA. He could tell Bush to de-Bushify the executive branch by firing every Michael Brown and Monica Goodling or face impeachment and prosecution for violating FISA. He could tell Bush to provide universal health care stop global warming and fix all our crumbling schools roads bridges and levees or face impeachment and prosecution for violating FISA. He could tell Bush to cut taxes on working families by raising taxes on the rich or face impeachment and prosecution for violating FISA. Get the picture?Now there's one crucial assumption in this argument - that Bush actually cares about being impeached or going to prison. Because if he doesn't care then he'll cheerfully accept impeachment and prison rather than meet Democratic demands. And that's where Hoyer's insane idea of granting immunity to telephone companies comes into play. If Bush doesn't care about impeachment or prison the executives of the telephone companies sure as hell do care about their civil and criminal liability for violating FISA because each of them could be fined and imprisoned for each violation their companies committed. And the millions of shareholders of the telephone companies sure as hell do care because their companies could be bankrupted by FISA civil suits. And between the executives and shareholders of the telephone companies they could damn well persuade Bush to accept whatever terms the Democrats demand. So with all of this incredible leverage in the palm of his hands; what is Hoyer proposing to do with it?He wants to use it to get Bush to sign a bill that no one in America wants Democrats to pass or Bush to sign!!!The American people are perfectly happy with FISA as it existed under the false threat of a terrorist attack - which itself was a criminal act by the Bush Administration. Democrats com did a poll in August that found 73%-22% opposition to Bush's warrantless wiretapping plan. But while the August law was loathsome its only saving grace was a 6 month expiration date at which point the strict terms of FISA would again become the law. So Americans would be much better off if Congress did nothing now and simply let the Protect Wiretappers Act expire. But instead of doing nothing. Hoyer wants to get on his knees to beg Bush to sign a bill that nobody wants and use his ace-in-the-hole to make him sign it!Steny Hoyer practiced law for 15 years. If he doesn't understand the leverage he has in his hands he should not only be thrown out of Congress - he should be tarred and feathered by every freedom-loving voter in America. And if Congressional Democrats support Hoyer's insanity they should meet the very same fate. On Tuesday's Ed Schultz Show. Nancy Pelosi struggled to explain why she opposes impeaching Bush and Cheney. She said if anyone could prove Bush committed impeachable offenses they should contact her. Of course violating the Fourth Amendment and FISA is impeachable and it's proved by Bush's confession (see above). Rewriting laws with signing statements is impeachable and it's proved by the statements posted on the White House website and by a GAO study finding that in many cases Bush has proceeded to violate the laws he claims the right to violate. Refusing to comply with subpoenas is impeachable and there is no dispute that Bush and Cheney have refused to comply. The evidence collected at proves that Bush and Cheney intentionally misled the nation into an illegal war of aggression. Numerous victims prove the practice of torture. In sum here are 10 provable reasons to impeach Bush and Cheney that you can send to Congress right now: White House And Turkey Fight Bill On ArmeniaGenocide Label for WWI-Era Killings Has House SupportBy Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday. October 10. 2007; Page A01A proposed House resolution that would label as "genocide" the deaths of Armenians more than 90 years ago during the Ottoman Empire has won the support of a majority of House members unleashing a lobbying blitz by the Bush administration and other opponents who say it would greatly harm relations with a key ally in the war. All eight living former secretaries of state have signed a joint letter to House (D-Calif.) warning that the nonbinding resolution "would endanger our national security interests." Three former defense secretaries in their own letter said Turkey probably would cut off U. S access to a critical air base. The government of Turkey is spending more than $300,000 a month on communications specialists and high-powered lobbyists including former congressman Bob Livingston to defeat the initiative. Pelosi whose congressional district has a large Armenian population has brushed aside such concerns and said she supports bringing the resolution for the first time to a full vote in the House where more than half of the members have signed on as co-sponsors. The House Foreign Affairs Committee which has passed such a resolution before is set to vote on it today. House Resolution 106 officially the Affirmation of the United States Record on the Armenian Genocide has been pushed doggedly by a congressman whose Southern California district contains the largest concentration of Armenian Americans in the country. Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D) won his seat in 2000 after his Republican predecessor was sandbagged when then-House Speaker reneged on a pledge and pulled the bill from the floor after a last-minute plea from President. Schiff who defeated Rep. James Rogan after Hastert killed the floor vote said the deaths so long ago still resonate with Armenians. "It is an insight you get when you have lots of Armenian constituents," he said saying it reminded him of conversations he had while growing up Jewish. "But imagine losing the entire family and having the successor state say it never happened."Few people deny that massacres killed hundreds of thousands of Armenian men women and children during and immediately after World War I. But Turkish officials and some historians say that the deaths resulted from forced relocations and widespread fighting when the 600-year-old Ottoman Empire collapsed not from a campaign of genocide -- and that hundreds of thousands of Turks also died in the same region during that time."This is the greatest accusation of all against humanity," said Turkish Ambassador Nabi Sensoy referring to genocide. "You cannot expect any nation to accept that kind of labeling." He said the reaction in the Turkish parliament would be one of fury noting that the Turkish military cut contacts with the French military and terminated defense contracts under negotiation after the French National Assembly voted in 2006 to criminalize the denial of Armenian genocide. Pelosi had long been a co-sponsor of the resolution. The Armenian National Committee one of the many Armenian organizations that have sought passage of the measure for years has given her an "A" grade for her stance on Armenian issues. Now as speaker. Pelosi will face a choice between her role as a national leader and her previous campaign pledges as a member of Congress. U. S.-Turkish relations are already under some strain because Kurdish militant groups have attacked Turkish targets from bases in Iraq with suggesting it may launch its own attack. Turkey plans to hold a "neighbors" conference on Iraq pushed by the United States later this month but a recent poll by the nonpartisan group Terror Free Tomorrow found that 83 percent of Turks would oppose assisting the United States on Iraq if the Armenia resolution passed. It is a problem that has caused other politicians to flinch. As a presidential candidate in 2000 pledged to ensure that "our nation properly recognizes" what he called "a genocidal campaign that defies comprehension." But angering Armenian groups. Bush refused to use the term in the annual presidential statement on the subject made on April 24 generally considered the beginning of the killings in 1915. President and Clinton also refused to refer to genocide in their annual statements for fear of offending Turkey. Among other things the resolution calls on the president to use his annual message to "accurately characterize the systematic and deliberate annihilation of 1,500,000 Armenians as genocide."In the Senate where one-third of its members are co-sponsoring the resolution supports the measure as do the two leading candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination: (N. Y.) and (Ill.). The which collected the signatures of the former secretaries of state has lobbied against the resolution with Secretary of State. Undersecretary of State R. Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried and U. S. Ambassador Ross Wilson calling lawmakers yesterday to "urge them not to vote for this," according to an interview Fried gave the news agency. The Turkish Embassy is paying $100,000 a month to lobbying firm and $105,000 a month to the Livingston Group and it recently added communications specialists Fleishman-Hillard for nearly $114,000 a month according to records filed with the. Turkish lawmakers were on yesterday warning that passage would put military cooperation with Turkey at risk. Meanwhile leading the charge for the resolution are grass-roots groups such as the Armenian Assembly of America with 10,000 members a budget of $3.6 million last year and phone banks that are running on overtime calling members of Congress. The organization has signed up 53 non-Armenian ethnic groups including a number of Jewish groups to support the resolution. Some Jewish groups have found themselves in a bind because Turkey is one of the few Muslim nations to have diplomatic relations with. Supreme Court Won't Review Alleged CIA AbductionBy Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday. October 10. 2007; Page A04The Supreme Court declined yesterday to open U. S courts to a German citizen who said he was abducted imprisoned and tortured by the because he was mistakenly identified as a terrorist. The government had invoked its "state secrets" privilege and said there was no way for Khaled el-Masri to bring his lawsuit or for the government to defend itself without the disclosure of information that would endanger national security. A federal district judge and the for the 4th Circuit had dismissed Masri's suit and the Supreme Court's denial of review of those actions came without comment or dissent. Masri who is of Lebanese descent has said he was detained by Macedonian police while on vacation on Dec. 31. 2003 and handed over to the CIA a few weeks later under a secret program that transfers terrorism suspects to other countries for interrogation. He said he was taken to a secret CIA-run prison in and physically abused before he was flown back to the without explanation in May 2004 and dumped on a hillside in. German officials said they were later informed privately by their U. S counterparts that Masri was detained in a case of mistaken identity apparently confused with a terrorism suspect of a similar name. The case has drawn wide attention in although U. S officials have not publicly admitted any guilt or responsibility in the case. The had taken up Masri's case and lawyer Ben Wizner said the Supreme Court's decision not to hear it "has provided the government with complete immunity for its shameful human rights and due-process violations."ACLU lawyers that "the entire world already knows" the information the government said it is seeking to protect. But government lawyers said comments from officials are different from the specific details the administration would need to expose in order to litigate the case called Masri's lawsuit an "extravagant request" that would overturn the precedent set by the court more than 50 years ago in denying a lawsuit brought during the Cold War about a downed warplane. German authorities had tried to extradite 13 CIA agents they claimed were involved in Masri's abduction but they dropped the effort last month. Masri was committed to a psychiatric institution in May after he was arrested in the southern German city of Neu-Ulm on suspicion of arson. His attorney in blamed his troubles on the CIA saying the kidnapping and detention had left Masri a "psychological wreck."New Security Strategy Emphasizes Disaster PreparednessBy Washington Post Staff Writers Wednesday. October 10. 2007; Page A02 yesterday updated the nation's homeland security strategy for the first time since shortly after the Sept. 11. 2001 attacks acknowledging the need to prepare for catastrophic natural disasters as well as the "persistent and evolving" threat of terrorism. The 53-page National Strategy for Homeland Security comes as the Bush administration with little more than 15 months left in office seeks to take account of lessons it painfully learned when Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast in 2005."Homeland security both as a policy matter and as a concept didn't exist prior to 9/11 and prior to assuming office," said the White House homeland security adviser. "We believe that we had an obligation regardless of who the next president is. Republican or Democrat to leave them the benefit of our thinking." chairman of the said however that the document "provides little guidance for the deficiencies already taxing our homeland security capacity while at the same time it attempts to define successes which have not yet been realized."Several security analysts praised the document for attempting to put such policies on more solid footing. But they also questioned its timing and long passages defending the pet initiatives of a dwindling administration instead of reconciling security directives and plans issued over the past six years."It reads more like a legacy document than a forward-leaning strategy," said Frank J. Cilluffo a former Bush adviser now head of 's Homeland Security Policy Institute. "To some extent it was a missed opportunity," he said. David W. Heyman director of the homeland security program noted that the 208,000-worker remains short of key managers and its Deputy Secretary Michael P. Jackson recently announced his resignation."It's a surprising time to come up with a new strategy," Heyman said. "My concern is that even if this is a better or best strategy without the effective leadership human resources processes and operations to support it they are not going to set down roots." The document supplants a 90-page strategy hastily drafted largely in private by a handful of White House advisers and released in July 2002. Criticized for overemphasizing terrorism at the expense of recurring natural events the strategy hampered the federal government's response when Hurricane Katrina struck three years later analysts said. The new report acknowledges: "Threats come not only from terrorism but also from nature. Effective preparation for catastrophic natural disasters and man-made disasters while not homeland security per se can nevertheless increase the security of the homeland." The report said ongoing threats range from infectious disease outbreaks to "catastrophic domestic accidents" such as chemical spills and power failures. The document sets four goals: to prevent and disrupt terrorist attacks; protect the public critical assets and resources; respond to and recover from incidents; and strengthen the nation's homeland security foundation. The 2002 strategy listed only the first three goals and named prevention but not disruption of attacks. The report also restates that is the "most serious and dangerous" threat as noted in a July national intelligence estimate. "We remain particularly concerned about the employment of improvised explosive devices (IEDs)" in the United States the report says echoing a February presidential homeland security directive. Bush denies CIA torture of suspectsInterrogation methods are legal he says amid controversy over Justice Department memos sanctioning disputed techniques such as simulated drowning. By Greg Miller and Richard B. Schmitt. Los Angeles Times Staff Writers October 6. 2007WASHINGTON -- President Bush on Friday defended the CIA's harsh interrogation of terrorism suspects saying its methods do not constitute torture and are necessary to protect America from attack. But Bush's declaration that the United States "does not torture people" did little to dampen the fallout from fresh evidence that his administration has used secret legal memos to sanction tactics that stretch if not circumvent the law. Related Stories----The president's comments came amid disclosures this week of classified opinions issued by the Justice Department in 2005 that endorsed the legality of an array of interrogation tactics ranging from sleep deprivation to simulated drowning.
Army Leaders Plan to Add 74,000 Soldiers by 2010Associated Press Wednesday. October 10. 2007; Page A08Top Army leaders said yesterday that they plan to add 74,000 soldiers to the Army by 2010 two years sooner than originally planned to relieve the strain on forces stretched by the and wars. Army leaders said they will do it largely by persuading more soldiers to stay in the armed forces as well as by getting the help of recruiters who will work to direct some of their recruits to the active-duty Army. speaking to the Association of the United States Army yesterday said approved the plan to hasten the increase by two years to give soldiers more time at home between deployments and to improve staffing and educational opportunities. Casey's comments provided the first public acknowledgment of the two-year acceleration plan. Officials earlier had suggested the timeline would be cut by one year. Gates in a memo to Army Secretary late last month approved the acceleration plan as long as there is no reduction in recruiting standards. Gates also asked for detailed quarterly reports from Geren on the Army's progress meeting recruitment and retention goals the creation and readiness of new combat units and reductions in the cost of the institutional Army. The planned increase would bring the total number of soldiers in the active-duty Army to 547,000. Salem-News. Com - OR,USATo achieve his goal of putting impeachment back "on the table" for President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Steinberg created handmade... Political Cortex - New York,NY,USABrown when Reid scoffed at impeachment as a "foolish" idea replied to Reid's dismissive statement that Bush had only one more year to serve as chief... MaineToday com - Portland. ME,USATom Allen to task for refusing to pursue impeachment proceedings against President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney. While I agree wholeheartedly with... Amherst รข€" Though Elizabeth Edwards was in town to talk about her husband's universal health insurance plan once she turned the floor over to the audience the conversation quickly turned to impeachment. ... By rmfretz (rmfretz) She's anti-war and pro-impeachment. In fact. Camille joined us when we visited Rep. Steve Rothman's office in Hackensack in September when she argued forcefully for impeachment. It's great to finally have a candidate we can actually... By macrobank In reference to the President. Article II. Section 2 of the 'Constitution of the United States' reads: ".. he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States except in Cases of Impeachment. ... When we went to the Republican debate in Durham with our IMPEACH signs we found that many Republicans agreed with us. In Hanover we met a "Democratic BUSH enabler" after the debate who went ballistic over the IMPEACH sign because he said he wanted BUSH/Cheney to remain in power so they could attack Iran. This article has me convinced that we must dress conservatively when we protest not flamboyantly or like hippies and hold signs that will appeal to their love of country (US Constitution) and dislike of reckless spending. These people who are fed up in the Republican party need to feel comfortable joining us. We are more apt to gain their support than a "Rahm Emanuel Democrat," who is working from within the Democratic party to steer our party away from impeachment and peace. These angry Rahm Democrats are trying to bully us into silence. They are a clue to the political undercurrent deep within the Democratic party. We must ferret out these ankle biters and expose their agenda to the majority. WHY BIRD-DOG HILLARY? (my thoughts):Republicans often try to dismiss the grassroots impeachment movement in this country as merely a partisan effort by Bush-haters. But.. the movement to Impeach Bush & Cheney is really NOT about politics at all. It's about right versus wrong! It's about standing up for the Constitution and the rule of law. It's about holding the administration accountable for its crimes and abuse of power! NOT about patisan politics or this candidate versus that candidate. Truth be told at the meetings of our group and on our discussion board ( our members often speak out just as angrily about "spineless Democrats" - who capitulate to the rightwing by voting for bad bills in Congress and also refuse to do their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution by investigating the administration's many crimes and abuses of power. It's obvious that without weak-willed Democrats constantly rolling over to Bush and Cheney's demands that the White House could not get away with curbs on our civil liberties nor stonewalling Congress & the courts nor would we be mired today in the seemingly endless disaster that is IRAQ!Case in point... HILLARY CLINTON. She voted FOR the Iraq War. She continues to claim that her vote in favor of launching an unnecessary war in Iraq was the right thing to do.(!?)AND NOW.. just last week she rolled over to White House demands ONCE AGAIN and voted for a new bill that brands the largest segment of the Iranian military as "a terrorist organization"!For more on this see: She was the ONLY democratic presidential candidate to vote FOR this bill - known as the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. The amendment (to an Iraq War appropriations bill) was a blatant attempt by the White House to allow them to create an excuse to WIDEN THE IRAQ WAR INTO IRAN - something which has long been on the wish list of Dick Cheney and other neo-cons in the administration!Has Sen. Clinton learned NOTHING in the past 6 years? Has she not figured out yet how Bush & Co propagandized America the last time with their tall tales of Iraqi WMDs and "emerging threats" in order to lie us into a war? Doesn't she see how allowing the White House to continue to engage in such reckless sabre-rattling will simply allow them to make the situation in Iraq even worse - perhaps 10x worse (than the genocidal disaster it already is) by drawing Iran into the conflict as well!?It's time to stand up now and hold SEN. HILLARY CLINTON accountable for her votes that have enabled further warfare in the Middle East!Join us on Wed. Oct. 10th at Symphony Hall as we demand an apology from her for her appeasement of warmongers and tell her to: Stand up and Stop the War Now!Hope to see you all there!
Long after the scandal at Abu Ghraib and the Administration’s denouncement of all that happened there the New York Times reported last week that in 2005 the Justice Department issued a secret internal memo that endorsed "the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency."We’re angry: the America we believe in does not torture people. And in response. Thursday October 11. Barnes and Noble. 82nd and Broadway. 6:00 pmNorman Podhoretz will tout his new book The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism at Barnes & Noble on 82nd and Broadway. Podhoretz is an extremely powerful neocon who recently met with Bush to urge him to bomb Iran. He also signed the statement of principles for the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) ten years ago; this is a document that explicitly calls upon the U. S to pursue empire in the aftermath of the Cold War and has served as a blueprint for many of the Bush Regime's policies. World Can’t Wait is calling on people to attend this book signing and call out Podhoretz for this work of propaganda wearing the sheep’s clothing of intellectual analysis. Wear orange to indicate your resistance to the neo-con/Bush program. Podhoretz is Rudy Giuliani’s Senior Foreign Policy Advisor for his 2008 presidential campaign. We are calling for a line of orange jumpsuits outside the store to dramatize the kind of consequences that flow from this so-called analysis. The jumpsuits represent the legalization of torture that has accompanied the “war on terror.” If you want to participate in this action e-mail. We plan to be at B&N at 6 pm as this event may be well-attended!Make no mistake! Podhoretz’s book is not an analysis based on knowledge of Islam or understanding of the cultures of the Middle East or even the immediate political situation. It is a restatement of the neoconservative agenda for American foreign policy. It is intended to justify the Iraq war and a potential attack on Iran. Interestingly the recent publication of the book will be accompanied by David Horowitz’ sponsorship of “Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week” on campuses around the country including Columbia University. October 22-26. These efforts by the neo-cons are intended to frighten the American people who want an end to the Iraq war and an end to the foreign policy that is behind it. It is also an exercise in double speak to hide the neo-con assault on women’s rights civil rights critical thinking in the universities constitutional guarantees in the Bill of Rights and the rule of law (both national and international) here at home. Who are the fascists here? Who has legalized torture? Who has spied on its own population? Who has sought to deny the reproductive freedom of women? Who has failed to protect the security of Black Americans (in Katrina and beyond)? Who has opposed the aspirations of gays? Who has thrown the cost of the Iraq war on the soldiers who fight it and has then thrown them away when they are broken?YOUTH AND STUDENTS MEETING. 8pm (following Podhoretz protest)Following the Podhoretz protest we are convening a citywide meeting of youth and students to plan saturating campuses with posters denoucing David Horowitz and "Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week," as well as administering WCW Iran quizzes that expose the lies being told to justify war on Iran. Come be part of the planning process! Meet in front of Barnes and Noble at 8pm.... FRIDAY: ORANGE UPSURGE COMES TO FOX NEWS!!It is up to us to prevent war on Iran! On Friday we will be marching to the belly of the propaganda beast -- Fox News headquarters-- demanding no war on Iran and denouncing the lies that Fox News and other major media outlets are spreading to pave the way for an attack. Gather at 5:30 at the Times Square military recruiting center. 43rd and Broadway wearing as much orange as possible! March from there to the Fox News studios. The Democrats who enable BushBy HEARST NEWSPAPERSWASHINGTON -- President Bush has no better friends than the spineless Democratic congressional leadership and the party's leading presidential candidates when it comes to his failing Iraq policy. Those Democrats seem to have forgotten that the American people want U. S troops out of Iraq especially since Bush still cannot give a credible reason for attacking Iraq after nearly five years of war. Last week at a debate in Hanover. N. H. the leading Democratic presidential candidates sang from the same songbook: Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards refused to promise to withdraw U. S troops from Iraq by 2013 at the end of the first term of their hypothetical presidencies. Can you believe it?When the question was put to Clinton she reverted to her usual cautious equivocation saying: "It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting."Obama dodged too: "I think it would be irresponsible" to say what he would do as president. Edwards on whom hopes were riding to show some independence replied to the question: "I cannot make that commitment."They have left the voters little choice with those answers. Some supporters were outraged at the obfuscation by the Democratic front-runners. On the other hand. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson. Rep. Dennis Kucinich. D-Ohio and Sen. Joe Biden. D-Del. are more definitive in their calls for quick troop withdrawals. But Biden wants to break up Iraq into three provinces along religious and ethnic lines. In other words. Balkanize Iraq. To have major Democratic backing to stay the course in Iraq added up to good news for Bush. Now comes a surprising Clinton fan. President Bush told Bill Sammon -- Washington Examiner correspondent and author of a new book titled "The Evangelical President" -- that Clinton will beat Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination because she is a "formidable candidate" and better known. Sammon says Bush revealed that he has been sending messages to Clinton to urge her to "maintain some political wiggle room in your campaign rhetoric about Iraq."The author said Bush contends that whoever inherits the White House will be faced with a potential vacuum in Iraq and "will begin to understand the need to continue to support the young democracy."Bush ought to know about campaign rhetoric. Remember how he ridiculed "nation building" in the 2000 presidential campaign? Now he claims he is trying to spread democracy throughout the Middle East. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is another Democratic leader who has empowered Bush's war. Pelosi removed a provision from the most recent war-funding bill that would have required Bush to seek the permission of Congress before launching any attack on Iran. Her spokesman gave the lame excuse that she didn't like the wording of the provision. More likely she bowed to political pressure. Is it any wonder the Democrats are faring lower than the president in a Washington Post ABC approval poll? Bush came in at 33 percent and Congress at 29 percent. Members of Congress seem to have forgotten their constitutional prerogative to declare war; World War II was the last time Congress formally declared war. Presidents have found other ways to make end runs around the law mainly by obtaining congressional authorization "to do whatever is necessary" in a crisis involving use of the military. That's the way we got into the Vietnam and Iraq wars. So what are the leading Democratic White House hopefuls offering? It seems nothing but more war. So where do the voters go who are sick of the Iraqi debacle?CONSORTIUMNEWS. COM'A Coup Has Occurred'By Daniel Ellsberg September 26. 2007 (Text of a speech delivered September 20. 2007)Editor’s Note: Daniel Ellsberg the former Defense Department analyst who leaked the secret Pentagon Papers history of the Vietnam War offered insights into the looming war with Iran and the loss of liberty in the United States at an American University symposium on Sept. 20. Below is an edited transcript of Ellsberg’s remarkable speech:I think nothing has higher priority than averting an attack on Iran which I think will be accompanied by a further change in our way of governing here that in effect will convert us into what I would call a police state. If there’s another 9/11 under this regime … it means that they switch on full extent all the apparatus of a police state that has been patiently constructed largely secretly at first but eventually leaked out and known and accepted by the Democratic people in Congress by the Republicans and so forth. Will there be anything left for NSA to increase its surveillance of us? … They may be to the limit of their technical capability now or they may not. But if they’re not now they will be after another 9/11. And I would say after the Iranian retaliation to an American attack on Iran you will then see an increased attack on Iran – an escalation – which will be also accompanied by a total suppression of dissent in this country including detention camps. It’s a little hard for me to distinguish the two contingencies; they could come together. Another 9/11 or an Iranian attack in which Iran’s reaction against Israel against our shipping against our troops in Iraq above all possibly in this country will justify the full panoply of measures that have been prepared now legitimized and to some extent written into law. This is an unusual gang even for Republicans. [But] I think that the successors to this regime are not likely to roll back the assault on the Constitution. They will take advantage of it they will exploit it. Will Hillary Clinton as president decide to turn off NSA after the last five years of illegal surveillance? Will she deprive her administration her ability to protect United States citizens from possible terrorism by blinding herself and deafening herself to all that NSA can provide? I don’t think so. Unless this somehow by a change in our political climate of a radical change unless this gets rolled back in the next year or two before a new administration comes in – and there’s no move to do this at this point – unless that happens I don’t see it happening under the next administration whether Republican or Democratic. THE NEXT COUPLet me simplify this and not just to be rhetorical: A coup has occurred. I woke up the other day realizing coming out of sleep that a coup has occurred. It’s not just a question that a coup lies ahead with the next 9/11. That’s the next coup that completes the first. The last five years have seen a steady assault on every fundamental of our Constitution. … what the rest of the world looked at for the last 200 years as a model and experiment to the rest of the world – in checks and balances limited government. Bill of Rights individual rights protected from majority infringement by the Congress an independent judiciary the possibility of impeachment. There have been violations of these principles by many presidents before. Most of the specific things that Bush has done in the way of illegal surveillance and other matters were done under my boss Lyndon Johnson in the Vietnam War: the use of CIA. FBI. NSA against Americans. I could go through a list going back before this century to Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus in the Civil War and before that the Alien and Sedition Acts in the 18th century. I think that none of those presidents were in fact what I would call quite precisely the current administration: domestic enemies of the Constitution. I think that none of these presidents with all their violations which were impeachable had they been found out at the time and in nearly every case their violations were not found out until they were out of office so we didn’t have the exact challenge that we have today. That was true with the first term of Nixon and certainly of Johnson. Kennedy and others. They were impeachable they weren’t found out in time but I think it was not their intention to in the crisis situations that they felt justified their actions to change our form of government. It is increasingly clear with each new book and each new leak that comes out that Richard Cheney and his now chief of staff David Addington have had precisely that in mind since at least the early 70s. Not just since 1992 not since 2001 but have believed in Executive government single-branch government under an Executive president – elected or not – with unrestrained powers. They did not believe in restraint. When I say this I’m not saying they are traitors. I don’t think they have in mind allegiance to some foreign power or have a desire to help a foreign power. I believe they have in their own minds a love of this country and what they think is best for this country – but what they think is best is directly and consciously at odds with what the Founders of this country and Constitution thought. They believe we need a different kind of government now an Executive government essentially rule by decree which is what we’re getting with signing statements. Signing statements are talked about as line-item vetoes which is one [way] of describing them which are unconstitutional in themselves but in other ways are just saying the president says “I decide what I enforce. I decide what the law is. I legislate.”It’s [the same] with the military commissions courts that are under the entire control of the Executive Branch essentially of the president. A concentration of legislative judicial and executive powers in one branch which is precisely what the Founders meant to avert and tried to avert and did avert to the best of their ability in the Constitution. FOUNDERS HAD IT RIGHTNow I’m appealing to that as a crisis right now not just because it is a break in tradition but because I believe in my heart and from my experience that on this point the Founders had it right. It’s not just “our way of doing things” – it was a crucial perception on the corruption of power to anybody including Americans. On procedures and institutions that might possibly keep that power under control because the alternative was what we have just seen wars like Vietnam wars like Iraq wars like the one coming. That brings me to the second point. This Executive Branch under specifically Bush and Cheney despite opposition from most of the rest of the branch even of the cabinet clearly intends a war against Iran which even by imperialist standards standards in other words which were accepted not only by nearly everyone in the Executive Branch but most of the leaders in Congress. The interests of the empire the need for hegemony our right to control and our need to control the oil of the Middle East and many other places. That is consensual in our establishment. But even by those standards an attack on Iran is insane. And I say that quietly. I don’t mean it to be heard as rhetoric. Of course it’s not only aggression and a violation of international law a supreme international crime but it is by imperial standards insane in terms of the consequences. Does that make it impossible? No it obviously doesn’t it doesn’t even make it unlikely. That is because two things come together that with the acceptance for various reasons of the Congress – Democrats and Republicans – and the public and the media we have freed the White House – the president and the vice president – from virtually any restraint by Congress courts media public whatever. And on the other hand the people who have this unrestrained power are crazy. Not entirely but they have crazy beliefs. And the question is what then what can we do about this? We are heading towards an insane operation. It is not certain. It is likely. … I want to try to be realistic myself here to encourage us to do what we must do what is needed to be done with the full recognition of the reality. Nothing is impossible. What I’m talking about in the way of a police state in the way of an attack on Iran is not certain. Nothing is certain actually. However. I think it is probable more likely than not that in the next 15. 16 months of this administration we will see an attack on Iran. Probably; Whatever we do. And … we will not succeed in moving Congress probably and Congress probably will not stop the president from doing this. And that’s where we’re heading. That’s a very ugly ugly prospect. However. I think it’s up to us to work to increase that small perhaps – anyway not large – possibility and probability to avert this within the next 15 months aside from the effort that we have to make for the rest of our lives. RESTORING THE REPUBLICGetting back the constitutional government and improving it will take a long time. And I think if we don’t get started now it won’t be started under the next administration. Getting out of Iraq will take a long time. Averting Iran and averting a further coup in the face of a 9/11 another attack is for right now it can’t be put off. It will take a kind of political and moral courage of which we have seen very little…We have a really unusual concentration here and in this audience of people who have in fact changed their lives changed their position lost their friends to a large extent risked and experienced being called terrible names. “traitor,” “weak on terrorism” – names that politicians will do anything to avoid being called. How do we get more people in the government and in the public at large to change their lives now in a crisis in a critical way? How do we get Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid for example? What kinds of pressures what kinds of influences can be brought to bear to get Congress to do their jobs? It isn’t just doing their jobs; Getting them to obey their oaths of office. I took an oath many times an oath of office as a Marine lieutenant as an official in the Defense Department as an official in the State Department as a Foreign Service officer. A number of times I took an oath of office which is the same oath office taken by every member of Congress and every official in the United States and every officer in the United States armed services. And that oath is not to a Commander in Chief which is not mentioned. It is not to a fuehrer. It is not even to superior officers. The oath is precisely to protect and uphold the Constitution of the United States. Now that is an oath I violated every day for years in the Defense Department without realizing it when I kept my mouth shut when I knew the public was being lied into a war as they were lied into Iraq as they are being lied into war in Iran. I knew that I had the documents that proved it and I did not put it out then. I was not obeying my oath which I eventually came to do. I’ve often said that Lt. Ehren Watada – who still faces trial for refusing to obey orders to deploy to Iraq which he correctly perceives to be an unconstitutional and aggressive war – is the single officer in the United States armed services who is taking seriously in upholding his oath. The president is clearly violating that oath of course. Everybody under him who understands what is going on and there are myriad are violating their oaths. And that’s the standard that I think we should be asking of people. CONGRESSIONAL COURAGEOn the Democratic side on the political side. I think we should be demanding of our Democratic leaders in the House and Senate – and frankly of the Republicans – that it is not their highest single absolute priority to be reelected or to maintain a Democratic majority so that Pelosi can still be Speaker of the House and Reid can be in the Senate or to increase that majority. I’m not going to say that for politicians they should ignore that or that they should do something else entirely or that they should not worry about that. Of course that will be and should be a major concern of theirs but they’re acting like it’s their sole concern. Which is business as usual. “We have a majority let’s not lose it let’s keep it. Let’s keep those chairmanships.” Exactly what have those chairmanships done for us to save the Constitution in the last couple of years?I am shocked by the Republicans today that I read in the Washington Post who yesterday threatened a filibuster if we … get back habeas corpus. The ruling out of habeas corpus with the help of the Democrats did not get us back to George the First it got us back to before King John 700 years ago in terms of counter-revolution. We need some way and Ann Wright has one way of sitting in in Conyers office and getting arrested. Ray McGovern has been getting arrested pushed out the other day for saying the simple words “swear him in” when it came to testimony. I think we’ve got to somehow get home to them [in Congress] that this is the time for them to uphold the oath to preserve the Constitution which is worth struggling for in part because it’s only with the power that the Constitution gives Congress responding to the public only with that can we protect the world from mad men in power in the White House who intend an attack on Iran. And the current generation of American generals and others who realize that this will be a catastrophe have not shown themselves – they might be people who in their past lives risked their bodies and their lives in Vietnam or elsewhere like [Colin] Powell and would not risk their career or their relation with the president to the slightest degree. That has to change. And it’s the example of people like those up here who somehow brought home to our representatives that they as humans and as citizens have the power to do likewise and find in themselves the courage to protect this country and protect the world. Thank you. Daniel Ellsberg is author of. To comment at Consortiumblog click. (To make a blog comment about this or other stories you can use your normal e-mail address and password. Ignore the prompt for a Google account.) To comment to us by e-mail click. To donate so we can continue reporting and publishing stories like the one you just read click. LEAK SEVERED A LINK TO AL-QAEDA'S SECRETS: FIRM SAYS ADMINISTRATION'S HANDLING OF VIDEO RUINED ITS SPYING EFFORTS
By Joby WarrickWashington Post Staff WriterTuesday. October 9. 2007; A01A small private intelligence company that monitors Islamic terrorist groups obtained a new video ahead of its official release last month and around 10 a m on Sept. 7 it notified the Bush administration of its secret acquisition. It gave two senior officials access on the condition that the officials not reveal they had it until the release. Within 20 minutes a range of intelligence agencies had begun downloading it from the company's Web site. By midafternoon that day the video and a transcript of its audio track had been leaked from within the Bush administration to cable television news and broadcast worldwide. The founder of the company the SITE Intelligence Group says this premature disclosure tipped al-Qaeda to a security breach and destroyed a years-long surveillance operation that the company has used to intercept and pass along secret messages videos and advance warnings of suicide bombings from the terrorist group's communications network."Techniques that took years to develop are now ineffective and worthless," said Rita Katz the firm's 44-year-old founder who has garnered wide attention by publicizing statements and videos from extremist chat rooms and Web sites while attracting controversy over the secrecy of SITE's methodology. Her firm provides intelligence about terrorist groups to a wide range of paying clients including private firms and military and intelligence agencies from the United States and several other countries. The precise source of the leak remains unknown. Government officials declined to be interviewed about the circumstances on the record but they did not challenge Katz's version of events. They also said the incident had no effect on U. S intelligence-gathering efforts and did not diminish the government's ability to anticipate attacks. While acknowledging that SITE had achieved success the officials said U. S agencies have their own sophisticated means of watching al-Qaeda on the Web. "We have individuals in the right places dealing with all these issues across all 16 intelligence agencies," said Ross Feinstein spokesman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. But privately some intelligence officials called the incident regrettable and one official said SITE had been "tremendously helpful" in ferreting out al-Qaeda secrets over time. The al-Qaeda video aired on Sept. 7 attracted international attention as the first new video message from the group's leader in three years. In it a dark-bearded bin Laden urges Americans to convert to Islam and predicts failure for the Bush administration in and. The video was aired on hundreds of Western news Web sites nearly a full day before its release by a distribution company linked to al-Qaeda. Computer logs and records reviewed by support SITE's claim that it snatched the video from al-Qaeda days beforehand. Katz requested that the precise date and details of the acquisition not be made public saying such disclosures could reveal sensitive details about the company's methods. SITE -- an acronym for the Search for International Terrorist Entities -- was established in 2002 with the stated goal of tracking and exposing terrorist groups according to the company's Web site. Katz an Iraqi-born Israeli citizen whose father was executed by in the 19
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|