The great betrayal

I read the following commentary in Raw Story and frankly, I'm speechless. I will go as far as to say I feel utterly betrayed... and have removed my trust from the Obama basket.

No wonder Obama won't investigate the Bush Administration.

I'm remembering, quite rapidly, why I became an Independent in the first place. Both of these parties are simply two sides of the same corrupted coin. Obama is a Democrat. He's part of the great, rotten machine.

Trust is a dangerous thing. But once given, it can be taken back. As Lincoln said: If once you forfeit the confidence of your fellow-citizens, you can never regain their respect and esteem. Lincoln also said "Stand with anybody that stands RIGHT, stand with him while he is right and PART with him when he goes wrong."

As I read this Raw Story below, I heard my confidence in Obama shatter; it sounded like a glass window exploding.

Obama was a Constitutional lawyer; this we have been told. A law professor. I wonder how he makes that work... with this?

Obama Administration quietly expands Bush's legal defense of wiretapping program
John Byrne
Published: Tuesday April 7, 2009

In a stunning defense of President George W. Bush's warrantless wiretapping program, President Barack Obama has broadened the government's legal argument for immunizing his Administration and government agencies from lawsuits surrounding the National Security Agency's eavesdropping efforts.

In fact, a close read of a government filing last Friday reveals that the Obama Administration has gone beyond any previous legal claims put forth by former President Bush.

Responding to a lawsuit filed by a civil liberties group, the Justice Department argued that the government was protected by "sovereign immunity" from lawsuits because of a little-noticed clause in the Patriot Act. The government's legal filing can be read here (PDF).

For the first time, the Obama Administration's brief contends that government agencies cannot be sued for wiretapping American citizens even if there was intentional violation of US law. They maintain that the government can only be sued if the wiretaps involve "willful disclosure" -- a higher legal bar.

"A 'willful violation' in Section 223(c(1) refers to the 'willful disclosure' of intelligence information by government agents, as described in Section 223(a)(3) and (b)(3), and such disclosures by the Government are the only actions that create liability against the United States," Obama Assistant Attorney General Michael Hertz wrote (page 5).

Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is suing the government over the warrantless wiretapping program, notes that the government has previously argued that the government had "sovereign immunity" against civil action under the FISA statute. But he says that this is the first time that they've invoked changes to the Patriot Act in claiming the US government is immune from claims of illegal spying under any other federal surveillance statute.

"They are arguing this based on changes to the law made by the USA PATRIOT Act, Section 223," Bankston said in an email to Raw Story. "We've never been fans of 223--it made it much harder to sue the U.S. for illegal spying, see an old write-up of mine at: http://w2.eff.org/patriot/sunset/223.php --but no one's ever suggested before that it wholly immunized the U.S. government against suits under all the surveillance statutes."

Salon columnist and constitutional scholar Glenn Greenwald -- who is generally supportive of progressive interpretations of the law -- says the Obama Administration has "invented a brand new claim" of immunity from spying litigation.

"In other words, beyond even the outrageously broad 'state secrets' privilege invented by the Bush administration and now embraced fully by the Obama administration, the Obama DOJ has now invented a brand new claim of government immunity, one which literally asserts that the U.S. Government is free to intercept all of your communications (calls, emails and the like) and -- even if what they're doing is blatantly illegal and they know it's illegal -- you are barred from suing them unless they 'willfully disclose' to the public what they have learned," Greenwald wrote Monday.

Here comes the new boss... same as the old boss.

It's Constitution Day

On this very day in 1787 our founding fathers signed the United States Constitution: making us a nation of laws, not simply of men and women.

The basic concepts of justice, liberty, and inherent human rights written carefully and with much thought into that founding document are the foundation of our democracy.

No foreign war will ever make us free; we are supposed to be free now. No foreign war will ever keep us free. It is our job as American citizens to keep ourselves and future generations free by keeping a watchful eye on our government and elected leaders so that our democracy never dissolves into tyranny. Our national 'watchdog' media has thrown off this sacred responsibility: we as citizens cannot.

The document that made us free - and will keep us free - is the Constitution of the United States.

Anyone who attacks that Constitution or in any way undermines it, or our rights as American citizens as outlined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights - especially in the guise of 'keeping us free' or keeping us safe - is betraying the very principles on which this nation was founded.

They are also trying to overthrow our democracy.

The Constitution of the United States of America: Learn it, love it, protect it. It protects you.

Patriotism

As I've always been told - since I was a small child - patriotism is love of country.

This would also include respect for all of those who came before us and left us this legacy of freedom, democracy and basic human rights; the people who died for these ideas we tend to take for granted (because we've never had them taken away.)

This Independence Day, take a moment to read the Bill of Rights... your rights, as an American. Then take a moment to call or write to your Senator, and tell him or her that you have read and understand the Forth Amendment; and that you'd like to keep it.

It doesn't belong to your Senator... it belongs to you.

Fourth Amendment to the Constitution

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Your phone records, your phone calls, your emails -- all are protected by this basic right. Our founding fathers considered this protection a basic right - the right to privacy. Those of you who are waving flags and celebrating the military today should remember, that generations of Americans died for this text. The total collection of these basic rights drew our ancestors, our parents, grandparents and great-grandparents, to this country in the first place.

Democracy... in more than just name. A goverment of the people... not controlled by a dictator or controlling organization (or corporation.)

Call your Senator. Tell your Senator that you don't believe anyone - your Senator, or this current president - have the right to bargain away your Constitutional Rights. They've already been paid for by American blood.

Joe Galloway: How dare they rip up the Fourth Amendment?

Posting a link to an excellent essay... true, and terribly poignant this week.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to celebrate Independence every year, as more and more of our rights are bargained away in Congressional back rooms. Or right out in the open; as though we're not even here. As though we are of no consequence.

We are here, aren't we? We are paying attention... aren't we?

Time for a little vigilance on our part. Our forefathers counted on us - we the people - to be paying attention to our rights, and to hold our representatives feet over the fire if they deviated from true representation of our basic rights as citizens.

From Joseph L. Galloway, McClatchy Newspapers:

Early next week the US Senate will vote on an extension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, with a few small amendments intended to immunize telecommunications corporations that assisted our government in the warrantless and illegal wiretapping it has grown to love.

That such a gutting of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution even made it out of committee is yet another stain on the gutless and seemingly powerless Democratic majority in both houses of Congress.

That a majority on both sides of the aisle - not least of them the presumptive nominees for president of both political parties - intend to vote for such a violation of Americans' right to privacy and of the sanctity of their personal communications is a stunning surrender to those who want us to live in fear forever.

Read the rest here...

See you in September

Reid: Senate Will Explore Long-Term Fixes To FISA In September

Washington, D.C.—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sent the following letter today to Senators Jay Rockefeller and Pat Leahy, encouraging them to develop long-term modernizations to FISA that better serve our national security interests than the law signed by President Bush this month:

August 14, 2007

The Honorable John D. Rockefeller IV
Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
Washington, DC 20510

The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy
Chairman, Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Jay and Pat:

On August 3rd the Senate passed and on August 5th President Bush signed legislation (Public Law 110-55) providing temporary six-month changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in light of the Director of National Intelligence’s expressed concerns about a recently-emerged gap in foreign counterterrorism intelligence collection. This issue was given even greater urgency because of the recently-published National Intelligence Estimate on the terrorist threat to the U.S. homeland, which indicates that, after six years of Bush Administration counterterrorism efforts, the threat to the homeland today from Al Qaeda is nearly as great as it was before 9/11.

I know both of you share my disappointment at the process that led to passage of the recent law, and at the flawed outcome itself, which you and I and many others strongly opposed. The temporary authorities in the new law will sunset in six months. While these temporary authorities are in effect, I support all efforts by your two committees to conduct vigorous and comprehensive oversight of their implementation.

I also know that your committees have been working exhaustively on sound options for a longer-term change to FISA, even though your work has been hindered by lack of cooperation from the Administration in providing relevant information. When the Senate reconvenes in September, I fully support your committees working expeditiously together and in a bipartisan manner to develop a longer-term statutory change that better serves American national security interests and comports with the Constitution and proper judicial and congressional oversight. I would like to see the full Senate consider as soon as possible a bill reported by your committees that addresses the deficiencies in the recently-enacted law and any other matter you believe must be addressed.

Thank you for your leadership on these matters.

Sincerely,


HARRY REID

Uh huh.

Hey Harry, look! Our own military spy satellites have now been turned on us!

Until now, only a handful of federal civilian agencies, such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the U.S. Geological Survey, have had access to the most basic spy-satellite imagery, and only for the purpose of scientific and environmental study.

--- snip ---

Access to the high-tech surveillance tools would, for the first time, allow Homeland Security and law-enforcement officials to see real-time, high-resolution images and data, which would allow them, for example, to identify smuggler staging areas, a gang safehouse, or possibly even a building being used by would-be terrorists to manufacture chemical weapons.

--- snip ---

Coming on the back of legislation that upgraded the administration's ability to wiretap terrorist suspects without warrants, the development is likely to heat up debate about the balance between civil liberties and national security.

--- snip ---

In recent years, some military experts have questioned whether domestic use of such satellites would violate the Posse Comitatus Act. The act bars the military from engaging in law-enforcement activity inside the U.S., and the satellites were predominantly built for and owned by the Defense Department.

According to Pentagon officials, the government has in the past been able to supply information from spy satellites to federal law-enforcement agencies, but that was done on a case-by-case basis and only with special permission from the president.

Even the architects of the current move are unclear about the legal boundaries. A 2005 study commissioned by the U.S. intelligence community, which recommended granting access to the spy satellites for Homeland Security, noted: "There is little if any policy, guidance or procedures regarding the collection, exploitation and dissemination of domestic MASINT." MASINT stands for Measurement and Signatures Intelligence, a particular kind of information collected by spy satellites which would for the first time become available to civilian agencies.

According to defense experts, MASINT uses radar, lasers, infrared, electromagnetic data and other technologies to see through cloud cover, forest canopies and even concrete to create images or gather data.

Thanks guys! Should I now wave at the sky every time I go outside to water my tomatoes? Offer the sky a tomato? A cookie? Thank the sky for keeping me safe? Apologize to the sky for the fact that I didn't shower and brush my hair before watering the tomatoes; and that perhaps my appearance in my own yard isn't spiffy and presentable?

You senators have done so much for me -- I'm just not sure how I could ever repay you. Never in our history has a presidential administration - with the capitulation of an opposition congress - done so much to undermine the rights and privacy of the American people. I'm truly honored to have lived to see your historic precedence.

In fact, I feel a song coming on...



See you in September (by Harry Reid & the Senators!)

I'll be awake each and every night
While you're away, I'm afraid to write

Bye-bye, so long, farewell
Bye-bye, so long

See you in September
See you when the summer's through
Here we are (4th amendment, goodbye)
Saying goodbye via FISA (Constitution, goodbye)
Congressional vacation (4th amendment, goodbye)
Is taking you away (Constitution, goodbye)

We were free once but remember
There is danger in the summer moon above
Will I see you in September
Or lose you to a summer vote
(counting the days 'til I'll be with you)
(counting the hours and the minutes, too)

4th amendment, goodbye
Constitution, goodbye
4th amendment, goodbye (bye-bye, so long, farewell)
Constitution, goodbye (bye-bye, so long)

We were free once but remember
There is danger in the summer moon above
Will I see you in September
Or lose you to a summer vote
(I'll be awake each and every night)
(While you're away, I'm afraid to write)

See you (bye-bye, so long, farewell)
In September (bye-bye, so long, farewell)
I'm hopin' I'll
See you (bye-bye, so long, farewell)
In September (bye-bye, so long, farewell)
Well, maybe I'll
See you (bye-bye, so long, farewell)
In September (bye-bye, so long, farewell)

Today's poll on the WSJ:

How well does the U.S. balance national security with individual liberty?

Leans too far toward security Leans too far toward liberty Balances them about right 6307 votes (76%) 917 votes (11%) 1097 votes (13%)

A Warning

I may have posted this here before, possibly last winter. I wrote it after having the strangest dream... Lincoln walked into a 'dream in progress' and gave a fiery oration about democracy.

It's hard to forget a dream like that.

I think I was still 'haunted' by a recent visit to the Lincoln Memorial, and the timeless words written on the walls of his shrine there. I noticed, for the first time, that he looks out across the Mall; directly at the Capitol Building. Directly at Congress.

Watching them.


A Warning

I had a dream, of darkness and despair;
And in that blackness I did see a man
And he, when saw me, reached out for my hand.
I knew the face, the countenance so bleak
And I: I could not face those anguished eyes.

He’s pacing now, his hands behind his back
His shoulders hunched, his agitation clear;
"Our Constitution tossed aside – and why?"
Dark eyes, deep pools of wisdom and of grief;
In quiet desperation search my face;

And I, reminded of the ponderous price,
The heavy weight he bore to keep his faith;
To save the Union and restore the peace
and now he does not rest, even in death,
But brings a dire warning for our time:



"Democracy bequeathed to you at birth
Exists to serve the people’s will and need;
Do you no longer want this precious gift?
Of what are you so fearful now - of whom?
Of shadows that perhaps may come to pass?

This is the strongest nation on the earth!
The biggest danger, always, was your fear;
And used against you, it has made you slaves!
Would you return at last to slavery?
Indenture unto corporate masters now?

This is your government! It’s yours!
And those who tell you 'no,' have robbed you blind
Defend it now, and stand while there is time!
Your freedom on this earth is in your hands;
For no one else can save you from your fate.

The time and place to serve your nation’s need
Is now; right here, and in this darkest hour.
Speak out, stand up, refuse the bitter pill
Of passive servitude and fearful doubt!
How can let your independence lapse?

You drain all meaning from their noble deaths;
The generations who before you fought
To keep the flame of liberty alight;
And now, their sacrifice - no consequence?
And this, from simple fear and ignorance?

And you - your education guaranteed;
Whereas, I learned to read by mine own will
And burning drive to know, then change my world.
Perhaps it is too easy for you now...
You have no concept of the price we paid.

Has too much time elapsed, that you forget?
You cannot see the armies, nor recall;
We faced the largest monarchy on earth!
With fierce desire for freedom we held on,
To live here free! To work this land in peace.

The story of our forefathers remains
In history books, available to all;
Thus any child of liberty can learn
Our nation's lineage and forward path.
If only you would seek to learn your past!

Democracy will pass into decay;
I would this fate had passed our children by.
This land, this government designed to last
Into eternity; and all we asked
Our children yet unborn, was vigilance.

We did not ask you light the fire yourselves;
But merely tend the flame lest it burn out,
or worse, be snuffed by malice and deceit.
For all bequeathed to you – for all we gave;
We died for you that you might know true peace.

Adversity is always at the door;
Alas, true character is forged in fire,
And thus, is often lost as embers cool.
The child that knows not of the father’s pain,
Embraces war; and all must bleed anew."

Dear Congress...

Dear Congress, Madam Speaker:

Once upon a time, America was a shining beacon of justice, freedom and the rule of law. All of that has now been squandered by this administration, and repeatedly, solely for their own selfish interests.

The list of offenses is rather remarkable, if only that this has been allowed to continue, with so little opposition (from within government) for so long. The people have been watching and we have been tearing our collective hair.

We cannot get anyone in Washington to listen to us. I suppose our voices have been drowned out by the deafing choruses of lobbyists. But we love our country, and no, we are not going away, we will not shut up, and we will not stop demanding justice and a return to decency and the rule of law.

The impeachment proceedings against Clinton were partisan in every sense of the word, and no doubt intended to make a mockery of the very impeachment process. But your obvious fear that you will be seen to be conducting a 'partisan reprisal' isn't going to fly with us out here. Democrats and Republicans alike are screaming for justice. This time, it is not one group of partisans trolling for impeachment -- this is the collective voice of the people.

We want our government back.

In case it (somehow) isn't clear by now what grounds could be claimed for filing impeachment papers against Dick Cheney and George W. Bush, I will list for you the following:

1. Violating the United Nations Charter by launching an illegal "War of Aggression" against Iraq without cause, using fraud to sell the war to Congress and the public, misusing government funds to begin bombing without Congressional authorization, and subjecting our military personnel to unnecessary harm, debilitating injuries, and deaths.

2. Violating U.S. and international law by authorizing the torture of thousands of captives, resulting in dozens of deaths, and keeping prisoners hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross.

3. Violating the Constitution by arbitrarily detaining Americans, legal residents, and non-Americans, without due process, without charge, and without access to counsel.

4. Violating the Geneva Conventions by targeting civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, and using illegal weapons, including white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new type of napalm.

5. Violating U.S. law and the Constitution through widespread wiretapping of the phone calls and emails of Americans without a warrant.

6. Violating the Constitution by using "signing statements" to defy hundreds of laws passed by Congress.

7. Violating U.S. and state law by obstructing honest elections in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006.

8. Violating U.S. law by using paid propaganda and disinformation, selectively and misleadingly leaking classified information, and exposing the identity of a covert CIA operative working on sensitive WMD proliferation for political retribution.

9. Subverting the Constitution and abusing Presidential power by asserting a "Unitary Executive Theory" giving unlimited powers to the President, by obstructing efforts by Congress and the Courts to review and restrict Presidential actions, and by promoting and signing legislation negating the Bill of Rights and the Writ of Habeas Corpus.
10. Gross negligence in failing to assist New Orleans residents after Hurricane Katrina, in ignoring urgent warnings of an Al Qaeda attack prior to Sept. 11, 2001, and in increasing air pollution causing global warming.

You can add that Bush and Cheney have started nuclear escalations (something their purported hero Ronald Reagan worked hard to end.) They have made the world much more dangerous than it was when they took power; have ruined our reputation across the globe and actually fostered the growth of al Qaeda terrorism in Iraq.

They completely dropped the ball when it came to catching Bin Laden... and of course, there are Cheney's continued ties to war profiteer company Halliburton, his preferential treatment in giving them no-bid contracts (and the millions they have made from the war in Iraq - millions that he will share when he leaves office.)

You should also consider their promotion of the countless and lawless activities of other war profiteers they have unleashed on Iraq. And of course... they have squandered billions of dollars of our money, without our consent. An argument could be made that Blackwater is building a 'standing army' on our own soil; one that is not accountable to the government 'of the people.'

Our EPA is now infested with Bushie insiders that won't prosecute environmental law breakers; our FDA can't seem to keep our food safe, our DoJ is a lawless, lying travesty.

This is a disaster. You cannot fail to act, or we the people will hold all of you in contempt; and history will perhaps be an even harsher judge... assuming we live through these dangerous times.

Yes, I think its just a little past time that you took all of this seriously... don't you?

Congress, Impeachment and the "Black Hole"

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I am simply an American citizen.

Because I am outraged by the outright refusal of congressional Democrats to bring impeachment charges against Bush and Cheney, even amid mounting evidence of treason and high crimes, I have done quite a bit of digging.

A lawyer would be a much better at this... but as a citizen, I have the right to expect action and I believe I have a personal duty to my own democracy. Quite a number of reputable lawyers have already laid the groundwork for impeachment. What is needed now from Congress is the will to proceed: on behalf of our nation and our very democracy.

By refusing to put impeachment on the table - and if it is indeed true that Democratic leaders are willfully advancing the partisan agenda of keeping Bush and Cheney around as a 'punching bag for Democratic candidates' - congressional leaders are ignoring a myriad of critical consequences, and playing partisan, political games with lives and with our very democracy.

An argument could also be made that they are breaking their oaths to 'protect and serve the Constitution of the United States,' which has been directly undermined by the illegal and warrantless wiretapping of American citizens without their knowledge:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Not only has the Democratic majority taken ownership of the Iraq war and its consequences when it was in fact holding all of the cards, but Pelosi's refusal to allow the impeachment process to commence has also made this Democratic majority complicit in any future bombing of Iran, any further erosions of our Constitutional protections, and any lasting damage to our planet due to our refusal to take immediate action to curb carbon emissions.

In the face of an outraged country, and accusations of betrayal from the very people who elected them, the only answer seems to be this lame excuse from some nameless Democratic aide:

"No American troop will go without … just so the most liberal activists in the country can be quieted," said a senior House Democratic aide. "If it means Democrats in Congress get tea bags and hate mail, so be it - we will not be irresponsible with the lives of our troops."

Ah yes, the 'we can't leave our guys out there, throwing bullets at Al Qaeda' argument again. "Our hands were tied."

Believe me, this may fly with those who haven't learned how the system works, but it is a lie. The Democrats have the power of the purse - the power to end the war. They chose not to use it. They had Bush on the ropes, but they chose to let him go. And now the war will drag on forever -- or until the GOP base finally revolts and Bush backs down from the people who will stand up to him: his own party.

Once again, and so predictably, the Democrats were 'afraid' of what the GOP would say about them, forever locked in the victim mindset. Just look at Harry Reid... and then Dick Cheney, and tell me honestly: who is the bully, and who is the skinny little kid with glasses? Does Cheney take Harry's milk money too, or simply beat him up on the way home from school?

If you see a crime being committed and you refuse to take any action, you are complicit. You are obstructing justice and betraying the public trust. I believe a case could be made that congressional Democrats' unwillingness to take action when faced with mounting evidence of executive lawlessness, and with the very real danger that we could fall into a dictatorship with little or no warning, is in and of itself 'treasonous.' It is also obstruction of justice.

Both are impeachable offenses.

Are these fighting words? You betcha. There are very real consequences for inaction. Just ask Neville Chamberlain.

Any elected official in our government can be impeached, and impeachment charges have been brought against 16 officials in our history as a nation:

Since 1797 the House of Representatives has impeached sixteen federal officials. These include two presidents, a cabinet member, a senator, a justice of the Supreme Court, and eleven federal judges. Of those, the Senate has convicted and removed seven, all of them judges. Not included in this list are the office holders who have resigned rather than face impeachment, most notably, President Richard M. Nixon.

Impeachment is the process by which any civil officer can be removed from office: for treason, bribery, or other 'high crimes and misdemeanors.'

As stated in our Constitution:

Article. II.

Section. 4.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

We have never - in our entire history - actually removed a president from office via the impeachment process. Impeachment is not (as many believe) an outcome, but rather a process - a trial - that leads to a final outcome of either conviction, or acquittal. The process is an investigation into apparent unconstitutional and criminal behavior; with charges filed by the House, and the case tried in the Senate with the Supreme Court acting as the judges.

For the purpose of comparison, the actual impeachment of Bill Clinton proceeded as follows:

The infamous "Starr Report" outlining the findings of the Independent Counsel's investigation was delivered to the House of Representatives on Sept. 9, 1998, and subsequently made available to the public. Many felt the report, filled with lurid details of Clinton's sexual encounters with Lewinsky, to be a political attack against the President rather than a legal justification for his impeachment. Of the 11 possible grounds for impeachment cited by Starr, four were eventually approved by the House Judiciary Committee: grand jury perjury, civil suit perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power.

Clinton was impeached on two counts, grand jury perjury (228–206) and obstruction of justice (221–212), with the votes split along party lines. The Senate Republicans, however, were unable to gather enough support to achieve the two-thirds majority required for his conviction. On Feb. 12, 1999, the Senate acquitted President Clinton on both counts. The perjury charge failed by a vote of 55–45, with 10 Republicans voting against impeachment along with all 45 Democrats. The obstruction of justice vote was 50–50, with 5 Republicans breaking ranks to vote against impeachment.

Even with a Republican majority, Clinton wasn't actually convicted.

Compared with the case against Bill Clinton, the charges leveled against Richard Nixon were much more serious -- and this undoubtedly led to his resignation before the impeachment process began. It was the threat of impeachment (and the dirt that would be uncovered in the process) that led to Nixon's resignation... not impeachment itself. Nixon was never convicted, although many people now believe he would have been found guilty due to the seriousness of the evidence against him.

Charges against Bush and Cheney are remarkable in their similarity to those leveled against Nixon:

After five men hired by Nixon's reelection committee were caught burglarizing Democratic party headquarters at the Watergate Complex on June 17, 1972, President Nixon's subsequent behavior—his cover-up of the burglary and refusal to turn over evidence—led the House Judiciary Committee to issue three articles of impeachment on July 30, 1974. The document also indicted Nixon for illegal wiretapping, misuse of the CIA, perjury, bribery, obstruction of justice, and other abuses of executive power. "In all of this," the Articles of Impeachment summarize, "Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as president and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States." Impeachment appeared inevitable, and Nixon resigned on Aug. 9, 1974. The Articles of Impeachment, which can be viewed at http://watergate.info/, leave no doubt that these charges qualify as "high crimes and misdemeanors," justifying impeachment.

The precedent has been established.

What congressional leaders don't want the average American to know, is that the House doesn't have to prove its case in advance before bringing the charges and starting the impeachment process. Dennis Kucinich has already filed impeachment papers against Cheney. Many are now calling for the impeachment of Alberto Gonzales, because he lied under oath and deliberately obstructed justice. Somehow, the Democrats can't even pull that one off.

This raises a very serious question: why are the Democrats so afraid to act?

Impeachment would kick off a very thorough and public investigation -- something that is much needed if we are to protect our democracy. Some question whether powerful Democrats in leadership positions are compromised by lobbyist ties, and thus fear that they may be caught in their own investigative net. Of course, this has everything to do with partisan politics, and their chances in the 2008 election.

Without this as a possibility, their actions are truly implausible. Pelosi won't say why she won't allow impeachment 'on the table.' We are left to speculate and question on our own.

Democrats have already managed to clutch an enormous moral defeat from the jaws of victory with their refusal to force Bush into accepting a timetable in Iraq. They have alienated not only the many independent and even Republican voters that backed them in the 2006 elections -- but they are now losing their own base as well:

The number of Americans who identify themselves as independent voters is on the rise. According to an average of CNN/Opinion Research Corporation polls, this year, 42 percent of Americans now consider themselves to be independent.

Thirty-three percent identify themselves as Democrats. Twenty- five percent now say they are Republicans.

Why on earth would the Democrats implode like this - and apparently doom their own 2008 election hopes - while claiming that they are in fact trying to protect them?

In a terrific commentary titled 'Cowering In The Suburbs of Berlin,' David Michael Green, professor of political science at Hofstra University in New York, rails against the apparent implosion of Democratic leadership when dealing with the Iraq war:

What choices remain for Americans today? They have an administration which they despise, enacting policies they loathe. So they did what the good citizens of a democracy are supposed to do, they went out in large numbers and voted in a new government. We should make no mistake about what the landslide election of 2006 meant. Democrats had no agenda to put forth and were not chosen for the purpose of advancing any such non-agenda. They had one qualification going into last November’s contest, and it was the one which got them elected: They were the non-Republicans, the non-regressives. Their singular mandate was to curb the excesses of the insane kleptocracy which, by all manner of nefarious techniques, had seized control of the American democracy and was taking every step imaginable to destroy it.

So what did the Democrats do? They immediately put impeachment off the table. We should understand clearly what that meant. By doing this, the Democratic leadership was saying that no matter what crimes might be uncovered, their sense of political expediency in serving their own personal interests would come before those of the country they were paid to be serving instead.

Next, they have demonstrated the depth of their impotence by refusing to impeach Alberto Gonzales, despite the fact that his transgressions - which now manifestly also include perjury and obstruction of justice - are as obvious as they are deep, and despite that these crimes involve the Justice Department, a part of the federal government that is supposed to be most insulated from Rove style politics. Instead of impeachment we’re to be treated to a Senate vote of no confidence. Golly, that’s bold. Knowing that nice man in the White House as I do, I’m sure that will compel him to do the right thing about this darned vexing situation!

What’s most astonishing about the whole affair is that Democrats still haven’t awakened to the fact that the core thrust of the entire scandal was yet another scheme to steal elections from them. Why don’t they just get it over with and form the Caspar Milquetoast Society for the Slow Suicide of Superfluous Political Parties? Just as in the case of the elections of 2000 and 2004, these guys don’t even put up a fight when it comes to the one issue you’d think even such self-serving sycophants might actually care about, namely, keeping their jobs.

It’s absurd and it’s tragic that the Democrats will not touch Bush, Cheney or Gonzales, but this week’s caving on funding for the Iraq war is in a league by itself. When they took over Congress, these guys had just one thing they needed to get right. They didn’t. They had a moral responsibility to end a war which they’ve long known, and which Harry Reid has even publicly admitted, is lost. They wouldn’t. They had virtually all the right political conditions in their favor, from a public mandate to a despised president for a political opponent. Still, they couldn’t.

And why exactly were their hands so very tied when they had the mandate of the American people and held the power of the purse?

Lobbyists.

Are the lobbying groups and the corporate behemoths they represent now so powerful, and our representatives so compromised by lobbyist ties, that Democratic leaders (along with their GOP counterparts) are nothing more than puppets serving a corporate master? Did the master in fact lay down the law and refuse to allow any impeachment process to take place?

Something stinks here.

It is impossible to know the true extent of congressional complicity while Congress continues to refuse impeachment... and the only branch capable of bringing impeachment charges against this president and vice president is our Congress itself. In spite of a mandate by the people and a whopping House majority, the Democratic Congress refuses to even discuss impeachment. This speaks volumes.

None of this is really new:

Since President McKinley and the Spanish-American War, overseas adventures have been the oligarchy’s response to the public’s demand for reform. Whether it was Populists or Progressives, rank-and-file Republicans or Democrats leading the charge for domestic change, the major party bosses and their partners on Wall Street have worked together in “collusive harmony,” in the words of political historian Walter Karp, to divert the country from its just demands by embroiling them in deadly foreign entanglements.

Reform movements are an ever-present worry for both parties’ bosses, because any successful reform put forward by regular citizens and insurgents in Congress tends to excite the electorate with the possibility of actually controlling their own government. The ruling class well understands that as the engagement of the citizenry waxes, their own power wanes. And it is war and the threat of war that provide the best excuse for not passing social-welfare legislation, and calling anyone who demands it “unpatriotic.”

It is obvious how we got here: corporate interests. Oil. The lucrative 'war contracting' business, and the Military Industrial.

The system 'of the people, by the people and for the people' has been compromised by money interests, and Lincoln's great fear has come to pass: corporations have been enthroned. These corporations have no intention of giving up the power they have gained under this administration. Their best guarantee of continuing the gravy train is by 'buying' representatives from both sides of the political aisle, possibly blackmailing them, and effectively undercutting efforts to fix the system from the outside.

It is working beautifully, I might add.

We have the right to demand an investigation. The question now is how to overcome our current 'rulers;' the ones we can see, and the ones behind the scenes.

I call these behind the scenes manipulators the 'black hole.' We can tell something is there, even if we can't quite see it. We can 'see it' by the uniform pull it manifests on all surrounding 'objects', which include the three branches of our Federal government and our media. Someone or some organization is quietly pulling strings, and the marionettes are all dancing their complex choreography to a tune we citizens cannot hear. Its no wonder we are confused and dismayed.

If 70 cities, 11 state legislatures, numerous state Democratic parties and hundreds of thousands of average citizen voters (this is unprecedented in our history) are pressuring Congress to impeach, and credible legal minds have listed impeachable offenses and laid out a prosecution groundwork... well gosh, there might actually be a FIRE somewhere under all of this smoke:

More than 70 cities and 14 state Democratic parties have urged impeachment or investigations that could lead to impeachment. The most common charge is that Bush manipulated intelligence to lead the country into the Iraq war. Other charges include spying on Americans and torturing suspected terrorists in violation of U.S. and international law.

Most recently, the Massachusetts Democratic Party voted to push impeachment of both men. The 2,500 state convention delegates voted almost unanimously against Cheney; the vote against Bush was closer.

Massachusetts' Democratic Party thus joined 13 others on the investigate-or-impeach bandwagon, including: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.

Among the cities and towns, the largest and most recent is Detroit, where the city council voted 7-0 this month to urge Congress to impeach Bush and Cheney for "intentionally misleading Congress and the public regarding the threat from Iraq in order to justify the war."

The probability that Bush would be impeached by a two-thirds vote in the current, partisan Senate seems remote, but the point is to bring due process anyway, force White House compliance, and get to the bottom of these charges. Let the democratic process work. We the people are the rightful owners of our government in a democracy, and as such we have the right to know what crimes have been committed by our elected officials.

A few days ago I read a story explaining why the Democratic party doesn't want to impeach.

The writer states that Democratic leadership won't consider impeachment because they believe that allowing Bush and Cheney to stay in office will actually help their party's chances in the 2008 election. I strongly disagree. The longer the Democrats refuse to act, the greater the likelihood that the American people will decide that Democrats are weak, capitulating windbags without any teeth.

The story begins by describing apparent worries within the Democratic leadership that there just 'isn't enough proof' to bring impeachment charges, and fears that there will somehow be a political backlash - among the people, rather than the obvious objectors, the corporate lobbyists.

According to the article, there are three "policy and political reasons that Democratic leaders are risking the anger of their base:"

Some don't see an impeachable offense in what Bush has done, what the Constitution calls "high crimes and misdemeanors." They might find such evidence in any of the many congressional investigations, but they haven't yet.

Let's debunk that one right now.

There are are now countless volumes of legal arguments, written by experienced and brilliant legal minds - all laying out the framework for impeachment.

Any activity that deliberately undercuts the Constitution is both a 'high crime' and treasonous. The president and vice president both took an oath to uphold the Constitution as part of their swearing in process. Bush, Cheney, Gonzales -- all swore the oath. Any direct action they have taken against the wording of our Constitution is grounds for impeachment.

Impeachable offenses include:

1. Outing Valarie Plame, a verified covert CIA agent. Felony offense, high crime.
2. Lying to Congress and to the American people, with the intent of invading a foreign, sovereign nation. High crime, possible war crime, and treason.
3. Misrepresenting information provided by the CIA. Obstruction of justice, high crime.
   
4. Illegal rendition. High crime, possible war crime.
5. Refusing to turn over evidence such as emails. Obstruction of justice
6. Using outside email accounts for White House correspondence. Obstruction of justice, violation of the Hatch Act.
7. Destroying logs of official visitors to Cheney's residence to avoid having them entered into the Presidential record. Obstruction of justice, abuse of power.
   
8. Holding prisoners without due process. High crime.
9. Secret torture camps. High crime, potentially war crime.
10. Promoting CIA torture practices. High crime, possibly war crime.
11. Tampering with election outcomes. Felony, high crime, treason.

But the biggest case for impeachment, according to most legal scholars, is the warrantless wiretapping of American citizens. This can arguably be considered both a high crime and treason.

Even Norman Ornstein, a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said:

"I think if we're going to be intellectually honest here, this (domestic spying) really is the kind of thing that Alexander Hamilton was referring to when impeachment was discussed."

Elizabeth De la Vega, a 20-year federal prosecutor has probably laid out the best legal case for impeachment in her book "United States V. George W. Bush et al." This is a brilliant and well crafted legal analysis, and there are many others.

Here are a few of the better ones:

1. The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office, by Dave Lindorff


2. Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush, from The Center for Constitutional Rights


3. Impeach the President: The Case Against Bush And Cheney, by Dennis Loo


4. George W. Bush Versus the U.S. Constitution: The Downing Street Memos and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, Coverups in the Iraq War and Illegal Domestic Spying, by John Conyers Jr.


5. The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens, by Elizabeth Holtzman

The Democrats are either remarkably illiterate when it comes to the impeachment process, or are pretending to be ignorant in the hope that the American people will believe that they are helpless, none of this is their problem, and that impeachment is a waste of time.

I have also heard them say that they would rather concentrate on the real issues (issues? You mean like getting our troops out of Iraq?) They would like everyone to believe impeachment isn't viable. And as always, Democratic leaders are acting out of fear of GOP reprisals, rather than from a strong and forceful position of principle and moral strength.

Americans want strong leadership. The Democrats are in the drivers' seat and in the perfect position to show that they are strong and moral leaders. Instead, they seem determined to prove that they are weak and afraid. I cannot see how this can possibly be successful.

The second reason for not impeaching Bush and Cheney is that the Democratic leadership apparently fears...

a political backlash from voters similar to the one that punished Republicans after they impeached Bill Clinton. One factor on the side of the pro-impeachment crowd: Clinton was much more popular than Bush.

Backlash? From the voters? Hardly.

There apparently wasn't enough 'backlash' against the GOP after their impeachment of Bill Clinton to keep George W. Bush out of the White House in 2000.

In spite of our collective distaste for the GOP's hatchet job on Clinton, the Monica debacle did affect the campaign of then Vice President, Al Gore. It was the invisible albatross around his neck throughout the entire campaign -- his unfortunate association with a President embroiled in a 'sex scandal'.

There was absolutely no backlash against the GOP at all -- none -- although God knows there should have been. The media should have led the charge against this ridiculous charade and mockery of the impeachment process, but of course they were delighted by the sensationalism, and wallowed in the muck. Coverage of the Clinton impeachment was decidedly x-rated. I found it remarkable that a party so anti-sex and loudly 'pro-Christian, family values' could leak and publish documents so explicitly sexual in nature that parents were forced to keep their kids away from newspapers.

If the GOP could negatively affect Gore's campaign with a bogus impeachment trial against a very popular president -- how on earth could impeaching an extremely unpopular president with a 28% rating cause a backlash? This president started an entire war based on lies, undercut our Constitution protections and our Bill of Rights, spied on American citizens without a court order, leaked the identity of an undercover CIA agent, completely dropped the ball after Katrina, gutted our EPA, our FDA, FEMA and other governmental oversight agencies, tampered with election results... how could prosecuting Bush and Cheney bring any sort of public outcry?

And don't confuse the will of the people with a backlash from the media. You know who they report to.

Defend us, already. Defend our Constitution. Hell, show a little patriotism!

If there will be a backlash, it will be the Democratic majority's failure to impeach when it became obvious that over 70% of Americans now believe this president is leading our government right off a cliff. Failure to impeach proves both weakness and capitulation. And perhaps something more sinister:

The third is that they're eager to keep Bush and Cheney around as punching bags for Democratic candidates in the 2008 campaign.

Ah, here it is. This is all a partisan game. And if this is true, it is... profoundly and unforgivably immoral.

It is hard to believe that any person or party would put partisan gain ahead of lives, morality, justice, and the future of life on our planet. If the Democrats are truly motivated only by the 2008 horse race to the Presidency - how are they really any different or any better than Karl Rove? So much for holding the high ground.

Lack of action is action.

If Democratic leaders want to prove that Democrats aren't the cowering weaklings the GOP claims they are, they must do a lot better than this. It is time for them to muster some courage, face the neocon bullies and their corporate power brokers, and act on behalf of the nation. John Ashcroft managed it from a hospital bed... surely Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi can reach deep and find a little patriotic fire and loyalty of their own.

It is time for the Democrats to take a strong and moral position against the crimes committed by this administration. Dedication to the rule of law will earn the respect of the people -- not capitulation. Strength and justice will earn success in 2008. We are not idiots out here. We know courage when we see it. We also recognize cowardice and betrayal.

On Martin Luther King Day in 2006, Al Gore gave a powerful speech about our collective obligation to protect our Constitution:

At present, we still have much to learn about the NSA's domestic surveillance. What we do know about this pervasive wiretapping virtually compels the conclusion that the president of the United States has been breaking the law, repeatedly and insistently.

A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government.

Our founding fathers were adamant that they had established a government of laws and not men. They recognized that the structure of government they had enshrined in our Constitution, our system of checks and balances, was designed with a central purpose of ensuring that it would govern through the rule of law.

As John Adams said, "The executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers or either of them to the end that it may be a government of laws and not of men."

An executive who arrogates to himself the power to ignore the legitimate legislative directives of the Congress or to act free of the check of the judiciary becomes the central threat that the founders sought to nullify in the Constitution, an all-powerful executive; too reminiscent of the king from whom they had broken free.

In the words of James Madison, the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed or elected, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

If Congress doesn't take real action soon to impeach Bush and Cheney, there may not be much Constitution left to uphold -- and we will no longer be having this discussion. The future of our democracy can now turn on a dime, and entirely at 'the pleasure of the president.' At his own discretion and without any warning, the president can now declare martial law. Habeas corpus has already been taken away. Our liberty is in very real danger.

We're out of time, Nancy. I'm tired of calling your office. Everyone I know is tired of calling your office. We're tired of asking. Now we are telling you...

IMPEACH.

Is Blackwater a 'Standing Army?'

Is Blackwater a 'standing army?'

If we ever manage to extract ourselves from Iraq, what will become of this new army of corporate mercenaries - and who will they report to? What will be their chain of command? Will they be disbanded? Or will they be integrated into the U.S. Army and subjected to the same rules and laws that govern our own armed forces?

At the moment they are under no one's jurisdiction but that of the Executive Branch and their own CEO - and if I may make a dubious connection here, Hitler demanded that the Gestapo take a vow of allegiance to himself directly, and not to 'the Motherland.' I think we can do without this sort of 'private, presidential army' - or worse, an unaccountable corporate army - if we plan to remain a free democracy.

And what of Blackwater's founder, Erik Prince, brother of Betsy DeVos, former chairwoman of the Michigan Republican Party? According to a recent Associated Press article, his Moyock, N.C.-based company has received at least $800 million in federal contracts over the past five years, according to government records.

Deborah Avant, professor of political science at George Washington University, said Prince and others like him share an interest in proving the legitimacy of their companies' services. But some qualities set Blackwater and its founder apart from other military services companies, she said.

"Blackwater is owned by one guy, who is very rich," Avant said. "He's very connected. He's very tied to the Christian right."

So who does this mercenary army really answer to - and who will they report to when they finally come home from Iraq? Will they report only and directly to their CEO, an avowed neocon conservative and fundamentalist Christian?

Perhaps we should give this some thought.

Our forefathers had a lot to say about standing armies, although unfortunately there is scant mention of them within the Bill of Rights (only the third amendment, and it is rather cryptic on the subject.)

Amendment III: No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

I think the answer becomes a little clearer when you take the third amendment in context with the rest of amendments, and the entire Constitution. Our forefathers were talking about freedom from oppression: safeguarding liberty in the fledgling United States, and hopefully throughout its future.

Today, other amendments within our Bill of Rights have been 'bent' for political purposes - and this should be reason enough for every American to read the Bill of Rights and keep close watch on governmental practices. One could easily argue that our fourth amendment was broken when the NSA, under George Bush's executive orders, began spying on American citizens' phone calls and electronic messages.

Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In our day and age, 'papers and effects' can easily include electronic documents and emails. Unreasonable searches and seizures would easily include spying on law-abiding citizens without their knowledge by siphoning off their private emails and storing them in a secret database.

So what about the third amendment?

Obviously no one is 'quartering troops' in anyone's houses these days. But what about in their backyards? What about these new Blackwater military training installations that are springing up all over our country? And what happens when these mercenary troops come home from Iraq? Will they constitute a corporate, standing army on our soil?

There are warnings throughout history about the dangers of standing armies, and especially armies of mercenaries that are not answerable (or accountable) to the ruling government of the land. Even Machiavelli, author of 'The Prince,' believed that standing armies - and especially mercenaries - were a danger to society. Machiavelli wrote of mercenaries that they were "disunited, ambitious, without discipline, faithless, bold amongst friends, cowardly amongst enemies, they have no fear of God, and keep no faith with men."

Additionally, Machiavelli warned that their lack of patriotism left "no motivation beyond wages, which were not enough to motivate men to die; and, more fundamentally, any mercenary army powerful enough to defend a state must be more than powerful enough to subjugate it."

Machiavelli spoke of mercenaries again in the 'Art of War,' warning that any prince who relies on mercenaries within his army, must either remain embroiled in wars forever, or risk overthrow when the mercenaries became unemployed with the advent of peace. By the way, one has only to see the trouble Roman rulers had with their own legions to see how this plays out.

I am specifically referring to Machiavelli's words, because his is a manifesto that every neocon has undoubtedly read - and likely worships in secret. 'The Prince' is all about gaining and holding power; whatever the costs. If Machiavelli was against mercenary armies, we as a free nation should be concerned.

We also have the words of our forefathers to consider: and they had direct experience with British standing armies in the early American colonies. According to a nice list of quotes provided by Jacob G. Hornberger in his article "The Bill of Rights: Antipathy to Militarism:"

Henry St. George Tucker, in Blackstone’s 1768 Commentaries on the Laws of England:

"Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."

Patrick Henry:

"A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment?"

The Commonwealth of Virginia, as it ratified the Constitution in 1788:

"...standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power."

North Carolina, in its Declaration of Rights, 1776:

"...that the people have a Right to bear Arms for the Defence of the State, and as Standing Armies in Time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, they ought not to be kept up, and that the military should be kept under strict Subordination to, and governed by the Civil Power."

The Pennsylvania Convention:

"...standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil power."

Our forefathers believed the best and perhaps only protection of liberty in a free society was safeguarded not by an enormous standing army but by the individual, "citizen-soldier" protecting his and his family's rights and freedom. This 'militia' would translate today to our own National Guard. Our National Guard was never intended to be a tool of foreign invasion, but rather as a local militia to serve and protect our own citizen liberties and freedoms here at home.

So what would our forefathers have thought of Blackwater USA?

I think we as American citizens had better give this some serious thought. I have yet to get my hands on a copy of Jeremy Scahill's 'Blackwater," so I don't know if he addresses the subject of standing armies. I do know that I watched "Iraq for Sale" last night - I rented the DVD from Netflix, and I highly recommend that every American with even a shred of patriotism and decency watch this documentary.

After seeing Blackwater in action (along with Halliburton's 'KBR', and the other war profiteers who are plundering our economy, our armed forces and the people of Iraq,) I was immediately concerned about this 'standing army' issue. Blackwater in Iraq is bad enough - these armed soldiers are not accountable to our government or our military chain of command, and can kill anyone - Iraqi or otherwise - with immunity.

Now, imagine Blackwater operating here, on American soil. If allowed to continue their mercenary ways, with no accountability or oversight, they could easily pose a direct threat to our free society, especially if they eventually outnumber our own National Guardsmen - our 'militia.'

Just ask our forefathers...

The Bill of Rights: Better learn it

THE BILL OF RIGHTS
Amendments 1-10 of the Constitution

The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;

Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution, namely:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Citizen Oversight

This letter constitutes a request under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. §552 ("FOIA"), and is submitted by the undersigned individuals who are concerned about the widening scandal involving improper and potentially unlawful attempts, by the Bush White House, Republican Members of Congress and Republican party officials, to influence and interfere in ongoing criminal investigations being conducted by United States Attorneys and to influence the hiring and firing of U.S. Attorneys for partisan political reasons.

The undersigned requestors fall in the category of “other requestors” for purposes of FOIA and the Department’s FOIA fee regulations. On behalf of the undersigned requestors, the Democratic National Committee will pay any fees for searching or copying the requested records.

My comments:

It is time for all Americans to exercise their 'citizen' oversight. This is my country, and I am a voter in said country. This is also a democracy. I respectfully insist that the people of America have the right to know what is going on in this administration, especially in light of current revelations about the possible 'politically motivated' firing of prosecutors by the Justice Department. Thank you.

By the way, when forwarding the letter I received from Governor Howard Dean (Democrat) to my friends, I removed what I considered to be rather caustic, partisan comments from the dialog. I want to know what is going on, and I want justice... but I'm not interested in 'getting back' at the Republican party. This is exactly the sort of thing that keeps anyone from getting any work done in Washington. Partisan hatred, partisan babble.

Representative Waxman is doing his job - and so is Senator Leahy, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He is finally in a position to subpoena, and dig out the corruption - to follow the trail all the way to the top. He is laying the ground work.

Perhaps this was the 'Democrat plan' all along. I don't know, they never said that they even had a plan. They certainly don't appear to have a plan for getting us out of Iraq. And perhaps they are motivated more by partisan revenge than by dedication to our nation's best interests - I don't know. I have no idea. But as Lincoln said - and I have taken his words to be my own, personal creed:

"I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true. I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live by the light that I have. I must stand with anybody that stands right, and stand with him while he is right, and part with him when he goes wrong."

I will stand by them while they are standing right. Gonzales is an abomination - an interloper without a shred of respect for our Constitution and our Bill of Rights. He is the partisan's partisan: he consistently put partisan politics before all else, and has done real damage to our nation's rule of law. He must go, just as Rumsfeld had to go. I contest that Bush, Cheney - the entire pack must go. Before they blunder into any more wars.

To be honest - if they were smart (and many of them are) - the moderate, reasonable Republicans would take this cause up themselves, and follow it to the obvious conclusion. As I recall, Nixon was never actually impeached... several, high ranking Republicans took the 'long walk' to the White House and convinced him, for the good of the party, to resign. And so he did.

Sen. John Sununu(R) of New Hampshire, is already calling for Gonzales to resign. Perhaps if Bush and Cheney are implicated in this investigation (much as Cheney and Rove were implicated in the Libby trial,) the moderate Republicans will make their move - make their own 'long walk'. When it gets to the point where the future of their party is at stake, I think they will act. And I suspect Chuck Hagel, Arlen Specter, and perhaps Richard Lugar will be in that group.

They won't do it if they can avoid it (would you?) So I'm all for bringing the heat. I want what is best for America - partisan politics be damned.

Conversation with Abraham: A poem

He’s pacing now, his hands behind his back
His shoulders hunched, his agitation, clear;
"Our Constitution tossed aside – and why?”
Dark eyes, deep pools of agony, of grief;
In quiet desperation search my face;

And I, reminded of the ponderous price;
The heavy weight he bore to keep us free
And will not - cannot shed, even in death;
To save the Union, serve the Bill of Rights.
(Do they still teach it in our schools today?)

“Democracy bequeathed to you at birth
Exists to serve the people’s will and need;
Do you no longer want this precious gift?
Of what are you so fearful now - of whom?
Of shadows that perhaps may come to pass?

This is the strongest nation on the earth!
The biggest danger, always, was your fear;
And used against you, it has made you slaves;
Would you return at last to slavery?
Indenture unto corporate masters now?

This is your government! It’s yours!
And those who tell you 'no,' have robbed you blind;
Defend it now, and stand while there is time!
Your freedom on this earth is in your hands;
For no one else can save you from your fate.

The time and place to serve your nation’s need
Is now; right here, and in this darkest hour.
Speak out, stand up, refuse the bitter pill
Of passive servitude and fearful doubt!
How can let your independence lapse?

You drain all meaning from their noble deaths;
The generations who before you fought
To keep the flame of liberty alight;
And now, their sacrifice - no consequence?
And this - from simple fear and ignorance?

And you - your education guaranteed;
Whereas, I learned to read by mine own will
And burning drive to know, then change my world.
Perhaps it is too easy for you now...
You have no concept of the price we paid.

Has too much time elapsed, that you forget?
You cannot see the armies, nor recall;
We faced the largest monarchy on earth!
With fierce desire for freedom we held on,
To live here free! To work this land in peace.

The story of our forefathers remains
In history books, available to all;
Thus any child of liberty can learn
Our nation's lineage and path to 'now.'
If only you would seek to learn your past!

Democracy will pass into decay;
I would this fate had passed our children by.
This land, this government designed to last
Into eternity; and all we asked
Our children yet unborn, was vigilance.

We did not ask you light the fire yourselves;
But merely tend the flame lest it burn out,
or worse, be snuffed by malice and deceit.
For all bequeathed to you – for all we gave;
We died for you that you might know true peace.

Adversity is always at the door;
Alas, true character is forged in fire,
And thus, is often lost as embers cool.
The child that knows not of the father’s pain,
Embraces war; and all must bleed anew."

- Maire