Showing posts with label Bill Delahunt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bill Delahunt. Show all posts

June 11, 2008

Treason: President Illegally Thwarted FBI From Monitoring Chinese Spies

Rep. Kucinich presented articles of impeachment against the President. There is more news.

Confronting the Domestic Enemy

The New York Times reports the President gave permission to Chinese spies to wander the halls of Guantanamo, enjoying watching illegal POW abuse:

"Chinese interrogators were permitted to go to Guantanamo"

But there's more to the story.

Thwarting Enforcement

The NYT reports the FBI's General Counsel, when reviewing this illegal torture at Guantanamo, was not given access to critical information, indirectly connected with the Chinese spies.
When the FBI General counsel "asked to read classified legal opinions on torture in 2004, she was refused access, and still has not seen them."

This President illegally thwarted this FBI from monitoring the Chinese spies in Guantanamo, or from seeing what policies and procedures the Chinese observed.

The President refused to allow the FBI's senior legal counsel to see those memos, thwarting
the FBI from ensuring our nation is free from foreign spies, or understanding what they were watching.

Lawyers can't get access. Foreign spies can.

These issues raise important issues not raised in the articles of impeachment against the President. Treason is defined:

18 USC 2381

"whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

Illegal Orders Cannot Be Obeyed

The treasonous acts of this President must be immediately confronted. Until we learn more, all his orders must be presumed illegal. The Secretary of Defense must issue stand-down orders to the military. The nation must proceed with caution. We are being mis-led by an illegal tyrant.

The President must be confronted through an impeachment investigation and removed from office. Until this President is removed from office, the public must discuss the Nuremberg Trials and new oversight for the United States.

Impeachment as a Legal Strategy

Contrary to some claims, impeachment is a tool to enforce the laws of war, and punish leaders. It is a legislative tool for the Congress to use when the President, as now, refuses to permit law enforcement to prosecute. It is not correct to label impeachment exclusively as a political tool. Impeachment is a legal weapon to put to the throat of tyrants.

Nowhere does the Constitution nowhere say anyone must follow the Congress when the Congress joins the President in a rebellion; or refuses to challenge tyranny. Impeachment is a lawful assault against tyranny. It must be led. This Congress refuses.

Legal Requirement To Impeach

Some incorrectly believe there is no requirement to impeach. Nuremberg was very clear on this point: A civilized nation must either prosecute or impeach. When impeachment is not used to enforce the law, prosecutions must be used, and vice versa:

"Under any civilized judicial system he could have been impeached and removed from office or convicted of malfeasance"

The oath of office is to the Supreme Law, including the Geneva Conventions. The promise is to enforce the laws of war, and keep faith with the lessons of Nuremberg.

Where there is no prosecution, impeachment is required. With neither, we
cannot call ourselves part of the family of civilized nations. Accordingly, we are not obliged to follow this Congress; nor embrace
the fiction a legal challenge is merely a partisan exercise. With this list of abuses, Congressional inaction obliges prosecutions of a sitting President.


State Inaction, Complicity



The requirement is to enforce the Constitution. However, the State legislatures have refused to pass proclamations asking for Congress to investigate. The State attorney generals have refused to prosecute this sitting President, as required under Nuremberg precedents.

The State's leaders, with this Congress and President , are in illegal rebellion, against the Constitution. Where prosecutions and impeachment are thwarted -- as now -- we must discuss new leadership, and new oversight.

No More Abuse

It is irrelevant that there is "not much time" until the President's term is over. This President has committed multiple war crimes, and will not allow the United States to review his illegal activity. Each day he remains in office is one more day of tyranny.

Who supports following this traitor? His loyalty is not with the Constitution. Our loyalty is to neither party: Their loyalty is with tyranny. We cannot choose between the same, nor continue down this path. This must end.

The prize is the Constitution. The illusion is whether partisan gain should justify inaction. It cannot. This President must be arrested. He must be jailed. He must be prosecuted for war crimes. Now.

All foreign powers must revoke their promises to this President to provide any assistance in avoiding a war crimes trial. Foreign powers must end their cooperation with this traitor.

What may or may not happen next week or in an election is unrelated to the legal obligations each of us have to defend this Constitution. Now.

Confront the Senate

The Senate must be forced to confront the evidence, and put their name to their decision whether to remove or not remove this President. The Senators must be required to commit to a decision to side with this traitor; or side with the Constitution. The Senators must be forced to decide. Then commit.

Anyone arguing that Cheney "might" become President makes a frivolous excuse. You cannot use the fear of success in removing a tyrant as an excuse to justify defeat and inaction. That defies reason.

You are implicitly arguing that the Senate might remove the President -- This is only possible if there is evidence warranting removal. Then let the Senate see that evidence and make their decision. Then, the voters can decide whether the Senators should be removed. In an election. As the Framers intended.

If there is evidence warranting Presidential removal and the Senate removes the President, then the same evidence would justify the removal of the Vice President. The Senate will have two chances to prove it remains loyal to tyranny.

Leadership to Confront Tyranny

The substantial work behind the investigations will build on what some have started. The problem is not a lack of evidence, but a lack of leadership to present this evidence to the Senate.

If it will take time, then let us start now. It may take 17 GOP Senators to break ranks. It may also take 300 million Americans to break ranks with the Senate, and support a new system of oversight. We outnumber the rebels in the Senate.

The Constitution remains our only requirement. The speculative outcome of an election has no bearing on our legal obligation today. The voters must have the information:

Are the leaders willing to stand against tyranny with the Constitution; or must the voters discuss a new solution which will compel the leadership to stand against tyranny, as this Constitution and oath require.

It is speculation that there will be nothing else that might go wrong. We have yet to see leadership to confront what is wrong, nor a path to to what is right.

The Framers provided us with the roadmap: The Constitution, and the rule of law over tyrants. Impeachment is a power of Congress; and the Framers reserved the prosecution power to the States.

All powers not delegated are reserved. The Congressional decision on impeachment is not a final decision on confronting this tyrant. That decision of inaction is evidence which can be used against Members of Congress: Malfeasance.

Partisan Gains For Tyrants At Expense of Constitution

The GOP has deluded the DNC to believe inaction against tyranny is good for the election goals of the leadership. No, their factional political goals serve the lesser beast of tyranny; the higher prize is the Constitution, which requires our unwavering loyalty.

The attorneys in office must now explain why the refuse to prosecute. They see the problem. A call to impeach must be matched by a parallel effort to prosecute. We see neither. The Congress cannot be sure it will see our continued support for their illegal rebellion.

The moral high ground demands we start. The excuses not to start today -- on the speculative promise of what may happen tomorrow -- is magical thinking, not leadership nor statesmanship. The Constitution requires something other than magic: Resolve in the pursuit of justice, and the lawful assault on tyranny.

The certainty is the abuse. What is uncertain is why the excuses carry any weight. They are illegal excuses to put something other than the Constitution first, and avoid confronting this Presidents illegal defiance of the Supreme Law.

No one has credibly justified any excuse to avoid finding facts. The House cannot reasonably avoid an investigation on the speculation of what the Senators may or may not do. This would ask that we avoid breathing because the air might be stale. The former is required; the latter is speculative.

The voters will observe whether the Senators -- when confronted with the evidence -- have or have not acted reasonably to protect the Constitution. No one can credibly argue the voters should be abused twice: First with the original treason; then with the excuses not to confront that treason. We are Americans with rights to assert, not slaves cowering in fear. The Framers expect nothing less.

Waning Congressional Relevance

Perhaps you believe something else should be done, believing the Congress has no role. Then make the case the Congress should continue in its present form: Irrelevance. That defies reason. One cannot credibly argue for disorder as if it were speculative. That disorder is Congress and certain. Our job is to confront the Congress. Make the Congress act, otherwise, inspiring us to lead the Congress to a new solution.

Chasing A Lesser Prize At Expense of The Prize

Some suggest "nothing" can be done by way of investigations for the next six months. Indeed, Congress remains in session because they put other things before their primary loyalty to the Constitution. That is an illegal decision. Their agenda is tyranny and a smokescreen to the Constitution.

The Prize is not the White House, but the Constitution. The former is a political goal; the latter a legal requirement. McCellan shows the former has trumped the latter. That must end. Now. To argue otherwise parrots the political excuses of these tyrants. That is not change nor a prize, but tyranny.

Congressional Complicity With Illegal Policies

Our system of government divides power. Congress is part of the policy making. Nuremberg is the precedent to prosecute Members of Congress for refusing to support either impeachment or prosecutions; and for their actively thwarting both. Illegal policies can be adjudicated as war crimes. Note the language in the Nuremberg indictment assigning responsibility to policy makers:

"They were organized according to the Leadership Principle and were
charged with planning, developing and imposing upon their followers the
policies of the Nazi Party."

Congress has sole power through Article 1 Section 8 to raise and support an army and establish rules and policies. They have the power to end funding when the President will not cooperate with oversight. Congress refused.

Illegally.

Congress shares the responsibility for the war crimes and the illegal policies. They were part of the planning, they did develop strategies, and they imposed their decisions on the American public. They were part of the reviews. Working hand-in-glove with the President. McClellan well outlines what this President did. The Congressional inaction on these offenses binds the DNC leadership with the GOP and this President. They are different peas in the same pod of tyranny.

Some have suggested we've seen this before; or that this tyranny will continue; and that nothing will end this. That is not certain. The Framers rejected the status quo because it could not continue. As today. This tyranny must end. Or this US government must be subjected to new oversight. The Framers saw the vision: Free people can protect rights and constrain power. This Congress has lost that vision. It attacks rights and abuses power. We will not silently agree with this tyranny. It shall be confronted. Now.

The power you need to prevail over this tyranny exists. It is inside of you. You have the power to prevail. You have the wisdom to choose between tyranny and freedom; between traitors and leaders; between the rule of law and rule of man. You are free to choose. Reward goes with one; punishment with the other.

You Are Key To Defending the Constitution

You, reading this now, are important in this struggle against tyranny. Never forget that. You have the wisdom to see the wrong; the sense of know the injustice; and the tenacity to see the connection between Nuremberg and this President's rebellion. It cannot go unchallenged. Not by this Congress, nor by anyone. But they have chosen rebellion. He and this Congress are the threats to this Constitution.

Impeachment Investigation Important For Voters

It is premature for the voters to make an informed voting decision. The voters must see leadership gather facts, in public, and convince us they are serious about leadership. Even if the leadership does nothing, that indecision is important. The Congress cannot pretend we didn't do our best. This Congress has not yet done its worst.

The voters have been reminded -- repeatedly -- this crew is not serious. We are not obliged to remain loyal to their rebellion. Our loyalty must be with solutions. The facts will help us understand what is wrong; then evaluate which of the two Senators -- Obama or McCain -- are best poised to confront the facts, and lead us to a solution.

Let the Candidates' Actions Speak Volumes

The Senators must go on the record. They cannot lead us to what is right until they confront what is wrong. They must demonstrate -- now -- as Senators they can embrace the facts, and build to what must be done. Until they show they can lead in the Senate to confront reality, no one should be deluded -- on assertion alone -- to believe either is qualified to lead change. They must demonstrate in the Senate what they would promise as President: Leadership to confront facts and decide what to do.

The voters must see how the two Senators confront these war crimes. Do they stand up for the Constitution and Geneva Conventions; do they attempt leadership; do they discuss solutions and reforms they -- as President -- would be willing to support.

Or do the voters get something else: Excuses not to commit. Vague promises without a commitment. Empty statements about change, but no effort to know what is wrong. The Senators must confront the facts. The House must remove Pelosi. The public must see the Senators wrestle with this problem they have let get out of control: Tyranny.

Changes Has Arrived: The Leadership Must Provide it, or Have It Lawfully Imposed

It is June 2008. This tyranny has continued for too long, and it should never have been given any green light. The voters see the leadership problem. They sense a solution is possible. The question is whether we will work to understand what is wrong, and stand up for what is right. The voters need to know before they are asked to vote. We must find out now, then give the voters time to digest the facts. If they need more time or more information, we will know. The voters have not been silent. They will continue their resounding rejection of this tyranny.

Even if the Congress refuses to impeach, the States' Attorney Generals must explain their decision not to prosecute this sitting President and his enablers in Congress. Where the Congress refuses to act, the States are not obliged to follow that illegal rebellion. The Federal Government has the power to pass laws to compel compliance with the law. It has no legal power to compel any of us -- anyone -- to join in their rebellion against the same.

If it is a foregone conclusion that there will be no impeachment hearings, then we need not wait for Congress. Our job must be to discuss what will be a solution. Either you commit to removing Pelosi and supporting an impeachment investigation; or you agree that the oversight must be changed; or you agree to remain complicit, through inaction, with this traitor.

Choose wisely.


all 206 news articles »

PRESS TV
Report: US Soldiers Did 'Dirty Work' for Chinese Interrogators
ABC News - 20 May 2008
... 2002 arrangement between the United States and China, which allowed Chinese intelligence to visit Guantanamo and interrogate Chinese Uighurs held there. ...
Detainee treatment: new details Christian Science Monitor
Report Details Dissent on Guantánamo Tactics New York Times
Audit: FBI agents dissented in harsh interrogations at Gitmo Chicago Tribune
ToTheCenter.com - Sydney Morning Herald
all 570 news articles »

March 16, 2008

More on use of illegal seasonal workers!!

Visa limits Lift restrictions on seasonal workers

http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20080316/OPINION01/402015025

SUNDAY, MARCH 16, 2008

The standoff on immigration reform in Congress has small businesses scrambling to find workers to fill seasonal jobs. The end of a visa exemption program has made it impossible for many employers to legally bring in the foreign workers on whom they have depended.

As a result, some understaffed businesses may have to cut back their operations this summer since they can no longer obtain the necessary visas. The program of H-2B visas is limited to 66,000 seasonal workers a year, but an exemption passed by Congress had allowed almost double that by not counting returning nonagricultural workers against the cap.

The Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act expired Sept. 30, and so slashed the number of visas available to the original level. Its renewal is being blocked by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the New York Times reported, to pressure Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform. It has not done so, and workers and businesses are being penalized.

On Cape Cod, the Times reported, employers had applied for 5,000 visas but will receive just 15 to bring in workers for restaurants, inns, landscaping, resorts and other seasonal work. Employers say there aren't enough workers available to meet the demand.

In Ohio, the landscaping industry depended on about 3,000 H-2B workers but did not know how many would be available this year.

Rep. Bill Delahunt, D-Mass., who represents Cape Cod, told the Times,

"We're talking about a stimulus package, and yet we're putting at risk regional economies from the East Coast to the West Coast and many sections of the country in between."

Employers seeking legal entry argue they are being punished for following the law while other companies rely on illegal immigrants. Besides the direct impact on employers, there is the lost income to businesses that serve the immigrant work force.

A bill has been introduced to once again permit returning workers. The measure would be in keeping with the intent of broader immigration reform in clearing a way for foreign laborers to enter and work legally in the United States.


March 12, 2008

When does the military boondoggle stop? Ashcroft is now the MAN.


Ashcroft defends lucrative contract
POST-DISPATCH WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF
03/12/2008
John Ashcroft testifies
MARCH 11, 2008-- Former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft testifies.

WASHINGTON — Even for a former attorney general, John Ashcroft's recent bill for monitoring an Indiana company accused of wrongdoing raised eyebrows: a $750,000 monthly fee plus what one member of Congress said amounted to $895 an hour, adding up to more than $7.5 million over five months.

An invoice with those charges submitted by Ashcroft's company sparked debate in a House Judiciary subcommittee Tuesday on how the Justice Department awards such contracts and whether Ashcroft's selection by a U.S. attorney who once worked for him was a conflict of interest.

Ashcroft defended the contract to monitor Zimmer Holdings Inc., one of several manufacturers of orthopedic devices charged last year with violating anti-kickback laws. Under a deferred prosecution agreement with the Justice Department, Zimmer is scheduled to pay Ashcroft's company between $27 million and $52 million over 18 months.

No government money is involved. But Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Calif., chairwoman of the panel, said she worried that Ashcroft, a former Missouri senator, had received "what appeared to be a backroom, sweetheart deal" when chosen by U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie of New Jersey, who was under Ashcroft when Ashcroft was attorney general.

"I also was concerned … that Mr. Ashcroft was selected with no public notice and no bidding, and that he had to use considerable time to prepare for the assignment and learn more about the business that he was contracted to monitor," Sanchez said.

Those assertions did not sit well with Ashcroft.

"This hearing cost far more in tax dollars than my monitorship will cost because it did not cost taxpayers one thin dime," Ashcroft said. "There is not a conflict. There is not an appearance of a conflict."

Ashcroft said his firm did not charge an hourly fee, which was cited by Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., but defended the fees as appropriate, given the complexity of the contract. He said his Washington-based consulting firm, The Ashcroft Group LLC, had assembled a team of 30 professionals for the contract, including former government lawyers, ex-FBI agents and accountants.

He deflected questions about what led to his selection but acknowledged that it had occurred with Zimmer's approval. If Ashcroft certifies after 18 months that Zimmer complied with settlement terms, a criminal complaint against the company would be dismissed. The complaint grew out of allegations the company used fake consulting agreements to persuade surgeons to use its products.

Ashcroft had initially declined to testify but changed his mind after the Judiciary Committee scheduled a vote last month to subpoena him. Citing terms under which he agreed to appear, Ashcroft left the panel hearing before noon, saying he needed to catch a plane to make a speaking engagement in Florida.

On Monday, the Justice Department announced that it was changing policies for deferred-prosecution agreements, in which companies agree to monitoring as an alternative to criminal prosecution.

Instead of permitting a single U.S. attorney from outside Washington to appoint a monitor, the Justice Department said that in the future, monitors would be picked by committees in the department with the approval of the deputy attorney general.

Rep. Bill Delahunt, D-Mass., a former prosecutor, told Ashcroft he was
"shocked that the company was consulted as to whether you were acceptable. There ought to be something better than receiving the imprimatur of a company that, I suspect, was involved in wrongdoing. That is disturbing to me."


Republicans on the committee accused Democrats of taking Ashcroft to task unfairly. "There is probably not a lawyer in America who has the credentials Mr. Ashcroft has," said Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah.

ShareThis