November 30, 2007

IMPEACHMENT TOOKIT; OPED NEWS ON IMPEACHMENT

The Political Issue that Nobody Wants to Talk AboutTimothy V. Gatto2007-11-300
The 'Surge' Is Working? Fine. Then Bush Should Be Impeached.David Michael Green2007-11-290
America Heads for the Trash Can of HistoryPaul Craig Roberts2007-11-294
News Not Fit to Print: US Coup Planned for Venezuela?Dave Lindorff2007-11-2926
Two Candidates Explicitly Put Peace Before Party: Kucinich and Paul Challenge Their Party to Take Peace SeriouslyKevin Zeese2007-11-291
Annoyed by the DNC's Decision to Cancel the Dec. 10th DebateKevin Gosztola2007-11-293
CheneyBush Burned Again: Too Near the PlameBernard Weiner, The Crisis Papers2007-11-281
Wake-Up CallDave Lindorff2007-11-287
"Come senators, congressmen, please heed the call!"MikeHersh2007-11-280
Impeachment Forum in Bucks County PA, with Rob Kall, Dave Lindorff, Elizabeth HoltzmanRob Kall2007-11-281
Confronting the FCC MonolithKevin Gosztola2007-11-270
Nancy Skinner is the kind of Democrat we NEED in Congresskpominville2007-11-272
The Put Up or Shut Up ChallengeAndrew Bard Schmookler2007-11-270
New Broom Coalition asks Fitzgerald to reopen the Plame caseHoward Burbank II2007-11-260
Scott McClellan - Where are the Headlines?Michael Collins2007-11-2644
The Real Plan Behind the Iraq WarMoss David Posner, M.D.2007-11-261
Kucinich in VirginiaDavid Swanson2007-11-260
America needs a drastic change of political landscapeScott McLarty2007-11-263
TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS - LET'S RESTART THE DISCUSSIONLinda Milazzo2007-11-2516
Saving America - A Plan of Action!William Cormier2007-11-254
The Time Has ComeBrian Wolf2007-11-251
ANNOUNCING THE NEW BROOM COALITIONCarol Wolman2007-11-243
When Will the Light See the Dark of Day?Michael Bonanno2007-11-2410
Why a Democrat President Hasn't a Chance to Save the NationJim Freeman2007-11-244
Is Impeachment Still Off the Table Pelosi?Rowan Wolf2007-11-2311
Next Impeach Target: Major Campaign ContributorsRalph Lopez2007-11-230
Sardonic Thanks-- 16 or so things to be somewhat thankful forRob Kall2007-11-228
Impeachment on the Thanksgiving TableDave Lindorff2007-11-227
All The President's Liars: Where the Hell are The Washington Post and New York Times on McClellangate?!steve young2007-11-2111
Are Bush and Cheney guilty of treason?Carol Wolman2007-11-212

IMPEACHMENT TOOLKIT; Mukasey

There are currently over 1 million "hits" on google regarding Mukasey and TORTURE

http://www.google.ca/search?q=Mukasey+torture&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=
org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a

Editorial: Torture and the Attorneys General Submitted by Sheila Samples



Tell A Friend
The only information Mr. Mukasey can possibly be lacking is whether Mr. Bush broke the law by authorizing the C.I.A. to use waterboarding — a judgment that the White House clearly does not want him to render in public because it could expose a host of officials to criminal accountability. Would Mr. Mukasey approve of waterboarding an American soldier? Mr. Bush’s policies increase the danger of that happening.

My article on this is at this URL
http://www.opednews.com/articles/2/opedne_ladybroa_070917_mukasey_as_next_atto.htm

A list of other articles on Mukasey and Alberto Gonzales is at:
http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/showtags.php?tid=6704&tag=/Attorney+General

This is Congress's important letter about the FISA court (remember they are avoiding using any reference to the ICC and The Hague and note the signatories. if anyone knows who sees this, which of these signatories subsequently voted for WAR FUNDING!!


ladybroadoak

Singed by Patrick Leahy and Arlen Specter

PATRICKJ. LEAHY, VERMONT, CHAIRMAN
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, MASSACHUSETTS ARLEN SPECTER,PENNSYLVANIA
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., DELAWARE ORRIN G. HATCH, UTAH
HERB KOHL, WISCONSIN CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, IOWA
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, CALIFORNIA JON KYL, ARIZONA
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, WISCONSIN JEFF SESSIONS, ALABAMA
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, NEW YORK LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, SOUTH CAROLINA
RICHARDJ. DURBIN, ILLINOIS JOHN CORNYN, TEXAS
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, MARYLAND SAM BROWNBACK, KANSAS
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, RHODE ISLAND TOM COBURN, OKLAHOMA
BRUCEA. COHEN,

Chief Counsel and Staff Director
MICHAELO'NEIll, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director


May 21, 2007
The Honorable Alberto Gonzales
Attorney General of the United States
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Attorney General Gonzalez:

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-6275
Last week we heard dramatic and deeply troubling testimony from former Deputyttorney General Corney. He testified that in March 2004, when he was Acting Attorneyeneral, he informed the White House that the Department of Justice had concluded an ongoing classified surveillance program had "no legal basis" and would not certify it. He then described how you, then Counsel to the President, and former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card arrived at the hospital bedside of an extremely ill Attorney General Ashcroft and attempted to persuade him to certify the program. When you failed, because Mr. Ashcroft refused, Mr. Corney testified that the program was nonetheless certified over the objections of the Department of Justice. That apparently prompted a number of high-ranking Justice officials to consider resigning en masse.
This incident obviously raises very serious questions about your personal behavior and commitment to the rule oflaw. Mr. Corney's testimony also demonstrates vividly how essential it is that this Committee understands the legal underpinnings of the surveillance program that was the subject of that incident, and how the legal justification evolved over time. The stonewalling by you and the Administration must end. The Committee on the Judiciary is charged with overseeing and legislating on constitutional protections, civil
and criminal justice, civil liberties, and the Judiciary, all subjects that this matter impacts.
We intend to do our job.
This Committee has made no fewer than eight formal requests over the past 18 months - to the White House, the Attorney General, or other Department of Justice officials seeking documents and information related to this surveillance program. These requests have sought the Executive Branch legal analysis of this program and documents reflecting its authorization by the President. You have rebuffed all requests for documents and your answers to our questions have been wholly inadequate and, at times, misleading.
We note also that the Administration has offered a legislative proposal that it contends seeks to "modernize" the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). As you know, the Judiciary Committee has historically overseen changes to FISA and it is this committee's responsibility to review the Administration's proposal with great care.
The draft legislation would make dramatic and far-reaching changes to a critical national security authority. Before we can even begin to consider any such legislative proposal,we must be given appropriate access to the information necessary to carry out our oversight and legislative duties.
This Administration has asserted that it established its program of warrantless wiretapping by the NSA because it deemed FISA's requirements to be incompatible with the needs of the intelligence community in fighting terrorism. You testified in January that the warrantless wiretapping program had been terminated and that henceforth surveillance would be conducted pursuant to authorization from the FISA Court. To consider any changes to FISA, it is critical that this Committee understand how the Department and the FISA Court have interpreted FISA and the perceived flaws that led
the Administration to operate a warrantless surveillance program outside of FISA's provisions for over five years.
Your consistent stonewalling and misdirection have prevented this Committee from carrying out its constitutional oversight and legislative duties for far too long. We understand that much ofthe information we seek may currently be classified, but that can be no excuse for failing to provide relevant information to all members of this Committee and select, cleared staff. We will, of course, handle it with the greatest care and consistent with security requirements.
Therefore, we reiterate our requests for the following documents and ask that you provide them to this Committee no later than June 5, 2007:
1) Please provide all documents that reflect the President's authorization and reauthorization of the warrantless electronic surveillance program that you have called the Terrorist Surveillance Program, including any predecessor programs, from 2001 to the present;
2) Please provide all memoranda or other documents containing analysis or opinions
from the Department of Justice, the National Security Agency, the Department of Defense, the White House, or any other entity within the Executive Branch on legality of or legal basis for the warrantless electronic surveillance program, including documents that describe why the desired surveillance would not or could not take place consistent with the requirements and procedures of FISA from 2001 to the present;
3) Please provide all documents reflecting communications with the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) about the warrantless electronic
surveillance program or the types of surveillance that previously were conducted as part of that program, that contain legal analysis, arguments, or decisions concerning the interpretation of FISA, the Fourth Amendment, the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, or the President's authority under Article II of the Constitution, including the January 2007 FISC orders to which you refer in your January 17, 2007 letter to us and all other opinions or orders of the FISA court with respect to this surveillance;
4) If you do not consider the surveillance program that was the subject of discussion during the hospital visit and other events that former Deputy Attorney General James Corney described in his May 15,2007 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee to be covered by the requests made above, please provide all documents described in those requests relevant to that program, as well.
We emphasize that we are seeking the legal justifications and analysis underlying these matters and not the specific operational details or information obtained by the surveillance.

by ladybroadoak (13 articles, 115 comments) on Thursday, September 20, 2007 at 5:42:01 AM




Kucinich hit for eyeing Paul as VP




Jewish Democrats criticized U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) for saying he was considering Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) as his running mate.

The National Jewish Democratic Council in a statement Tuesday slammed comments by Kucinich, a prohibitive underdog among the Democratic presidential

"Despite his views on the Iraq war, Rep. Paul no more belongs on a Democratic ticket than Dennis Kucinich on a Republican one," said NJDC Executive Director Ira Forman. "Any Jewish Democrats or independents that are tempted toward Rep. Paul because of his stance on the war should be reminded that this Republican representative has a terrible record on Middle East politics, is anti-choice and opposes stem cell research."

The NJDC also provided several anti-Israel quotations from Paul, whose presidential candidacy on the GOP side has attracted support from several neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups.

On Sunday, Kucinich told a crowd in New Hampshire that he was considering Paul as his running mate. Despite being from different parties, Kucinich said the joint ticket could "balance the energies in this country."

THE TREASURY'S MISSING MINUTES MYSTERY

See these links as well:




November 29, 2007 -- AFTER a year and a half of stalling, the US Treasury finally complied with The Post's requests for information about The President's Working Group on Financial Markets - by delivering 177 pages of crap.

In essence, the Treasury's Freedom of Information officials said that the Working Group - affectionately nicknamed the Plunge Protection Team - doesn't keep records of its meetings.

How interesting and convenient!

Included in the 177 pages that the Treasury said responded to our request on the actions of The President's Working Group were 53 pages on which something was redacted - blacked out so that the discussion was unreadable.

Many of those 53 pages contained no words at all - just a big black blob.

Starting in June of 2006 The Post asked for an accounting of the actions of The President's Working Group, which was formed under President Reagan. The Group seems to have the ill-defined task of keeping an eye on the financial markets. We also asked for e-mails related to our request through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The Working Group operates out of the Treasury Department and includes the heads of the various exchanges in the US, as well as top-ranking government officials.

Hank Paulson, the Treasury Secretary, and Ben Bernanke, the head of the Federal Reserve, are the two most prominent members.

Back in August, Paulson said in a television interview that "we've reenergized The President's Working Group on Financial Markets."

The Wall Street Journal last year said that Paulson, upon becoming Treasury Secretary, was insisting that the Working Group meet every six weeks.

Whatever the schedule of meetings, one of those meetings occurred on Aug. 17 - the day the Federal Reserve surprised the financial markets with a cut in its discount rate.

According to records that someone else got from Bernanke's office through a FOIA request, there was an 11 a.m. conference call on Aug. 17 of the "PWG" - the President's Working Group.

Fed Governor Kevin Warsh and Patrick Parkinson, a Treasury staffer, took part in that call, according to Bernanke's phone log.

The day before - Aug. 16 - Bernanke and Paulson had lunch, but it isn't clear whether this was just two guys having a meal or if it, too, was related to The President's Working Group.

Hours after that lunch, word got around on Wall Street that the Fed was about to make a move and the stock market staged a tremendous rally.

The next day those rumors of Fed action proved accurate.

So what's the Working Group up to?

I suspect the group is ready to come to the rescue of the financial markets - even equities - in the case of a meltdown.

And as I've said in the past, that would be a completely acceptable task as long as it remains a limited power that is used infrequently.

But who decides when a rescue is needed?

And if no records are kept, who is held accountable if The Working Group's power is abused?

George Stephanopoulos, a former top aide to President Clinton, tried to calm fears right after the terrorist attack in 2001 by explaining that The President's Working Group was at the ready to prop up the stock market.

I, too, had a similar conversation with a Fed official in Sept. 2001.

But the chance of abus ing this presi dential man date - even for personal gain - is great whenever an orga nization operates in secrecy.

And that's exactly how The President's Working Group is operating.

Included in the pile of manure we received from Treasury this week is an internal e-mail dated April 9, 2007 that Heidilynne Schultheiss, director of the Treasury's Office of Financial Market Policy, sent to six people.

The subject "Minutes of PWG Meetings?"

"Hi All, We received a FOIA request asking for minutes of meetings of the President's Working Group on Financial Markets (PWG). As far as we know, minutes are not (and never have been) kept . . . A search of our records turned up nothing," Schultheiss wrote.

That same day someone at Treasury named Mary Kertz e-mailed a bunch of folks "re: meeting notes from last PWG meeting on Financial Markets."

The e-mail said: "Thanks. Just spoke with Norman - he said the Fed Chairman had said he believed minutes were recorded for these meetings. Strange."

I don't know who Norman is. But I agree that having a powerful organization like this meet in secret is very, very strange.

See also:

PAULSON PLAYS WITH THE PLUNGE PROTECTORS

October 26, 2006 -- PAY attention!

Someone - and I don't know who - wants us all to know that since July Henry Paulson, the new secretary of the U.S. Treasury, has spent a lot of time on a little known Washington operation called the President's Working Group on Financial Markets.

That was the major message in a prominent piece this past Monday in The Wall Street Journal.

The big mystery is why do these people want us to know this? And why now? I wrote about the Working Group on Financial Markets back in June when Paulson left Wall Street powerhouse Goldman Sachs to accept the top job at Treasury.

*SNIP*

Since the Federal Reserve is the group that would lower interest rates in an emergency, the Plunge Protectors would probably be the ones who'd fix the problem. In other words, they'd throw money at it.

Stocks have been moving steadily upward since July, when Paulson took over the Plunge Protection Team (and the Treasury). And one of the reasons could be that - as I mentioned back then - there is less risk in stocks if the government is providing a safety net.

Less risk, that is, until something bad happens.

john.crudele@nypost.com

ENTIRE the article here:

Information on this blog posted about the plunge protection team can be accessed by searching the links below.

Other bills pending in Congress ..

H1955: To prevent homegrown terrorism, and for other purposes [1 comment]

  • Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to add provisions concerning the prevention of homegrown terrorism (terrorism by individuals born, raised, or based and operating primarily in the United States).
  • Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to: (1) establish a grant program to prevent radicalization (use of an extremist belief system for facilitating ideologically-based violence) and homegrown terrorism in the United States; (2) establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States; and (3) conduct a survey of methodologies implemented by foreign nations to prevent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.
  • Prohibits the Department of Homeland Security's efforts to prevent ideologically-based violence and homegrown terrorism from violating the constitutional and civil rights, and civil liberties, of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.
Group Community support
(0 support, 15 oppose)
I am for this bill | I am against this bill

Exclamation Importance
Community assessment: 8
Nudge importance higher | Nudge importance lower
The bill of the day is chosen by the BillWatch team. We aim to pick a diverse range of bills representing a variety of viewpoints. Our selection of this bill does not imply an endorsement.
Noteworthy Bills (based on site activity)

  • Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007- Repeals provisions of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that eliminated the jurisdiction of any court to hear or consider applications for a writ of habeas corpus filed by aliens who have been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as enemy combatants (or who are awaiting such determination) and actions against the United States relating to the detention of such aliens and to military commissions (thus restoring habeas corpus rights existing prior to the enactment of such Act).
  • Allows courts to hear or consider legal challenges to military commissions only as provided by the Code of Military Justice or by a habeas corpus proceeding.
Group Community support
(88 support, 5 oppose)
I am for this bill | I am against this bill

Exclamation Importance
Community assessment: 73
Nudge importance higher | Nudge importance lower

  • Amends the Communications Act of 1934 to establish certain Internet neutrality duties for broadband service providers (providers), including not interfering with, or discriminating against, the ability of any person to use broadband service in a lawful manner. Allows providers to engage in activities in furtherance of certain management and business-related practices, such as protecting network security and offering consumer protection services such as parental controls.
  • Prohibits a provider from requiring a subscriber, as a condition on the purchase of broadband service, to purchase any cable service, telecommunications service, or IP-enabled voice service.
  • Requires a report from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to specified congressional committees on provider delivery of broadband content, applications, and services.
Group Community support
(67 support, 8 oppose)
I am for this bill | I am against this bill

Exclamation Importance
Community assessment: 38
Nudge importance higher | Nudge importance lower

States that: (1) the deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date; (2) a quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S. Marines shall be deployed in the region; and (3) the United States shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.
Group Community support
(59 support, 8 oppose)
I am for this bill | I am against this bill

Exclamation Importance
Community assessment: 50
Nudge importance higher | Nudge importance lower

  • Declares that marriage in the United States shall consist only of a legal union of a man and a woman.
  • Prohibits any federal or state court from having jurisdiction to determine whether the U.S. Constitution or any state constitution requires the legal incidents of marriage to be conferred upon any union other than a legal union between one man and one woman.
  • Provides that no state shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state concerning a union between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage, or as having the legal incidents of marriage, under the laws of such other state.
Group Community support
(6 support, 82 oppose)
I am for this bill | I am against this bill

Exclamation Importance
Community assessment: -4
Nudge importance higher | Nudge importance lower

  • Amends the Public Health Service Act to require an abortion provider, before beginning any abortion of a pain-capable unborn child (defined as an unborn child who has reached a probable stage of development of 20 weeks after fertilization), to: (1) make a specified statement to the pregnant woman that Congress has determined that there is substantial evidence that the process will cause the unborn child pain, and that the mother has the option of having pain-reducing drugs administered directly to the child; (2) provide to the woman an Unborn Child Pain Awareness Brochure (unless she waives receipt) and an Unborn Child Pain Awareness Decision Form; and (3) obtain on the form the woman's signature and her explicit request for or refusal of the administration of drugs to the child.
  • Creates an exception for certified medical emergencies.
  • Establishes penalties for willfully failing to comply with this Act, including civil penalties, medical license suspension, or both. Authorizes: (1) specified officials to bring suit in federal court; and (2) private rights of action by a parent or guardian of a woman who is an unemancipated minor.
  • [View bill for full summary]
Group Community support
(10 support, 43 oppose)
I am for this bill | I am against this bill

Exclamation Importance
Community assessment: -16
Nudge importance higher | Nudge importance lower

Amends the Public Health Service Act to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct and support research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells, regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo. Limits such research to stem cells that meet the following ethical requirements: (1) the stem cells were derived from human embryos donated from in vitro fertilization clinics for the purpose of fertility treatment and were in excess of the needs of the individuals seeking such treatment; (2) the embryos would never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded; and (3) such individuals donate the embryos with written informed consent and receive no financial or other inducements.
Group Community support
(61 support, 10 oppose)
I am for this bill | I am against this bill

Exclamation Importance
Community assessment: 16
Nudge importance higher | Nudge importance lower

  • Amends the Clean Air Act to direct the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to promulgate: (1) targets for a 2% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions each year from 2010-2050; and (2) regulations requiring reductions to meet such targets, including by setting caps on emissions of sources and sectors with the largest emissions or the best opportunities to reduce them, by issuing and authorizing trading of emission allowances, and by imposing penalties for excess emissions.
  • Requires relevant federal agencies to finalize a rule to carry out the National Academies' recommendations for regulatory action needed to reduce atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations or explain their reasons for declining to act.
  • Requires the President to submit to Congress a plan for the distribution of emission allowances (including through auctions) and the use of proceeds (to be deposited in a Climate Reinvestment Fund) for specified goals, including mitigating the effects of energy cost increases and climate change.
  • [View bill for full summary]
Group Community support
(35 support, 12 oppose)
I am for this bill | I am against this bill

Exclamation Importance
Community assessment: 11
Nudge importance higher | Nudge importance lower








  • Prohibits a state or political subdivision from exercising its power of eminent domain, or allowing the exercise of such power by delegation, over property to be used for economic development or over property that is used for economic development within seven years after that exercise, if the state or political subdivision receives federal economic development funds during any fiscal year in which the property is so used or intended to be used.
  • Prohibits the federal government from exercising its power of eminent domain for economic development.
  • Establishes a private cause of action for any private property owner or tenant who suffers injury as a result of a violation of this Act. Prohibits state immunity in federal or state court. Sets the statute of limitations at seven years.
  • [View bill for full summary]
Group Community support
(43 support, 3 oppose)
I am for this bill | I am against this bill

Exclamation Importance
Community assessment: 16
Nudge importance higher | Nudge importance lower

ShareThis