-Caveat Lector-
Begin forwarded message:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: July 22, 2007 9:03:23 PM PDT
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: "What are we waiting for? Let's take these two guys
out!" (Guillotines, Anyone?)
Impeachment -- and an ominous Executive Order
Sunday, July 22, 2007
http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/
This post expands upon the previous one, which discusses John
Conyers statement that he'll begin impeachment proceedings against
Cheney after three more Representatives sign on to Dennis
Kucinich's call for impeachment. In the post below this one, I give
the names of those congressfolk most likely to join with the
fourteen who have already signed up for impeachment.
Now we learn this:
"What are we waiting for? Let's take these two guys out," Conyers
reportedly told the enthusiastic crowd at a Progressive Democrats
of America event in San Diego. He later repeated the same line
according to the caller, "KPete," who wrote more about the event at
Democratic Underground yesterday. She reported that the comment was
met by "huge cheers."
A similar account of Conyers's statement was offered by progressive
talk show host Bree Walker who also attended the same event.
Conyers reportedly urged patience in the process, and asked for
everyone's support as things moved forward first with Cheney, and
then with Bush.
By the way, some people have said that the Judiciary Committee
cannot look into impeachment without a directive to do so by the
House Leadership. Not true. The Constitution does not so mandate,
and the 1998 precedent should not apply to the current situation.
1998 did not involve the Vice President or the line of succession,
and thus could not be construed as a coup by the Speaker.
Russ Feingold has renewed his call for censure in the Senate. A
terrific idea, that: A censure motion will give us an idea as to
whether any Republicans in the Senate can be turned against Bush
and Cheney. Impeachment is one thing; removal another. You cannot
ask Bush to go back to Texas without cooperation from at least some
senatorial Republicans.
Unfortunately -- and I know that this viewpoint conflicts with
common wisdom -- there is far more disunity among Democrats than
among Republicans right now. Note, for example, the hate vibes some
Dem rank-and-filers have directed at Feingold for his censure
suggestion, because it does not go "far enough." (Yes, I know that
he said he does not support impeachment at this time. He's a
Senator, not a House member. If he had said "Impeach now!" his
censure call would be even less palatable to Republicans. These
things must be handled with some delicacy.)
Wonkette has published an incredibly daring column which asks: How
to stage a revolt?
http://wonkette.com/politics/dept'-of-revolution-for-dummies/what-
next-for-the-bushcheney-administration-maybe-guillotines-280860.php
<SEE BELOW>
The piece discusses all options from military coup to attacks on
the home offices of congress members.
Needless to say, I do not condone violence or illegal activity. But
can you believe that we are actually discussing such matters?
Dark response: If Bush feels power slipping away, how will HE
react? We see increasing signs that he is considering the "false
flag" terror option, under which he will assume dictatorial powers.
Consider this executive order, which allows the President to take
away the property of any United States "persons" who "threaten
stabilization in Iraq."
Please note that this order is not directed against insurgents in
Iraq -- we are already firing bullets at those fellows, as you may
have noticed. No, this EO is directed at unnamed people in the
United States... determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in
consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,
(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing,
an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:
(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of
Iraq; or
(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and
political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to
the Iraqi people;
(ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial,
material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or
services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any
person whose property and interests in property are blocked
pursuant to this order...
I need not point out how vaguely worded this is. We know how
aggressive the President's lawyers are, and we know that they are
quite capable of of construing any anti-war protester (or blogger)
as a threat to the stability of Iraq.
Most people reading these words could be considered broadly guilty
of undermining Bush's efforts. Conservative zealots will argue
(have argued) that anyone who writes a web article in favor of
immediate withdrawal has provided "goods and services" in favor of
the insurgency.
A careful reading reveals that an "act of violence" of some sort
must occur before this EO becomes operative. But in my opinion, an
even more careful reading indicates that an aggressive DOJ official
can apply this EO to a United States "person" who cannot be
directly tied to any specific violent act.
Think about it: Have there been any instances of U.S. citizens
acting on behalf of the Iraqi insurgency? (I mean acting directly,
in terms of offering money or logistical support.) If,
hypothetically, a resident of this nation did offer material
support to the insurgents, would not existing law suffice to deal
with the situation?
This Executive Order, at first glance, is directed against a
problem that does not exist. So why does the order itself exist?
Why now?
Bush's hard core supporters have called for draconian tactics
against administration critics. Just talk? I don't think so.
Finally: Here, once again, are the names of the Congressfolk you
should call. Tell 'em to get behind the impeachment of Cheney NOW:
Neil Abercrombie, Tammy Baldwin, Lois Capps, Mike Capuano, Danny K.
Davis, Chaka Fattah, Maurice Hinchey, Mike Honda, Jesse Jackson Jr,
Sheila Jackson-Lee, John Lewis, Carolyn Maloney, Betty McCollum,
Gwen Moore, Jerold Nadler, John Olver, Donald Payne, Charles
Rangel, Steve Rothman, Hilda Solis, Fortney Pete Stark, John
Tierney, Nydia Velazquez, Diane Watson.
A reader suggests adding Jay Inslee to the list. Let's not forget
that Conyers himself has not added his name to the fourteen.
BIG IMPEACHMENT NEWS
On the Bree Walker show, John Conyers has said that he will open
impeachment hearings into the crimes of Dick Cheney if three more
members of Congress sign onto House Resolution 333. That resolution
already has 14 sponsors. The magic number, it seems, is 17.
Now is our chance. We can make history. Stop whining at Nancy
Pelosi and start doing something practical. You (not the guy next
to you: YOU) need to work on getting those three names.
Here are the 14 who have already signed on:
Jan Schakowsky, Maxine Waters, Hank Johnson, Keith Ellison, Lynn
Woolsey, Barbara Lee, Albert Wynn, William Lacy Clay, Dennis
Kucinich, Yvette Clarke, Jim McDermott, Jim Moran, Bob Filner, and
Sam Farr.
Here is a list of representatives who are potential "leaners" in
this direction:
Neil Abercrombie, Tammy Baldwin, Lois Capps, Mike Capuano, Danny K.
Davis, Chaka Fattah, Maurice Hinchey, Mike Honda, Jesse Jackson Jr,
Sheila Jackson-Lee, John Lewis, Carolyn Maloney, Betty McCollum,
Gwen Moore, Jerold Nadler, John Olver, Donald Payne, Charles
Rangel, Steve Rothman, Hilda Solis, Fortney Pete Stark, John
Tierney, Nydia Velazquez, Diane Watson.
Twenty-four names. We need only three.
And do not dismiss the possibility that someone not named above
also has had enough of Dick Cheney. A Republican may even want to
join. If you know of another name to add to the list, please inform
me.
Do you want to wallow in pseudo-sophisticated cynicism, spewing the
usual both-parties-are-the-same crap? Or do you want to try your
damnedest to DO something?
The Judiciary Committee is the place where the impeachment process
starts. Conyers, the head of that committee, has given his word in
public. We need but three names. Thirteen names or thirty names
would be better still, but three will do.
As always, I advise you to call at night and leave messages on
their answering machines. That's the easiest way to get the message
through if you are not a direct constituent.
---------------------------
Wonkette
http://wonkette.com/politics/dept'-of-revolution-for-dummies/what-
next-for-the-bushcheney-administration-maybe-guillotines-280860.php
WHAT NEXT FOR THE BUSH/CHENEY ADMINISTRATION?
MAYBE GUILLOTINES!
They’re immune to all laws, they can throw you in the gulag for any
reason at all, and they can lock up all your money and property if
you’re “impeding” whatever crazed satanic bullshit they’re doing
now or in the future. So what can Congress or the Military or you,
the hapless citizen, actually do to stop them?
We’ve consulted top historians and constitutional scholars — the
ones that came up on the first page of the Google search, anyway —
and they’ve got some fun advice for America.
Congress can have double-secret proceedings, too! According to
today’s Post story on the whole “contempt no longer exists” trick,
there’s another kind of contempt that the House and Senate can
independently prosecute: “Both chambers also have an “inherent
contempt” power, allowing either body to hold its own trials and
even jail those found in defiance of Congress. Although widely used
during the 19th century, the power has not been invoked since 1934
and Democratic lawmakers have not displayed an appetite for
reviving the practice.”
According to Paul Lukasiak, commenting at the Volokh Conspiracy
constitutional law blog, there’s another procedure ready to go if
anybody on the Hill can develop the spine to go through with it:
First things first. The House must institute impeachment
proceedings, thus making it impossible for Bush to use his pardon
powers once inherent contempt is cited.
Next thing, amend the Miers subpoena to include a reference to the
impeachment proceedings, and give her 48 hours to show up and
testify. If she doesn’t, find her in “inherent contempt,” and have
her thrown in a local DC jail. (Since Congress has authority over
DC, and Bush has authority over federal prisons, DC jails are the
only option.)
Then the House needs to assert “Congressional Privilege” that far
outweighs “Executive Privilege”, insofar as Congressional privilege
has a Constitutional basis in Article II, Section 8 — and assert
that Federal Courts have no jurisdiction over inherent contempt
proceedings initiated by Congress under both Act II, Section 8 as
well as the Constitutional provisions regarding Impeachment of a
President.
Finally, every bill that goes to Bush’s desk must include a
provision forbidding the use of Federal funds to resist an inherent
contempt citation issued pursuant to an impeachment proceeding.
If Bush wants a constitutional crisis, give him one.
Military Coup d’Etat:
In April 2006, Harpers put together a nice little discussion group
made up of Pentagon brass and military-history experts to talk
about how a military coup in Washington would go down.
Brig. Gen. Charles J. Dunlap Jr. says it wouldn’t be easy to pull
off in the United States: “You could go down the list and take over
these headquarters, that headquarters, the White House, the Defense
Department, the television, the radio, and so on. You could arrest
all the leaders, detain or kill off their families. And you would
have accomplished nothing.”
You could argue that something was accomplished, but Dunlap says
there’s more to it. The Pentagon personnel and Americans in general
would have to make your rule legitimate by cooperating with it. And
that would only be likely if there was already widespread support
for taking down the administration and its regime — which there is,
even in the Pentagon. But military coup leaders would need to set
firm dates for new elections — November 4, 2008 would be good.
Another option, from Center for Strategic and International Studies
adviser Edward N. Luttwak:
Let’s say a president, exercising his proper and legitimate
presidential authority, initiates a military action. Then Congress
wakes up and says, “Wait a minute, this president is berserk; he’s
starting a war, and we’re against it.” But in the meantime, the
military force has already been put in a very compromised
situation. If things were moving very fast, the military might well
take an unconstitutional action.
This would be kind of hilarious, if directed against the Bush/
Cheney administration, because constitutional scholars have been
saying for several years that the White House has been running an
“INCREMENTAL COUP D'ETAT” that is militarizing everything,
including domestic law and private corporations (the NSA is a
military agency, now spying on Americans within the United States
using American telecommunications companies).
Appetite for Destruction: So how would people best encourage
members of the House and Senate to “display an appetite” to pursue
these old-timey tactics as well as other interesting options such
as impeachment? Because we can all agree “contacting your
representative” is a bit useless, right? And Washington’s a long
ways away from most Americans, etc.
One option is a “general strike,” which is useful in that Americans
are pretty lazy and if everyone else is skipping work, why not? But
such a thing only really works if crucial cogs in the wheel stop
moving, like air traffic controllers and school teachers (parents
would be forced to stay home) and UPS drivers and harbor masters at
the Port of Los Angeles where hundreds of giant Chinese freighters
are lined up for unloadiing around the clock.
Other scholars say the best thing to do is go on a “local rampage.”
There are 100 senators and 432 representatives at the moment (three
seats are vacant in the House), and each of these people have local
offices as well as local residences. Experts say the Congress
critters will seriously start freaking out if hundreds of unhinged
people collect around these local offices and barricade the local
staffers inside. In the past, effigy burnings and mob attacks have
proved particularly fruitful in garnering the attention of
politicians in Washington.
Perhaps the most interesting tactic is looting and burning the
local residences of the politicians in Washington, which was common
in the 19th Century. Nothing says “the constituents are a bit
upset” like watching CNN coverage of your house on fire.
The challenge for those hoping to get participation from today’s
slow, ill-informed, fat American slugs is they won’t do anything
like this simply for political reasons. There must be free liquor
and food. All it takes is for a handful of “organizers” to order a
few kegs and a truckload of those giant Subway sandwiches and then
call the local news and say, for example, “There’s a riot going on
outside Senator Numbnuts’ big-ass house at 123 White People Drive
in Fancy Hills. Send your live team!”
To get younger, possibly dangerous youngsters to take part in the
“freedom rally,” tech experts suggest posting MySpace messages for
the fans of various popular youth acts with promises of free
concerts and free Harry Potter books at the home addresses of
hundreds of individual congress people in every district and every
state. When the disappointed kids realize there’s no concert and no
Harry Potter books — nothing but a lot of beer and meth, really —
they’re going to go fucking nuts!
White House Trump Card: You can bet that while Bush is unconscious
tomorrow (and likely to tragically never recover because the
doctors sort of accidentally put him down with a massive overdose
of sodium thiopental), President Cheney will be readying complete
White House seizure of power as made possible by the National
Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, signed by
Bush just two months ago. The judicial and legislative branches are
shut down by this Directive, putting Cheney in full control of the
U.S. government and military.
THEN what do you do? Well, it turns out he’s not too popular and
that a whole lot of regular working Americans are the people who
work for the various police forces, government agencies, your local
military bases and National Guard armories, etc. They’re the ones
who have to round you up, send you to the FEMA death camps, etc.
Let’s hope they decide that’s all kind of a rotten idea!
If not, just remember that nobody’s bulletproof.
Says historian Richard Kohn:
I’ve raised this point before with military audiences: Do you
really think you can control New York City without the cooperation
of 40,000 New York police officers? And what about Idaho, with all
those militia groups? Do you think you can control Idaho? I’m not
even going to talk about Texas.
Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.
www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
<A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
