This should make **patriot** Cheney happy.

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

who is highly intelligent, who takes time to think through his/her decisions, not a shoot off the hip kind of guy.

http://leesearles.wordpress.com/2009/04/07/rightwingnuttery-glenn-beck-and-the-rise-of-fox-news-militia-media-edition/

and I guess that's okay, but the truth will come out in the wash, eventually. All the media filters in the world will not keep the truth coming from coming out eventually, and we may all be surprised at what the truth actually is which may be drastically different than either one of our points of view.

George Bush wants to create the new criminal of disruptor who can be jailed for the crime of disruptive behavior. A little-noticed provision in the latest version of the Patriot Act will empower Secret Service to charge protesters with a new crime of disrupting major events including political conventions and the Olympics.

The Secret Service would also be empowered to charge persons with breaching security and to charge for entering a restricted area which is where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting. In short, be sure to stay in those wired, fenced containments or free speech zones.

Who is the disruptor? Bush Team history tells us the disruptor is an American citizen with the audacity to attend Bush events wearing a T-shirt that criticizes Bush; or a member of civil rights, environmental, anti-war or counter-recruiting groups who protest Bush policies; or a person who invades Bush's bubble by criticizing his policies. A disruptor is also a person who interferes in someone else's activity, such as interrupting Bush when he is speaking at a press conference or during an interview.

What are the parameters of the crime of disruptive behavior? The dictionary defines disruptive as characterized by unrest or disorder or insubordination. The American Medical Association defines disruptive behavior as a style of interaction with people that interferes with patient care, and can include behavior such as foul language; rude, loud or offensive comments; and intimidation of patients and family members.

What are the rules of engagement for disruptors? Some Bush Team history of their treatment of disruptors provide some clues on how this administration will treat disruptors in the future.

(1) People perceived as disruptors may be preemptively ejected from events before engaging in any disruptive conduct.

In the beginning of this war against disruptors, Americans were ejected from taxpayer funded events where Bush was speaking. At first the events were campaign rallies during the election, and then the disruptor ejectment policy was expanded to include Bush's post election campaign-style events on public policy issues on his agenda, such as informing the public on medicare reform and the like. If people drove to the event in a car with a bumper sticker that criticized Bush's policies or wore T-shirts with similar criticism, they were disruptors who could be ejected from the taxpayer event even before they engaged in any disruptive behavior. White House press secretary McClellan defended such ejectments as a proper preemptive strike against persons who may disrupt an event: If we think people are coming to the event to disrupt it, obviously, they're going to be asked to leave.

(2) Bush Team may check its vast array of databanks to cull out those persons who it deems having disruptor potential and then blacklist those persons from events.

The White House even has a list of persons it deems could be disruptive to an eventand then blacklists those persons from attending taxpayer funded events where Bush speaks. Sounds like Bush not only has the power to unilaterally designate people as enemy combatants in the global war on terror, but to unilaterally designate Americans as disruptive in the domestic war against free speech.

Bush's war against disruptors was then elevated to surveillance, monitoring, and legal actions against disruptor organizations. The FBI conducts political surveillance and obtains intelligence filed in its database on Bush administration critics , such as civil rights groups (e.g., ACLU), antiwar protest groups (e.g., United for Peace and Justice) and environmental groups (e.g., Greenpeace).

This surveillance of American citizens exercising their constitutional rights has been done under the pretext of counterterrorism activities surrounding protests of the Iraq war and the Republican National Convention. The FBI maintains it does not have the intent to monitor political activities and that its surveillance and intelligence gathering is intended to prevent disruptive and criminal activity at demonstrations, not to quell free speech.

Surveillance of potential disruptors then graduated to legal actions as a preemptive strike against potential disruptive behavior at public events. In addition to monitoring and surveillance of legal groups and legal activities, the FBI issued subpoenas for members to appear before grand juries based on the FBI's intent to prevent disruptive convention protests. The Justice Dept. opened a criminal investigation and subpoenaed records of Internet messages posted by Bush`s critics. And, the Justice Dept. even indicted Greenpeace for a protest that was so lame the federal judge threw out the case.

So now the Patriot Act, which was argued before enactment as a measure to fight foreign terrorists, is being amended to make clear that it also applies to American citizens who have the audacity to disrupt President Bush wherever his bubble may travel. If this provision is enacted into law, then Bush will have a law upon which to expand the type of people who constitute disruptors and the type of activities that constitute disruptive activities. And, then throw them all in jail.

Libby told the FBI in 2003 that it was possible that Cheney ordered him to reveal Plame's identity to reporters. The prosecutor in that case, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, said in his closing remarks at Libby's trial that there was a "cloud" over Cheney's role in the case.

Fitzgerald told members of Congress who also sought the information that Cheney set no conditions about the use of his interview with investigators.

I hope Cehney will also be prosecuted about the Abu Ghraib torture case when Obama decides that the TIME IS RIGHT.

Fitzgerald told members of Congress who also sought the information that Cheney set no conditions about the use of his interview with investigators.

I hope Cehney will also be prosecuted about the Abu Ghraib torture case when Obama decides that the TIME IS RIGHT.

Fitzgerald told members of Congress who also sought the information that Cheney set no conditions about the use of his interview with investigators.

I hope Cheney will also be prosecuted about the Abu Ghraib torture case when Obama decides that the TIME IS RIGHT.

Fitzgerald told members of Congress who also sought the information that Cheney set no conditions about the use of his interview with investigators.

I hope Cheney will also be prosecuted about the Abu Ghraib torture case when Obama decides that the TIME IS RIGHT.

House Judiciary Trio Calls for Impeach Cheney Hearings

Three senior members of the House Judiciary Committee have called for the immediate opening of impeachment hearings for Vice President Richard Cheney.

Democrats Robert Wexler of Florida, Luis Gutierrez of Illinois and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin on Friday distributed a statement, �A Case for Hearings,� that declares, �The issues at hand are too serious to ignore, including credible allegations of abuse of power that if proven may well constitute high crimes and misdemeanors under our constitution. The charges against Vice President Cheney relate to his deceptive actions leading up to the Iraq war, the revelation of the identity of a covert agent for political retaliation, and the illegal wiretapping of American citizens.�

In particular, the Judiciary Committee members cite the recent revelation by former White House press secretary Scott McClellan that the Vice President and his staff purposefully gave him false information about the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson as a covert agent as part of a White House campaign to discredit her husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson. On the basis of McClellan�s statements, Wexler, Gutierrez and Baldwin say, �it is even more important for Congress to investigate what may have been an intentional obstruction of justice.� The three House members argue that, �Congress should call Mr. McClellan to testify about what he described as being asked to �unknowingly [pass] along false information.��

Adding to the sense of urgency, the members note that �recent revelations have shown that the Administration including Vice President Cheney may have again manipulated and exaggerated evidence about weapons of mass destruction � this time about Iran�s nuclear capabilities.�

Although Wexler, Gutierrez and Baldwin are close to Judiciary Committee chair John Conyers, getting the Michigan Democrat to open hearings on impeachment will not necessarily be easy. Though Conyers was a leader in suggesting during the last Congress that both President Bush and Vice President Cheney had committed impeachable offenses, he has been under immense pressure from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, to keep Constitutional remedies for executive excesses �off the table� in this Congress.

It is notable, however, that Baldwin maintains warm relations with Pelosi and that Wexler, a veteran member of the Judiciary Committee has historically had an amiable and effective working relationship with Conyers. There is no question that Conyers, who voted to keep open the impeachment debate on November 7, has been looking for a way to explore the charges against Cheney. The move by three of his key allies on the committee may provide the chairman with the opening he seeks, although it is likely he will need to hear from more committee members before making any kind of break with Pelosi � or perhaps convincing her that holding hearings on Cheney�s high crimes and misdemeanors is different from putting a Bush impeachment move on the table.

The most important immediate development, however, is the assertion of an �ask� for supporters of impeachment. Pulled in many directions in recent months, campaigners for presidential and vice presidential accountability have focused their attention on supporting a House proposal by Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nod, to impeach Cheney. When Kucinich forced consideration of his resolution on November 7, Pelosi and her allies used procedural moves to get it sent to the Judiciary Committee for consideration. Pelosi�s hope was that the proposal would disappear into the committee�s files.

The call for hearings by Wexler, Gutierrez and Baldwin puts impeachment on the table, at least as far as activists are concerned, creating a pressure point that can serve as a reply when House Democrats who are critical of Bush but cautious about impeachment ask: �What do you want me to do?� The answer can now be: �Back the call for Judiciary Committee hearings on whether to impeach Cheney?�

�Some of us were in Congress during the impeachment hearings of President Clinton. We spent a year and a half listening to testimony about President Clinton�s personal relations. This must not be the model for impeachment inquires. A Democratic Congress can show that it takes its constitutional authority seriously and hold a sober investigation, which will stand in stark contrast to the kangaroo court convened by Republicans for President Clinton. In fact, the worst legacy of the Clinton impeachment - where the GOP pursued trumped up and insignificant allegations - would be that it discourages future Congresses from examining credible and significant allegations of a constitutional nature when they arise,� write Wexler, Gutierrez and Baldwin.

�The charges against Vice President Cheney are not personal,� the House members add. �They go to the core of the actions of this Administration, and deserve consideration in a way the Clinton scandal never did. The American people understand this, and a majority support hearings according to a November 13 poll by the American Research Group. In fact, 70 percent of voters say that Vice President Cheney has abused his powers and 43 percent say that he should be removed from office right now. The American people understand the magnitude of what has been done and what is at stake if we fail to act. It is time for Congress to catch up.�

Arguing that hearings need not distract Congress, Wexler, Gutierrez and Baldwin note that the focus is on Cheney for a reason: �These hearings involve the possible impeachment of the Vice President � not our commander in chief � and the resulting impact on the nation�s business and attention would be significantly less than the Clinton Presidential impeachment hearings.�

They also argue, correctly, that the hearings are necessary if Congress is to restore its position in the Constitutionally-defined system of checks and balances.

�Holding hearings would put the evidence on the table, and the evidence � not politics � should determine the outcome,� the Judiciary Committee members explain. �Even if the hearings do not lead to removal from office, putting these grievous abuses on the record is important for the sake of history. For an Administration that has consistently skirted the constitution and asserted that it is above the law, it is imperative for Congress to make clear that we do not accept this dangerous precedent. Our Founding Fathers provided Congress the power of impeachment for just this reason, and we must now at least consider using it.

Why should he care? He's leaving office soon and none of his family or friends were at risk over there. He and most of his cronies all were successful in shirking military service. And he won't be around to pay the bill for this war -- our children and grandchildren are the ones who will pay in the long run if it doesn't financially ruin this country before then.

I'm sure he thought he and a few others would benefit in $$$ from this invasion, and I'm sure some folks did (like Halliburton) but instead it has backfired. Recent news shows that the war has ultimately destabilized the flow of oil and our relations with the countries that provide our oil. Plus the Iraqi pipeline has never gotten back to even pre-war levels.

May their sorry a$$e$ rot in helll! What did Bush do in the first three weeks of office - clear brush in crawford? He holds the record for the most vacations.

Well, maybe that makes sense. He does seem like someone who is pretty difficult to entertain.