Bush / Neocon News

[Guest guest]

S

Mon, 16 Jan 2006 19:45:30 -0800 (PST)

[Air_America_Radio] P Planet-'I-word',52% of Americans:

Impeach W on wiretaps,Patriot Act power 2 seize records,SS stalks

peace protestors thru DC streets Patriot Act power 2 seize records

 

 

 

The rant

 

 

The 'I-word' comes out of the closet

 

By DOUG THOMPSON

Publisher, Capitol Hill Blue

Jan 16, 2006, 05:35

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2006/160106outofcloset.htm

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_8002.shtml

 

 

 

Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter, the sometimes-maverick Republican

who has been a thorn in more than one GOP President's side, brought

out the word that's been whispered in the Congressional cloakrooms and

behind closed doors by other members of his party for several weeks now.

 

 

Impeachment.

 

 

Appearing on ABC's This Week program, Specter, chairman of the

powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, which will open hearings soon on

whether or not President George W. Bush broke the law by ordering

spying on Americans by the National Security Agency, said impeachment

is a possible remedy.

 

 

" The remedy could be a variety of things, including impeachment or

criminal prosecution, but the principal remedy under our society is to

pay a political price, " Specter said. "

 

 

Specter qualified his remarks by also saying " I don't see any talk

about impeachment here. "

 

 

The Senator from Pennsylvania is lying when he says that. Nervious

Republican talk about impeachment has swirled just below the surface

in the hallways and byways of the Hill since news of the spying broke.

And while Republicans whisper the word in the back alleys, Democrats

have already gone public.

 

 

Democratic Senators Edward Kennedy and Sen. Russ Feingold, along with

independent Vermont Congressman Bernie Sanders talked about Bush's

impeachment on the Sunday news interview shows a week ago.

 

 

" I'm concerned about the abuses of executive power in the areas of

torture and the areas of spying – and about how we're treating

individuals in terms of the court systems, " Kennedy says.

 

 

" I think Bush probably broke the law here, but we need to know why

they did it this way and what the legal justifications were, and then

we need to determine what kind of accountability will occur if laws

were broken, " Feingold says.

 

 

" There will be hearings to ask some of the fundamental questions about

the Bush administration's actions that have not been asked in five

years, " says Sanders.

 

 

Rep. John Conyers, Democrat from Michigan, introduced H.Res. 635 on

December 18, calling for creation of a select committee to investigate

possible impeachment proceedings against Bush. So far Conyers has

seven co-sponsors – all Democrats. They are: Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA),

Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Rep. Donald

Payne (D-NJ), Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA),

and Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA).

 

 

Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) says he will sign a bill of impeachment.

Senator Barbara Boxer has requested a legal analysis from four

Presidential scholars on whether or not Bush's actions are grounds for

impeachment.

 

 

One of those scholars is John Dean, the Republican White House laywer

whose testimony helped bring down Richard Nixon.

 

 

Bush " is the first president to admit to an impeachable offense, " Dean

says.

 

" We are a government of laws, theoretically, at least, " Dean says.

Why do we need a Patriot Act if Bush has all these powers? If anyone

reads the Article 2 the way Bush does then there are just no powers

they don't have in the name of defending the country against

terrorism, and terrorism is an indefinite threat. Therefore, they can

do anything indefinitely that they wish. That isn't what I think the

Constitution contemplates. "

 

 

" The thing is out of the box now, says Rep. Conyers. " People have had

as much as they can stand…President Bush has taken for himself more

authority than any other president in the 20th century. I think

censure will highlight the incredible number of mistakes,

manipulations of intelligence, the encouraging of torture of

prisoners, the surprising amount of retaliation that this

administration has indulged in against its critics and how they

determined to go to war before they had Congressional authorization.

It may lead to consideration of articles of impeachment. "

© Copyright 2006 by Capitol Hill Blue

 

 

 

 

 

WND

HOMELAND INSECURITY

52% of Americans: Impeach Bush on wiretaps

Zogby poll: Most want action if U.S. citizens monitored without judge's OK

 

 

Posted: January 15, 2006

11:05 p.m. Eastern

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48358

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2006/160106impeachbush.htm

 

 

 

 

A new Zogby poll indicates a majority of Americans want Congress to

consider impeaching President Bush if he wiretapped American citizens

without a judge's approval.

 

Respondents were asked if they agreed or disagreed with the following

statement:

 

" If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval

of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider

holding him accountable through impeachment. "

 

The poll found that 52 percent agreed, 43 percent disagreed and 6

percent said they didn't know or declined to answer.

 

 

" The American people are not buying Bush's outrageous claim that he

has the power to wiretap American citizens without a warrant, " said

Bob Fertik, co-founder of the left-leaning group

AfterDowningStreet.org which commissioned the survey. " Americans

believe terrorism can be fought without turning our own government

into Big Brother. "

 

 

The poll interviewed 1,216 adults in the U.S. from Jan. 9-12, and has

a 2.9 percent margin of error.

 

As one might expect, the respondents' political affiliation played a

role in their answer, as 66 percent of Democrats favored impeachment,

as did 59 percent of Independents, but only 23 percent of Republicans.

 

One month ago, one-third of Americans polled by Rasmussen Reports said

they believe Bush should be impeached.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Secret Service stalks peace protestors thru DC streets

 

DC AntiWar Network January 13, 2006:

http://www.dawndc.net/float.php?annc_id=313 & section_id=4

 

 

" On Friday, January 13, 2006, activists with the DC Anti-War

Network (DAWN) called for an action at the home of Secretary of

Defense Donald Rumsfeld; however, when scouts for the action reported

lights off, the group put in pre-arranged plans for a street meeting

to choose a new location, which turned out to be the home of Vice

President Dick Cheney, at the Naval Observatory, . ..

 

 

An adventure of cat and mouse ensued with Secret Service and

Pentagon Police pursuing the DAWN protesters.

 

 

Activists from DAWN met outside the Woodley Park Metro as

Secret Service bike police and Pentagon police circled the group. As

they circled, the group put in place pre-arranged plans to meet and

change course. The group marched north on Connecticut Avenue. This

confused the police, who expected the group to march south toward

Rumsfeld's home on Kalorama. One bicycle officer followed the group

for a time on Woodley but tailed off when the group climbed a steep

hill. From there, the DAWN group walked quietly to the home of Vice

President Dick Cheney.

 

 

 

At Cheney's house, the DAWN group set up on the side of the

street in front of his house, where they began making noise, banging

pots, and yelling things like " Jail Cheney! " and " Impeach, Indict,

Incarcerate! " It took 15 minutes for Secret Service to come out and

confront protesters. When they did, the Secret Service asked the

standard, " Who is your leader? "

 

 

Eventually, after a couple minutes, one protester chose to

talk with police and recorded a conversation with them, which will be

published. Protesters stayed for awhile to many cheers from motorists

on the road.

 

 

After a while of loud yelling and noise, the group suddenly

became quiet, lighting candles and singing traditional peace songs.

This behavior baffled the Secret Service, who followed along, as

protesters moved south down Massachusetts. There were at times upwards

of 7 or 8 officers trailing the slow moving group that had switched

from boisterous yelling to a period of quiet singing. At the edge of

the Naval Observatory, another of the group began confronting the

Secret Service asking why they were following us, what their names

were, what their badge numbers were. He states in his report that he

recognized the officer who had at one point been tailing us from

Woodley Park. The protester asked who gave orders to follow us. There

was some confusion among officers about what was happening. The secret

service officer asked at one point, " Do you have any permits? " The

protester responded, " I don't need a permit. " He asked again, " Do you

have any permits!? " The response was, " Don't play that game with me; I

know darn well that I don't need a permit. " The officer said, " I was

just asking. " [...]

 

 

3 cars were tailing the group on the dark side streets near

Dupont Circle. As we headed down Phelps, the same protester who

confronted the Secret Service at the Naval Observatory called the

NBC-4 newsroom. . .

 

 

As the interview continued for half a block, this protester

walked up to the officers. It turned out one of the police tailing us

was Pentagon Police. It's not clear why Pentagon Police, who we had

not seen since the very beginning of the action, were around for this

part of it. The protester asked who he was and why he was there; the

officer refused to say. Other officers covered up their badges. What

was more baffling was that the person in NBC 4's newsroom became

frightened (or that's the assumption) and would not say his name even

though he was asked between 7 and 10 times, according to this

protester's report. At this point, still on Phelps, one of the Secret

Service officers got out of his car, which led to a round of verbal

sparring between the Secret Service and the protesters. The Secret

Service officer at one point said that he was there to " control " us.

It's not clear what he meant by that. He went on to say that he was

giving us exactly what we wanted by giving us attention. In truth,

we'd rather that Secret Service agents didn't exist at all. . . By

overreacting to nonviolent protesters who merely were expressing

dissent, they did expose the fear of dissent that exists in society. [...]

-----

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Furore over Patriot Act power to seize records

 

 

16 Jan 2006 http://www.ehiprimarycare.com/news/item.cfm?ID=1644

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/

january2006/160106seizerecords.htm

 

 

 

Doctors in the US have reacted angrily to news that patients' medical

records could be seized for investigation without warrant or " probable

cause " under the Patriot Act.

 

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Association of

American Physicians and Surgeons have created a pressure group,

Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances, to campaign for the act to be

amended to exclude confidential medical records, reports the British

Medical Jounal.

 

The potential for the disclosure of medical records was first noticed

when a newspaper reporter saw a clause in her medical centre's privacy

policy that stated that they " may disclose medical information about

you to authorised federal officials so they may without limitation ...

provide protection to the President, other authorised persons or

foreign heads of state or conduct special investigations, or conduct

lawful intelligence, counter-intelligence or other national security

activities authorised by law. "

 

According to the ACLU, Additionally, medical records can be handed

over to the police without a warrant in a number of circumstances

outside the Patriot Act, including locating missing persons and if a

crime has been committed on the premises of the patient. Section 215

of the Patriot Act gives the authorities the right to seize medical

records (under the term " any tangible things " ) to investigate

terrorism with a court order, without notice.

 

The American Medical Association recently adopted a policy calling for

" modifications to the Patriot Act to protect patient confidentiality

and minimise legal liability for physicians. "

But Dan Lungren, Republican congressman for California, said that

there were incidences where the seizure of medical records could

provide useful information, for instance if somebody had requested an

anthrax vaccine. He added that there was a need to distinguish

" between a criminal investigation to prove who committed a crime after

it's occurred and the need to prevent terrorist attacks. "

 

Michael Williams, associate professor of neurology and neurosurgery at

Johns Hopkins University, said: " If patients knew about this, I think

they would be bothered - or I hope they would be. "