August 1, 2007
Speaker Nancy Pelosi said today that if she were not Speaker she would probably back impeachment. Other Congress Members are of course free to do what even she admits she would do in their position. They should, I think, start taking her advice and ignoring her ban on impeachment.
The reason Pelosi is being questioned about impeachment has to do with Gonzo, Alberto Gonzales, and a proposal just introduced to impeach him. In the movement to impeach Cheney and Bush, is this a distraction or an opening act?
Fifteen principled members of Congress, all Democrats, have signed a bill to begin the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney. Hundreds of other Congress Members have stubbornly refused to heed the clear demand of the majority of their constituents.
But suddenly a completely new group of Congress Members, again all Democrats, has announced support for impeaching Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. This groups includes Congress Members who are not usually leaders in the cause of justice. And it includes Members who have been lobbied intensely to impeach Cheney and Bush but who have resisted in favor of heeding Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s ban on using the Constitution in Congress.
The initial sponsor is Jay Inslee of Washington State who less than six months ago had to lobby the leadership of his state’s legislature not to permit a vote on a pro-impeachment resolution. One of the initial cosponsors is Tom Udall of New Mexico, whose state legislature also came close… Continue reading
September 11th Advocates
For Immediate Release
July 27, 2007
Watching Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testify before Congress
on July 24, 2007, for the third time, was excruciatingly painful.
During Gonzales’ testimony, it became abundantly clear that Americans
were witnessing the unraveling of the fabric of America. We do not feel that
this is an overstatement.
The Attorney General, a man who supposedly personifies America’s rule of law,
obfuscated, committed perjury, and belittled the very institution, the Congress,
which makes America a great Democracy. Over and over, we publicly witnessed
Gonzales’ refusal to answer the questions posed by you – a Committee
authorized to conduct oversight duties. You were made to look frustrated and
foolish as your attempts at Executive Branch oversight were thwarted by the
bizarre, circular non-answers of Attorney General Gonzales. For the third time,
you were unable to penetrate his stonewalling.
We want to know, is it not a crime to mislead and outright lie to the
Congress? How many more opportunities will you give Attorney General
Gonzales to make a farce of our system by denying Congress information that
would allow you to do your job and properly perform your oversight role?
The Bush Administration has repeatedly told us that American troops are fighting
to spread democracy in Iraq. Ironically, here in America we seem to be losing
the core principles that make us one. Mr. Gonzales’ testimony and the
Administration’s refusal to have key people testify at the hearings, without
any accountability, make a mockery of our system of checks and balances.…
Dangers of a Cornered George Bush
By Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity & Dr. Justin Frank
July 27, 2007
The “new” strategy of surging troops in Baghdad has simply wasted more lives and bought some time for the president. His strategy boils down to keeping as many of our soldiers engaged as possible, in order to stave off definitive defeat in Iraq before January 2009.
Bush is commander in chief, but Congress must approve funding for the war, and its patience is running out. The war — and the polls — are going so badly that it is no longer a sure thing that the administration will be able to fund continuance of the war.
There is an outside chance Congress will succeed in forcing a pullout starting in the next several months. What would the president likely do in reaction to that slap in the face?
What would he do if the Resistance succeeded in mounting a large attack on U.S. facilities in the Green Zone or elsewhere in Iraq? How would he react if Israel mounted a preemptive attack on the nuclear-related facilities in Iran and wider war ensued?
The answers to such questions depend on a host of factors for which intelligence analysts use a variety of tools. One such tool involves applying the principles of psychoanalysis to acquire insights into the minds of key leaders, with an eye to facilitating predictions as to how they might react in certain circumstances.
For U.S. intelligence, this common-law marriage of psychoanalysis and intelligence work dates back to the early 1940s, when CIA’s forerunner, the Office of Strategic Services commissioned two studies of Adolf Hitler.…Continue reading
By Steve Watson
Is it possible that the anthrax attacks were launched from within our own government? A former Bush 1 advisor thinks it is.
Francis A. Boyle, an international law expert who worked under the first Bush Administration as a bioweapons advisor in the 1980s, has said that he is convinced the October 2001 anthrax attacks that killed five people were perpetrated and covered up by criminal elements of the U.S. government. The motive: to foment a police state by killing off and intimidating opposition to post-9/11 legislation such as the USA PATRIOT Act and the later Military Commissions Act.
“After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Bush Administration tried to ram the USA PATRIOT Act through Congress,” Boyle said in a radio interview with Austin-based talk-show host Alex Jones. “That would have set up a police state.
“Senators Tom Daschle (D-South Dakota) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) were holding it up because they realized what this would lead to. The first draft of the PATRIOT Act would have suspended the writ of habeas corpus [which protects citizens from unlawful imprisonment and guarantees due process of law]. Then all of a sudden, out of nowhere, come these anthrax attacks.”
“At the time I myself did not know precisely what was going on, either with respect to September 11 or the anthrax attacks, but then the New York Times revealed the technology behind the letter to Senator Daschle. [The anthrax used was] a trillion spores per gram, [refined with] special electro-static treatment.…Continue reading
Working for the Clampdown: What might the president do with his new power to declare martial law?
By James Bovard
04/25/07 “American Conservative” — – How many pipe bombs might it take to end American democracy? Far fewer than it would have taken a year ago.
The Defense Authorization Act of 2006 [Ed.: Details at http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-1815], passed on Sept. 30, empowers President George W. Bush to impose martial law in the event of a terrorist “incident,” if he or other federal officials perceive a shortfall of “public order,” or even in response to antiwar protests that get unruly as a result of government provocations.
The media and most of Capitol Hill ignored or cheered on this grant of nearly boundless power. But now that the president’s arsenal of authority is swollen and consecrated, a few voices of complaint are being heard. Even the New York Times recently condemned the new law for “making martial law easier.”
It only took a few paragraphs in a $500 billion, 591-page bill to raze one of the most important limits on federal power. Congress passed the Insurrection Act in 1807 to severely restrict the president’s ability to deploy the military within the United States. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 tightened these restrictions, imposing a two-year prison sentence on anyone who used the military within the U.S. without the express permission of Congress. But there is a loophole: Posse Comitatus is waived if the president invokes the Insurrection Act.
Section 1076 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 [Ed.: Details at www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-5122″] changed the name of the key provision in the statute book from “Insurrection Act” to “Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act.” The Insurrection Act of 1807 stated that the president could deploy troops within the United States only “to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.” The new law expands the list to include “natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition”–and such “condition” is not defined or limited.…Continue reading
September 29, 2006
Listen to Segment ||
The Senate has agreed to give President Bush extraordinary power to detain and try prisoners in the so-called war on terror. The legislation strips detainees of the right to challenge their own detention and gives the President the power to detain them indefinitely. The bill also immunizes U.S. officials from prosecution for torturing detainees who the military and the CIA captured before the end of last year. We get reaction from Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights.
On Capitol Hill, the Senate has agreed to give President Bush extraordinary power to detain and try prisoners in the so-called war on terror. The editors of the New York Times described the law as tyrannical. They said its passage marks a low point in American democracy and that it is our generation’s version of the Alien and Sedition Acts. The legislation strips detainees of the right to file habeas corpus petitions to challenge their own detention or treatment. It gives the president the power to indefinitely detain anyone it deems to have provided material support to anti-U.S. hostilities. Secret and coerced evidence could be used to try detainees held in U.S.…Continue reading
Posted By Jon Gold
In a recent interview on Lou Dobbs Tonight, Representative Curt Weldon made the following statement:
“We’ve received assurances that the hearings will go forward.
But the other thing that we have to look at, Lou, and you have had another guest on your show recently, why did the 9/11 Commission pick 1996 and not go back beyond that? There is some very interesting material that needs to be tied in. The ’93 attack on the Trade Center. The blind Sheik’s trial. None of that was looked at by the 9/11 Commission, and the American people need to ask the question why.
We will be asking that question during the Able Danger hearings.”
It will be interesting to see what information Rep. Weldon is referring to. Given the fact that there are many similarities between the ’93 bombing and 9/11, one can only hope he is referring to the truth in its entirety.
In October 1993, in an article entitled, “Tapes Depict Proposal to Thwart Bomb Used in Trade Center Blast” the New York Times reported that, “Law-enforcement officials were told that terrorists were building a bomb that was eventually used to blow up the World Trade Center, and they planned to thwart the plotters by secretly substituting harmless powder for the explosives, an informer said after the blast.”
“The informer was to have helped the plotters build the bomb and supply the fake powder, but the plan was called off by… Continue reading
by James Ridgeway
April 21st, 2005
WASHINGTON, D.C.–The unsettling story of whistleblower Sibel Edmonds took another twist on Thursday, as the government continued its seemingly endless machinations to shut her up. The U.S. Court of Appeals here denied pleas to open the former FBI translator’s First Amendment case to the public, a day after taking the extraordinary step of ordering a secret hearing.
Edmonds was hired after 9-11 to help the woefully staffed FBI’s translation department with documents and wiretaps in such languages as Farsi and Turkish. She soon cried foul, saying the agency’s was far from acceptable and perhaps even dangerous to national security. She was fired in 2002.
Ever since, the government has been trying to silence her, even classifying an interview she did with 60 Minutes. Oral arguments in her suit against the federal government were scheduled for this morning, but yesterday the clerk of the appeals court unexpectedly and suddenly announced the hearing would be closed. Only attorneys and Edmonds were allowed in.
No one thought the three-judge appeals court panel would be especially sympathetic to the Edmonds case. It consists of Douglas Ginsburg, who was once nominated for the U.S. Supreme Court by President Reagan. He withdrew after it was revealed he had smoked pot as a college student; he later joined the appeals court. Another member, David Sentelle, was chair of the three-judge panel that appointed Ken Starr to be the special prosecutor investigating Clinton. Karen LeCraft Henderson was appointed a federal judge during the Reagan period, then put on the appeals court by the elder President Bush.…Continue reading
IG Report Concluded That Whistleblowing Activities Contributed To Her Termination
For Immediate Release: September 22, 2004
For further information contact:
Mark S. Zaid, Esq.
Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI contract linguist who was terminated in 2002 after becoming a Whistleblower regarding the 9/11 tragedy, filed a lawsuit today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts. The Complaint seeks to compel the release of a secret investigative report, and related documents, compiled by the Department of Justice’s Office of Inspector General. The DOJ OIG investigated Edmonds’ allegations for more than two years and has failed to abide by repeated promises – including provided to Senators Charles Grassley (R-IA) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) in June 2002 – to timely complete its investigation and release its findings.
On July 21, 2004, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller, III, notified the Senate Judiciary Committee that the DOJ OIG had completed its investigation and concluded that Edmonds’ allegations “were at least a contributing factor” in her firing. Additionally, DOJ Inspector General Glenn Fine also concluded that the FBI failed to “adequately pursue” Edmonds’ allegations of espionage against a co-worker. Although the DOJ promised the Committee that a declassified summary would be released, and notwithstanding the fact that Edmonds’ FOIA request was granted expedited processing by the government in July 2004, to date not one page has been released.
“The Justice Department has continually sought to cover-up the FBI’s misconduct with… Continue reading
Opinion by Jim Hogue
December 17, 2004
|The connections of the Bush administration to the cover-up of the 9/11 attacks provide the material for the most important topic that our media could address. But it doesn’t. Why?|
It is fair to say that the Bush administration, through the efforts of Attorney General John Ashcroft, has confirmed its complicity in the 9/11/01 attacks.
In his legal appeal to Judge Reggie Walton to silence FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, Ashcroft has inadvertently, through the very language of the appeal, provided eloquent proof of treason and misprision of treason within the highest levels of government.
Their refusal to release the report of the Inspector General, and their original gag order to ‘block discovery in a lawsuit of any information that, if disclosed, would adversely affect national security’ raises obvious questions (still unasked by the mainstream and progressive media) as to WHO is being protected. The gag order itself provides the answer to another obvious question (still unasked by the mainstream and progressive media) as to WHY the gag order was sought.
In Ms. Edmonds’ unimpeachable testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee almost three years ago, she named countries and people who had contributed to the attacks of 9/11. At the time, the FBI had evidence from Colleen Rowley, The Phoenix memo, and other FBI translators. Twenty-five more whistleblowers have joined them. Who would be damaged by the release of the reports? Who is being protected?
|Nearly three years ago, Sibel Edmonds provided… Continue reading|
Open Letter To Thomas Kean, Chairman Of The 9/11 Commission, from FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds
August 1, 2004
Thomas Kean, Chairman
National Committee on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
301 7th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20407
Dear Chairman Kean:
It has been almost three years since the terrorist attacks on September 11; during which time we, the people, have been placed under a constant threat of terror and asked to exercise vigilance in our daily lives. Your commission, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, was created by law to investigate ‘facts and circumstances related to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001′ and to ‘provide recommendations to safeguard against future acts of terrorism’, and has now issued its ‘9/11 Commission Report’. You are now asking us to pledge our support for this report, its recommendations, and implementation of these recommendations, with our trust and backing, our tax money, our security, and our lives.
Unfortunately, I find your report seriously flawed in its failure to address serious intelligence issues that I am aware of, which have been confirmed, and which as a witness to the commission, I made you aware of. Thus, I must assume that other serious issues that I am not aware of were in the same manner omitted from your report. These omissions cast doubt on the validity of your report and therefore on its conclusions and recommendations. Considering what is at stake, our national security, we are entitled to demand answers to unanswered questions, and to ask for clarification of issues that were ignored and/or omitted from the report.…Continue reading