[Peace-discuss] Peace & impeachment

[C. G. Estabrook]

[1] Words from another Democratic party hack, on Kucinich's 
impeach-Cheney resolution:

	House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), agreed 
that it was not in Pelosi's interests to advance the articles of 
impeachment. "If she were to let this thing out of the box, considering 
the number of legislative issues we have pending ... it could create a 
split that could affect our productivity for the rest of the Congress," 
Conyers told Fox News.

...and, you have to admit, the Democrats' "productivity" has been 
marvelous this year: why, they took an anti-war vote last fall and 
turned it into a pro-war policy that incidentally had the effect of 
making 2007 the deadliest year for US troops in Iraq -- not to mention 
that they're drenched with the blood of Iraqis.  But they'll save us 
from the Republicans, right?

[2] Peace and Impeachment in Los Angeles

	Wednesday, 7 November 2007, 9:19 am
	Peace and Impeachment in Los Angeles
	By David Swanson

...As you've heard, thanks to Senator Schumer and California's own 
Senator Feinstein (whose husband is a war profiteer), the Senate is 
likely to approve as our top law enforcement official a man who refuses 
to call torture techniques torture because doing so might aid in the 
prosecution of torturers. Feinstein claims that Mukasey admits that the 
military cannot waterboard. But she avoids the fact that the CIA has 
been doing the waterboarding, and that Mukasey will not reject the 
practice. Feinstein then turns around and proposes banning 
waterboarding, as if it were legal. She adds that the Senate should 
question Mukasey about it... AFTER confirming him.

Bush was prepared to have no Attorney General if not Mukasey. And why 
not? Gonzales never exercised any independent thinking while holding 
that office. There was always something ludicrous about impeaching him. 
Having no Attorney General would be appropriate, I think, in a 
government in which we've gone for years without any people's 
representatives in Congress.

This is the year of the living dead in Washington. And it will be two 
years if we don't do something. The Democratic Congress took power in 
January with the intention of keeping Bush, Cheney, and the occupation 
of Iraq around for two years, so that they could run in the next 
elections against the same things they'd just been elected to deal with.

So, the Democrats faced a dilemma, How do you keep a war and a criminal 
administration around while appearing to oppose them for two years? You 
do it by introducing bills. And the fight for the doomed bills becomes 
an electoral campaign funded by taxpayers. Of course, you know from the 
start that with very few exceptions any decent bills, especially on 
Iraq, will be vetoed if not filibustered. But if you sell the idea hard 
enough that you simply must have a bill, then what you can do is watch 
good bills fail and then introduce bad bills and watch them be signed 
into law.

But we have actually known since last November that there would be only 
two useful things this Congress could do – although it could do lots of 
other things after doing these two – and neither one involves passing a 
bill.

The first thing is to announce that there will be no more bills brought 
to the floor to fund the occupation of Iraq. Ed Schultz on his radio 
show this week asked Harry Reid why he doesn't just do that. Reid had no 
answer and sounded as if he'd never thought about the idea. He admitted 
that he could do it, but said he would not. Pelosi has, in her trademark 
phrase, said that the idea is “off the table.” But 41 senators could 
filibuster the funding, and Senator Boxer is the single most likely 
senator to find the nerve to do it. She is the only senator who has said 
she supports impeachment, and she was the only senator to challenge the 
Ohio election results.

Boxer and her colleagues can establish the model for ending the 
occupation funding by following Chris Dodd's lead and filibustering a 
bill to legalize unconstitutional spying and grant immunity to violators 
of FISA and our fourth amendment.

In the House, 90 congress members have committed to voting No on funding 
bills that don't end the occupation by January 2009. See 
http://afterdowningstreet.org/peacepledge

The funding to bring every soldier, sailor, marine, contractor, and 
mercenary home is pocket change to the Pentagon which routinely 
“misplaces” greater amounts of our hard-earned money. But if Bush wanted 
money to pay for the withdrawal, Congress could certainly give him that 
and nothing else. But to do that out of fear of the media would suggest 
an attitude in Congress not yet ready to take on the White House and its 
propaganda machine, a Congress like the one in which Pete Stark 
apologizes for saying a few true words. We're going to need congress 
members to go grassroots and join us in challenging the military 
industrial media complex.

And I don't think fear of the media is the largest force keeping 
Congress from acting. I think more important is congress members' 
obedience to party leadership and that leadership's cynical decision to 
keep the war going for electoral reasons that will probably fail on 
their own terms. What we have to do is make it easier for each congress 
member to oppose the leadership on this than it is or them to continue 
opposing the will of the majority of Americans.

A lot of us believe we are in the midst of a constitutional crisis. We 
have a White House that ignores subpoenas, rewrites laws, lies to 
Congress, lies to the public, spies without warrant, detains without 
charge, tortures, murders, uses illegal weapons, abandons cities to 
destruction, rigs elections. Et cetera. We could take up the whole night 
listing the abuses.

Most congress members do not believe we are in a crisis. After all, 
people still treat them as big shots and offer them piles of cash. And 
even though Bush and Cheney ignore their subpoenas, they can send 
letters to the White House that sometimes get printed in newspapers. But 
quite a few congress members would think they were in a crisis if they 
cut off the war funding, because Bush and Cheney would simply steal 
money from the Pentagon to keep the occupation going – illegally,

And it's always been illegal. It is illegal under the U.N. Charter and 
our Constitution to invade and occupy another nation, to lie to 
Congress, to misappropriate funds to begin the the attack before 
congressional approval, to launch a war without a declaration of war, 
and to turn a six-week cakewalk into a permanent occupation using bases 
that were never approved by Congress or publicly discussed. The 
semblance of legality has been provided by Congress's check book. If 
they cut the money off, Bush and Cheney won't end the occupation. And 
the worry about funds for withdrawal will look rather comical as Bush 
manages to find much greater amounts. Congress is now passing a record 
“defense” bill, so the money will be there.

When Bush keeps the war going, Congress will have two choices. The first 
is to admit that we now have a king and a bunch of court jesters, rather 
than a Congress and an executive. The second choice is also the second 
useful thing that I mentioned Congress can do. It can take out and make 
use of that portion of the Constitution that reads:

“The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United 
States shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of 
Treason, Bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Congress is going to have an opportunity to do so this week when 
Congressman Dennis Kucinich forces a vote on the floor of the U.S. House 
of Representatives on a resolution to take up the impeachment of Vice 
President Richard B. Cheney. You might as well start at the top.

We need everyone to flood the media and Congress with the demand that 
Congress support impeachment. You can find out how at 
http://impeachcheney.org

Congress members have a lot of excuses. One of their favorites is that 
it would look bad for them to cosponsor a resolution that many of their 
colleagues will supposedly never support. That excuse goes away this 
week. They're no longer deciding whether to bring impeachment up. It is 
up. They can vote to kill it or to give it a chance. It costs them the 
same effort either way. They are on record for history either way. They 
must face their votes in the next elections either way.

There are congress members with form letters they send to their 
constituents who urge them to sign onto Kucinich's resolution. They 
won't sign on, they say, because they have other priorities, but they'll 
keep the public's concern in mind if the matter ever comes up for a 
vote. Well, here it comes.

SO, WHAT CAN YOU DO?

If you are in the military, you can refuse illegal orders. The rest of 
us must support those who take such a step. At http://DontAtackIran.org 
is a letter that Marcy Winograd and Michael Jay of Los Angeles helped 
write to the military urging disobedience to orders to attack Iran. You 
can go there and add your name. You can also get a book called “Army of 
None” and use it to counter recruiting efforts. The Army just had its 
worst recruiting year since the Vietnam War. That is the one and only 
reason that there are not more U.S. troops n Iraq.

If you are in government, you can expose crimes and refuse to take part 
in them. You can follow the example of Ann wright and resign. The rest 
of us must support those who do.

If you work for a company profiting from war or manufacturing the tools 
of war, you can (if you can manage it) quit your job. The rest of us 
have a duty to support people who take such steps. If we had a labor 
movement worthy of the name, it would be advancing this cause, not 
pushing bills destined to be vetoed and funding television networks 
through election campaigns.

If you are a member of an astroturf party front group like Americans 
Against Escalation in Iraq or Moveon.org, you can push that group to 
back impeachment. Force every group to take a position on this one – yes 
or no – for the rule of law or the rule of Cheney.

The ACLU led the charge for impeachment 34 years ago and is now afraid 
to act. Shame the American Cheney's Still at Liberty Union into living 
up to its past. Amnesty International, People for the American Way, 
these are organizations that now lack the integrity of the Center for 
Constitutional Rights and the National Lawyers Guild. The NLG yesterday 
unanimously and enthusiastically passed a resolution supporting the 
impeachment of Bush and Cheney.

Hound these organizations until they step forward. Make them feel it in 
their bank accounts.

The National Organization for Women used to back impeachment. I saw the 
president Kim Gandy on election night, and she was still for it. Within 
a week she flipped. She prevented her board from taking a position, and 
backed the number one opponent of impeachment in the country, Hillary 
Clinton. Is it the National Organization for Woman, singular?

Other organizations working on other issues, such as those active this 
week on global warming, should join with the impeachment movement or 
admit that they are just pretending for the next year.

If you are part of a local Democratic Party or if you give money to the 
national Democratic Party, let them know: not another dime until 
impeachment. This is a crisis, and if we do not make changes, we will 
have at least 5 more years of the war of terror.

As you know, local and state governments can pass resolutions, and you 
can lobby them to do so. Local petitions can help, and you can make them 
part of a national petition at http://afterdowningstreet.org/petition 
You can also make impeachment an issue in the local elections this week.

Members of the media can contribute to a rebirth of democracy quite 
simply by doing their jobs.

Lawyers can help defend whistle-blowers.

Artists can communicate the crisis we face.

And there are many things that each and every one of us can do. We can 
try to influence all of the sorts of people I've just mentioned.

We can engage in media activism, pushing for coverage and polling. Last 
week the second poll ever done on impeaching Cheney was published. The 
first one was national and found 54 percent in favor. I suspect it's 
higher now. The new one was only in Vermont and found 64 percent in 
favor. Where's the California poll? Why not commission one? Why not 
harass pollsters until they do one? See 
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/polling

You can also be the media. The best coverage I saw of the October 27th 
march in LA was not produced by the corporate media. It's good to hold 
events like this one, but be sure to videotape and post your events 
online immediately. There are tons of movies and books now that make for 
good events followed by discussion. But the best events are either 
debates (because they bring new people into the room) or events that 
plan serious actions.

You can also talk to a lot of people if you wear an impeach shirt or 
even an impeach bush and cheney bracelet: 
http://afterdowningstreet.org/bracelet

CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE

But the most effective things you can do involve a few people getting 
together and taking serious nonviolent action. If you saw a child 
drowning, wouldn't you jump in? Well, our democracy is drowning, and it 
wouldn't take much to save it. And you don't have to go to Washington. 
Start by visiting your congress member's local office and demanding a 
commitment to vote No on any more war funding and a commitment to vote 
No on tabling impeachment (or Yes on taking impeachment up). Then stand 
out front with posters that read “Honk to Impeach.” Then sit in their 
office and read the Constitution loudly and sing and do not leave. Just 
a few people are needed, but when they're forced out or taken to jail, 
have a few more do it the next day. Make it impossible for that office 
to function for a week. Make sure the media knows why. Make clear that 
you represent the majority of Americans.

Going to jail is usually painless when it's for a day or an hour. Pay 
your fine or go to court, it's up to you. Ann wright has done it more 
times than anybody can count anymore. On Friday in Washington Eve Tetaz, 
a 76-year-old woman was sentenced to 7 days for repeated nonviolent 
protesting and refusing to pay fines. If she can do that, what can you do?

A very few people, or even one, can also impact national news by 
creatively disrupting events, as when Desiree Farooz held bloody hands 
up to Condi, or Ray McGovern questioned Rumsfeld, or Texans on Friday 
protested Cheney. At http://afterdowningstreet.org click on Activism to 
find schedules of where big shots will be when.

*********************