[Peace-discuss] Anti-war legislation in Congress

Wed Oct 24 11:30:45 CDT 2007

I have a large "IMPEACH" sticker on my car, above the "Ron Paul for 
America" sticker.  But the question of who receives my vote for 
president is of quite minor importance.  (The chance, e.g., of Illinois' 
electoral votes going to anyone but the Democratic candidate is small -- 
  if not so small as the chance of Dennis Kucinich's being that nominee.)

Three quarters of Americans know that they cannot do anything really to 
affect the political process -- that the presidential election is a 
game being played by rich contributors, party bosses, and the media. 
Its primary purpose is to give the illusion of democratic politics while 
avoiding the real thing.  That's particularly evident in this edition of 
the quadrennial quadrille, and the reason it started a year early: 
there's a greater gap than there's been in a while between the views of 
Americans (majority opposition to the war) and the (pro-war) policy of 
the Republicans and Democrats.  The parties' PR has to sell a product 
this year that Americans don't want, and the Democrats are the 
designated hypocrites.

But I disagree with those (like Alex Cockburn) who think that 
impeachment is a distraction for the antiwar movement, such as it is. 
Impeachment is the archaic mechanism in our 18th-century constitution 
(it's abandoned in more modern constitutions, like the British) for 
checking the executive.  We have now a spectacle of an unchecked 
executive continuing (and widening) a war in spite of the opposition of 
the populace.  It would be much better if the rusty mechanism of 
impeachment were available -- if, e.g., Clinton had been removed from 
office.  (And he wasn't impeached "for sex" but for perjury and 
obstruction of justice, of which he was guilty. As a practical matter, 
of course, Gore as the incumbent in 2000 would probably have been able 
to prevent Bush's becoming president.)

And there are historical examples of impeachment even after the accused 
has left office -- which would be a worthwhile way of condemning Bush's 
crimes.  But the Democrats continue covering them up.

I was promoting the "American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007" (H.R. 3835), 
which the Democratic liberals should support but won't, because of the 
role that they are actually playing.  --CGE

Matt Reichel wrote:
> Ron Paul opposes impeachment, which disqualifies him from receiving my vote.
> 
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=3hLVhgm_glc
> 
>  Impeachment is extraordinarily important for the sake of saving 
> anything resembling a democratic republic in the us of a . .
> 
> As such, dennis kucinich is the only viable candidate in these 
> primaries, with Gravel a distant second. Gravel's proposed taxation 
> regime reeks of the same liberalism as Paul's, wherein an inordinate 
> amount of power is given to the upper class . . . .  American capitalism 
> has already been destroyed via the weak-ness of the middle and lower 
> classes: see the destruction of the housing bubble and concurrent fall 
> of the once almighty dollar.
> Social democracy is the only way to make capitalism and democracy work. 
> Otherwise you have the dysfunctional state of affairs currently ongoing 
> chez USA.
> 
> -
> mer
> 
> 
>  > Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 22:37:28 -0500
>  > From: galliher at uiuc.edu
>  > To: pe! ace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>  > Subject: [Peace-discuss] Anti-war legislation in Congress
>  >
>  > [Here's a note from <antiwar.com>, about anti-war legislation in
>  > Congress. It contrasts with the pro-war positions of the Democratic
>  > liberals. I'd be happy to see Clinton, Obama, Edwards et al. support
>  > it, but I don't expect that: their positions are substantially to the
>  > right of Paul's. --CGE]
>  >
>  >
>  > This week Ron Paul introduced the ‘American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007′
>  > to roll back the power of the federal government by restoring support
>  > for the US Constitution.
>  >
>  > The bill would, among other things, repeal the Military Commissions Act
>  > of 2006, prohibits “extraordinary rendition,” and the use of secret
>  > evidence.
>  >
>  > Ron Paul spoke on the floor of the House when he introduced the bill.
>  >
>  > The dr! iving force behind the legislation are two groups: the
>  > conser vative American Freedom Agenda and the liberal American Freedom
>  > Campaign. Naomi Wolf wrote about the bill.
>  >
>  > We urge everyone to contact their representatives to support this bill.
>  >
>  > October 21, 2007
>  > Support the American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007
>  > by Rep. Ron Paul
>  >
>  > I am introducing a comprehensive piece of legislation to restore the
>  > American Constitution and to restore the liberties that have been sadly
>  > eroded over the past several years.
>  >
>  > This legislation seeks to restore the checks and balances enshrined in
>  > the Constitution by our Founding Fathers to prevent abuse of Americans
>  > by their government. This proposed legislation would repeal the Military
>  > Commissions Act of 2006 and re-establish the traditional practice that
>  > military commissions may be used to try war crimes in places of active
>  > hostility where a rapid trial is ne! cessary to preserve evidence or
>  > prevent chaos.
>  >
>  > The legislation clarifies that no information shall be admitted as
>  > evidence if it is obtained from the defendant through the use of torture
>  > or coercion. It codifies the FISA process as the means by which foreign
>  > intelligence may be obtained and it gives members of the Senate and the
>  > House of Representatives standing in court to challenge presidential
>  > signing statements that declares the president’s intent to disregard
>  > certain aspects of a law passed in the US Congress. It prohibits
>  > kidnapping and extraordinary rendition of prisoners to foreign countries
>  > on the president’s unilateral determination that the suspect is an enemy
>  > combatant. It defends the first amendment by clarifying that journalists
>  > are not to be prevented from publishing information received from the
>  > legislative or executive b! ranch unless such publication would cause
>  > immediate, direct, and irreparable harm to the United States .
>  >
>  > Finally, the legislation would prohibit the use of secret evidence to
>  > designate an individual or organization with a United States presence to
>  > be a foreign terrorist or foreign terrorist organization.
>  >
>  > I invite my colleagues to join my efforts to restore the US Constitution
>  > by enacting the American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007.
>  >
>  > Find this article at:
>  > http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=11790
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > _______________________________________________
>  > Peace-discuss mailing list
>  > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>  > http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You! Get 'em! 
> <http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us>