Impeachment, "Off the Table" and On the House Floor
Kucinich Impeachment Articles mention RAW STORY
copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may say impeachment is off the table; nonetheless, on June 9, 2008, Congressman Dennis Kucinich placed it on the floor. For five hours, the Ohio Representative stood before his colleagues and an expectant national audience. Kucinich spoke of what has remained unmentionable for far too long. The President of the United States of America has committed high crimes and misdemeanors.
The contents of thirty-five articles affirmed President George W. Bush deceived the nation. Congressman Kucinich contends, the President violated his oath of office. The Commander-In-Chief led our country into the Iraq war under false pretenses.
On hundreds of occasions, George W. Bush made use of signing statements. These declarations allowed the Administration to disobey laws. With the stroke of a pen, the President proclaimed a ban on torture was extraneous to his reality. Mister Bush decided to shun provisions he endorsed and proposed when he explained the need for a Patriot Act. The list of laws George W. Bush disregarded is extensive.
A year ago, the Ohio Congressman and former Presidential hopeful, introduced a resolution to censure Vice President Dick Cheney. Dennis Kucinich understood that this Vice President exerted more power than any other person who previously held his position. Indeed some argue, Dick Cheney is more if not equally culpable for crimes enacted by the Executive Branch. The resolution censure Cheney was referred to the House Judiciary Committee. Thus far, no action has been taken on the motion.
However, members of the Committee have verbalized their support. Florida Representative Robert Wexler, Congressman Luis Gutierrez from Illinois, and Tammy Baldwin, Wisconsin vehemently called for hearings. The three believe as does Dennis Kucinich does, grounds for an arraignment are sufficient. For these outspoken Representatives, Vice President, Richard Cheney, along with the President, George W. Bush violated the War Crimes Act of 1996. They ignored the anti-torture Act. Bush and Cheney authorized the abuse of detainees, who have been illegally held at the Guantanamo Bay Prison Camp.
The President and Vice President repeatedly sullied the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This law requires court approval for presidential wiretaps. None were obtained before millions of Americans telephones were bugged. The President defiantly dismisses any public concern. He has no problem with deferring the public's right to privacy.
Early in their joint terms, George Bush and Dick Cheney warned, there was an eminent threat of a nuclear attack. They said the United States was in danger of inhalation. Desirous of oil in the Middle East, Texas tea tycoons alleged Saddam Hussein purchased uranium in Niger. Evidence furnished by envoy, Joseph Wilson validated this was not true. Nonetheless, the Chief Executive and his chum declared the leader of Iraq wanted aluminum tubes for uranium enrichment. George W. Bush and Richard Cheney understood the claims were fallacious. The two Executives would take care of any attempt to present accurate information to the people. The Administration would destroy the messenger.
Mister Bush and Mister Cheney were aware that others within their Administration questioned the validity of Intelligence Reports, which stated a need for concern in reference to Iraq. At least one, former Secretary of State Colin Powell tried to convince the President and his Vice an attack on Iraq was unadvisable. Not to be dissuaded, the two "leaders' withheld facts form the public. The Administration purposely warped the data in an attempt to usurp Congress' Constitutional powers to declare war.
Yet, regardless of the volumes of reports released over the course of many years, Congressman Kucinich and those on the Judiciary Committee who support censure, have much opposition.
Former Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman, who served on the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment of Richard Nixon, does not disagree with the Representatives who endorse impeachment of the current Administration. Conservative Constitutional Scholar Bruce Fein, a Republican who served in the Reagan Justice Department does not quarrel with the need to commence hearings. Former Senator and Democratic presidential nominee, George McGovern published an op-ed, demanding impeachment proceedings for both Bush and Cheney. None of these esteemed individuals question the motivation or the measure.
The only deterrent to the necessary action is found on Capitol Hill. Politically savvy officials in the nation's Capitol choose to set a precedent that historians' caution is unwise. Elizabeth Holtzman states.
Whether or not they bring electoral rewards in 2008, impeachment proceedings are the right thing to do. They will help curb the serious abuses of this administration, and send a strong message to future administrations that no president or vice president is above the law.
Sadly, her words will not be heard on heeded. Too many Democrats and Republicans have become deaf and dumb to the proper rule of law. For too long, average Americans and elected officials trusted the Chief Executive. They allowed themselves to be persuaded by a unscrupulous President and his Vice.
The people may no longer have faith. Perhaps, the public is just too embarrassed to face the fire. The adage heard in the halls of Congress and on the streets of many a city is, "We hired them. If we dismiss the two, what might that say of our judgment." Hence, Americans lay bare the lie, we have learned nothing from history.
A vote on the Resolution is expected on June 11, 2008. Those in support of impeachment can only hope our Representatives will act more responsibly than we, the American people, or our Administration has.
References for what might never be officially realized . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on June 9, 2008 at 11:36 PM in Bush 43 Administration, Congress, Congress and Bush, Impeach GW Bush, Iraq War, Richard [Dick] Cheney, Vice President | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Let Them Eat Oil
copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
In a nation, where appeasement is condemned, Americans are anxious. The people have been pacified for so long they can no longer recall what it means to be other than indulged. On June 6, 2008, Congresspersons, uncomfortable with the notion that they might have to use the rod, concluded, for now, it is better to spoil the already pampered Americans. Lawmakers said, as they have so often, "Let them eat oil!" After all, the people love petroleum.
Rather than rescind policies that contribute to global warming, or the related scarcity of food and water Legislators declared defeat. Hope for change was put off for the future, just as it was one score and ten years ago. Now, nearly a decade into the twenty-first century, the United States Congress concluded a bipartisan Bill, intended to control climate conditions must die. The hope was postponed, again. The dream differed until 2009.
Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, cautioned climate change is “the most important issue facing the world today.” However, apparently, it is not imperative enough to counter the cries of despair heard from the American people. Citizens in this country think cash in hand counts for more than the health of the planet.
The public is easily able to dismiss evidence; Mother Earth is in trouble. Extinction threatens every species. Even humans are at risk. Pollutants fill the air that men, women, and children breath. Poison is found in the rivers and stream. Toxins travel through the ecosystem. There are consequences to what we do. Global warming is but a warning, one not heeded by Americans who prefer to remain sheltered from talk of environmental storms.
Co-authors of the measure designed to limit heat-trapping gases, California Democrat, Senator Barbara Boxer, Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, and Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut envision the demise of the Bill was a win. The three expressed a shared joy. Perchance lawmakers are closer to an agreement. Might it be that Legislators are more unified in an attempt to appease Americans. The Senate was just shy of consensus.
Conventional wisdom states, "There is time." The world can wait. Evidence does not suggest a need to act immediately. Next year will be better. In actuality, politicians did just as the people prefer. Government officials did not ask the people to forego creature comforts. Regulations on industry were not increased.
While the people insist someone must pay for the drastic rise in petroleum prices, most suspect, ultimately, the cost will be passed on to the common folk.
Perchance, that is why Congress was willing to probe profit margins. The people wanted an explanation; why do they pay exorbitant prices at the pump. It mattered not that the expectation proved to be the reality. When tycoons who produce Texas tea were asked of the high cost of fuel, they sang the same old song. What was important is the sense the people had after the hearing. They had tried to make the big bosses accountable. The public demands little, insists on less. Yet, as coddled children who covet a toy just out of reach, they protest loudly.
Members of Congress, the President of the United States, and Oil Executives understand this. Each has perfected the art of appeasement. Give the people what they please. Then positions and profits will remain secure. Explanations and examinations reassure the masses and best of all for those comfortable and cozy in millions of cars nothing changes. Certainly, circumstances dictate all must remain the same, and while few admit it, all are pleased.
The executives firmly insisted that global market forces beyond their control were to blame for high prices. “As repetitive and uninteresting as it may sound, the fundamental laws of supply and demand are at work,” said John Hofmeister, the president of Shell Oil Company.(Of course, it was repetitive and uninteresting: Mr. Hofmeister read the same line in his testimony the day before.)
The executives politely but just as firmly insisted that Congress should focus its efforts on allowing more drilling and exploration for domestic oil — in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, offshore in the Atlantic and Pacific, and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. They insisted that they were investing heavily in search of new oil supplies.
And they strongly warned against other measures: any new tax on profits would put American companies at a disadvantage and only further decrease oil supply; a temporary suspension of the federal gas tax would increase demand and only raise prices more; lawsuits against foreign nations would do nothing to lower prices.
The public may not trust the moneyed moguls; nor do they respect the Representatives. Nonetheless, the people are silently satisfied. Few if any wish to give up the freedom they feel as they drive down the road alone, or with one special passenger. Convenience is comfortable. The people do not wish to pay the price for alternative energy. The actual cost may not frighten Americans; the idea that they may need to forfeit a familiar lifestyle terrifies the average citizen.
Months ago, when gas was relatively cheap, cars barely crawled on clogged highways. Yet, few did more than grumble. People were essentially cozy cocooned in snug Sports Utility Vehicles, mini-vans, sedans, coupes, and cute convertibles. Children were pleasantly preoccupied. Digital Video Discs entertained the young and other occupants as they lounged in leather seats. Drivers pounded out tunes on the dashboard or punched cellular telephone keyboards. Travel was a pleasure.
Some treasured the hours spent on the road. Life was good not so long ago. Few complained. Less requested freedom from fossil fuels. Progressives may have postured; it is time for a change. However, few fled from their automobiles. The price of petroleum may have transformed their habits temporarily.
On Friday, (May 23, 2008) the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) reported that Americans drove 11 billion fewer miles in March 2008 than in March 2007. According to the FHWA, that's the sharpest drop since the agency began keeping records in 1942.
Calculate Risk provides some context:This is only the third time since 1970 that the year-over-year change in total U.S. miles driven has declined. The previous two times were following the oil shocks of 1973 and 1979 -- and led to the two most severe U.S. recessions since WWII.
Drivers, some now riders, rejoice. History teaches us economic downturn do not last. This too shall pass. Most anticipate the shift is but a provisional switch. Indeed, Americans work to receive assurance. They rant and rage.
The President of the United States hears the cries. He responds. In April 2008, as Americans clamored for affordable fuel George W. Bush eloquently expressed elucidations to calm the citizenry. As a Mom or Dad might soothe a baby who bawls incessantly disturbs the parent who only wishes to please his or her progeny, President Bush proposed we do as has long satisfied spoiled Americans. George W. Bush proposes oil companies provide the people with what they want, more petroleum at prices the electorate likes.
As a self-proclaimed steward of the environment, the President said he would never wish to harm the land. He assured Americans, if we were to drill for fuel in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge [ANWR] that would be responsible stewardship, regardless of what some scientist say. Mister Bush declared if Americans simply increase the supply of fossil fuels, demand would be met. After all, is that not the goal. Give the baby a bottle of sweet crude and they will stop crying.
Studies show oil pumped from the Artic would have little impact on the cost or availability of petroleum; however, that information is less significant than immediate gratification might be. John McCain understands this. He is sensitive to the research and to the millions who intellectually reject the claims the Chief Executive makes. Senator McCain has a reputation for being a maverick. He relates to people who, in the twenty-first century, are more environmentally conscious. The Grand Old Party nominee knows the citizens can no longer be cajoled to believe drills do no damage. In the Information Age, the electorate is enlightened.
John McCain is cognizant; the people will only be persuaded to do as they desire if a Presidential aspirant promises to reduce greenhouse gases. Therefore, he proposes a cap and trade solution. This policy would allow companies to buy and sell emission credits. Those who wish to splurge and surge the grid can continue to do so. Energy exploiters can garner greater credit from those who are prepared to scrimp. The people who prefer to remain plugged in can. Those who wish to leave a smaller carbon footprint may do so. Everyone will be happy, and energy policies will not substantially change what is.
In remarks prepared for delivery Monday at a Portland, Ore., wind turbine manufacturer, the presidential contender says expanded nuclear power must be considered to reduce carbon-fuel emissions. He also sets a goal that by 2050, the country will reduce carbon emissions to a level 60 percent below that emitted in 1990.
Americans are again gratified. Change can be delayed. There is no rush to an energy revolution. Indeed, this proposal will furnish fission and not provide an authentic substantive solution. McCain's Nuclear Waste could possibly contaminate the ground water. The senior Senator does not discuss the need to prevent nuclear proliferation, the problem with security at nuclear facilities. Indeed, speculation is John McCain is a proponent of nuclear energy for political reasons. Imagine that. Assuage the people who have the power and finances to further a career and all will be well.
Senator McCain and the people, rich and poor, will retain the luxury that has long been essential. The public and the official can portray themselves as environmentalists. Yet, they need not abandon the way of life that has sustained them. John McCain states as many Americans do.
As never before, the market would reward any person or company that seeks to invent, improve, or acquire alternatives to carbon-based energy . . .Arctic National Wildlife Refuge [ANWR] I believe is a pristine place. I don't want to drill in the Grand Canyon and I don't want to drill in the Everglades . . .
I believe that climate change is real. It's not just a greenhouse gas issue. It's a national security issue.
However, Senator McCain has a record. He voted against tax credits to promote research. The League of Conservation Voters granted Senator McCain a zero rating on environmental issues. In 2007, the supposed ecological standard-bearer McCain missed all 15 critical environmental votes in the Senate. In the course of his Senatorial lifetime, only twenty-four (24) percent of the time did John McCain vote in favor of conservation.
McCain Missed Opportunity To End Big Oil Tax Breaks to Invest in Clean Energy. In 2007, McCain was the only senator who failed to vote on a motion to invoke cloture (thus limiting debate) on the Energy Independence and Security Act. This vote was about whether to close $13 billion in tax breaks for major oil and gas companies to invest in new clean energy technologies such as wind and solar, and efficiency. Sixty votes were required for passage. The motion was rejected 59-40. (CQ.com; HR 6, Vote #425, 12/13/07)
Actually, all Americans have a history that contradicts what they say is their truth. We, the people consume and waste, we purchase and pollute. We scrounge for energy-wise merchandise. Then, we buy not the most environmentally efficient product, but the best bargain. Many of us know what we did in the past, although we do not wish to speak of it.
Only years after citizens of this country waited in long lines for fuel, as a nation, Americans mused of the humorous hours they spent engrossed in an energy crisis. Once more, the public concluded it was time for a change; yet, they proved that transformation was not what they really wanted.
In 1976, the people elected an Executive Officer who did not wish to appease the people. On January 30, 1977, Jimmy Carter said what he reiterated days later on February 2, 1977; two weeks after the former farmer took office. The President engaged the public in a fireside chat. Donned in a casual cardigan sweater Mister Carter somberly said . . .
(T)he United States is the only major industrial country without a comprehensive, long-range energy policy . . . our failure to plan for the future or to take energy conservation seriously - started long before this winter, and it will take much longer to solve.I realize that many of you have not believed that we really have an energy problem. But this winter has made all of us realize that we have to act . . .
Our program will emphasize conservation. The amount of energy being wasted which could be saved is greater than the total energy that we are importing from foreign countries.
The American people looked, listened, and laughed at a President who would suggest. "All of us must learn to waste less energy. Simply by keeping our thermostats, for instance, at 65 degrees in the daytime and 55 degrees at night we could save half the current shortage of natural gas."
Citizens in this, the wealthiest nation in the world thought there was no need to worry. There never is. Americans are encouraged to live in the moment. This petroleum predicament would pass. The people then, just as now, ignored the cautions. Months later, President Jimmy Carter offered . . .
(Energy, the supply and demand) is a problem we will not solve in the next few years, and it is likely to get progressively worse through the rest of this century.We must not be selfish or timid if we hope to have a decent world for our children and grandchildren.
Yet, in the past and in the present, the public, while intellectually eager to leave a lush legacy for the progeny, does not wish to think of how what we do establishes the future. Few Moms and Dads ponder the profundity of energy policies. Prices are the only issue of import to the common folk. Countless will contact their Representatives to complain; the cost of gas is too high. Who will call and say, let the price of fuel rise? Americans cannot continue to eat oil.
Certainly, it will not be the millions pacified or the few who cling to the words of a scientist or two who scoff, humans have little effect on the environment. Will the people who read recent reports realize the need for immediate change. Will the informed relent and say, "I will no longer be placated," or will they respond to this energy crisis as they did in the last century when there was still time to correct the calamity that may now be out of our control?
Our countrymen may be content as spoiled children are. Perhaps, Americans will again stomp their feet, hold their breath, pound on the table and buy a gas-guzzler regardless of the admonition. The public may say, "Give me, give me, give me what I want, or else!" Let me eat oil, or maybe, just maybe, the childish ways of Americans will be gone with the wind. We can only hope that the people will no longer crave pacification and conciliation.
Our Resources and References . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on June 8, 2008 at 11:00 AM in Americana, Congress and Bush, Consumption and Conservation, Environment, Global Warming, Nature, Nature or Nurture, Oil, Oil Companies , Politics, Powerful Polluters, Price of Petroleum | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Impeachment Off The Table; On Center Stage
Article I: Initiation & Continuation of Illegal War (Part 4)
copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
John Conyers put impeachment on the table. Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi said to place such a ‘distraction’ on the table is tantamount to treason. Newly appointed, anointed Pelosi let it be known, there was business to be done and Democrats would do the deeds she deemed necessary. These did not include prosecution of the President or his Vice. Hence, Conyers removed censure from the agenda He had other concerns. His own appointment as Chair to the Judiciary Committee hinged on whether he honored the wishes of the recently selected Speaker.
Thus, Congressman Conyers declared . . .
No Rush to Impeachment
By John Conyers Jr.
Washington Post
Thursday, May 18, 2006; A23As Republicans have become increasingly nervous about whether they will be able to maintain control of the House in the midterm elections, they have resorted to the straw-man strategy of identifying a parade of horrors to come if Democrats gain the majority. Among these is the assertion that I, as the new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, would immediately begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush.
I will not do that. I readily admit that I have been quite vigorous, if not relentless, in questioning the administration. The allegations I have raised are grave, serious, well known, and based on reliable media reports and the accounts of former administration officials.
But none of these allegations can be proved or disproved until the administration answers questions. For example, to know whether intelligence was mistaken or manipulated in the run-up to the Iraq war, we need to know what information was made available to -- and actually read by -- decision makers and how views contradicting the case for war were treated.
We need to know the extent to which high-ranking officials approved of the use of torture and other cruel and inhumane treatment inflicted upon detainees. We need to know whether the leaking of the name of a covert CIA operative was deliberate or accidental, as well as the identity of those responsible.
The administration's stonewalling, and the lack of oversight by Congress, have left us to guess whether we are dealing with isolated wrongdoing, or mistakes, or something worse. In my view, the American people deserve answers, not guesses. I have proposed that we obtain these answers in a responsible and bipartisan manner.
John Conyers professed we need answers. He forgets there was no evidence of wrongdoing against Richard Milhous Nixon until an impeachment investigation was underway. Most mused those in opposition to the Vietnam war wanted the President out. However, as Elizabeth Holtzman, a member of the Judiciary Committee during the Nixon proceedings writes much is the same and more differs. Subversion is similar. Evidence is now more abundant. Our own neglect may be our downfall. Perhaps, past disregard for Democratic principles allowed for the eventuality of what we see today. If we forego our responsibility to democracy again, what might occur in the future? Let us assess what we know.
Subverting Our Democracy
A President can commit no more serious crime against our democracy than lying to Congress and the American people to get them to support a military action or war. It is not just that it is cowardly and abhorrent to trick others into giving their lives for a nonexistent threat, or even that making false statements might, in some circumstances, be a crime.It is that the decision to go to war is the gravest decision a nation can make, and in a democracy the people and their elected representatives, when there is no imminent attack on the United States to repel, have the right to make it. Given that the consequences can be death for hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands of people--as well as the diversion of vast sums of money to the war effort--the fraud cannot be tolerated. That both Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon were guilty of misleading the nation into military action and neither was impeached for it makes it more, not less, important to hold Bush accountable.
Once it was clear that no weapons of mass destruction would be found in Iraq, President Bush tried to blame "bad intelligence" for the decision to go to war, apparently to show that the WMD claim was not a deliberate deception. But bad intelligence had little or nothing to do with the main arguments used to win popular support for the invasion of Iraq.
First, there was no serious intelligence--good or bad--to support the Administration's suggestion that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda were in cahoots. Nonetheless, the Administration repeatedly tried to claim the connection to show that the invasion was a justified response to 9/11 (like the declaration of war against Japan for Pearl Harbor). The claim was a sheer fabrication.
Second, there was no reliable intelligence to support the Administration's claim that Saddam was about to acquire nuclear weapons capability. The specter of the "mushroom cloud," which frightened many Americans into believing that the invasion of Iraq was necessary for our self-defense, was made up out of whole cloth. As for the biological and chemical weapons, even if, as reported, the CIA director told the President that these existed in Iraq, the Administration still had plenty of information suggesting the contrary.
The deliberateness of the deception has also been confirmed by a British source: the Downing Street memo, the official record of Prime Minister Tony Blair's July 2002 meeting with his top Cabinet officials. At the meeting the chief of British intelligence, who had just returned from the United States, reported that "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.
But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." In other words, the Bush Administration was reported to be in the process of cooking up fake intelligence and facts to justify going to war in Iraq.
During the Nixon impeachment proceedings, I drafted the resolution of impeachment to hold President Nixon accountable for concealing from Congress the bombing of Cambodia he initiated. But the committee did not approve it, probably because it might appear political--in other words, stemming from opposition to the war instead of to the President's abuse of his warmaking powers.
As Commander-In-Chief, President George W. Bush has used his influence and then some. He initiated, investigated, incited, inflicted, and inflated, all in an attempt to do as he desired. Americans sat idly by, as did Congress. Little has changed other than we know more about the manipulations. Today, the table turns, tilts, or is hidden from view, and the Speaker continues to hedge.
Thankfully, The Culture Project and Presidential hopeful, Congressman Dennis Kucinich move forward. The potential President Kucinich works tirelessly to ensure that censure is more than an option ignored. Kucinich brings the issue to the floor of the House in the form of a priveledged Resolution. The Culture Project takes the matter to center stage.
Naomi Wolf, Jackson Browne, Lewis Lapham, Phoebe Snow, Michael Ratner, Bruce Fein, and Sam Shepard are among the many scholars, artists, and activists that ask Americans to authentically consider A Question of Impeachment.
This series is meant to inform and inspire great minds, those that have been fast asleep for too long.
The masses once actively participated in government. Long ago, the media investigated and spoke to sources outside the White House. Now, each hibernates, and the Administration obstructs justice. The Constitution was torn to shreds. Habeas corpus is no more. Executive Powers are infinite; although, apparently, according to the Vice President there is no Executive Branch under Bush.
As Americans sit silently, absorbed in apathy . . .
[The] Culture Project brings crucial and timely concerns to the fore once again with a new, unique series that gathers some of the most brilliant and visionary minds of our time to explore and debate the case for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney.
You may wish to review the full impeachment schedule, or tune in for just a few discussions. The forum begins and ends in the month of December. Might we, the people work as quickly in support of the Constitution or will we continue to ignore the provisions that ensure no President has, uses, and abuses absolute power?
Sunday, December 2 12:00 p.m. A screening of special cuts of New Home Movies from the Lower 9th Ward, Oscar-winner Jonathan Demme's new documentary drawn from the stories of residents of New Orleans' Lower 9th Ward after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.Monday, December 3 7:00 p.m. Article III: Criminal Negligence and Hurricane Katrina. Participants include attorney Bruce Fein, journalist Lewis Lapham, actor and activist Alec Baldwin, New Orleans public housing organizer Sam Jackson, Judith Browne-Dianis, from the Advancement Project, and Tiffany Gardner from the National Economic and Social Rights Initiative. Performers include Bobby Cannavale, Callie Thorne, Tracie Thoms, Denis O'Hare, Jodie Markell, Bradley White, Nana Mensah, and Chris McKinney.
Sunday, December 9 7:30 p.m. Vanessa, Lynn, Corin, and Jemma Redgrave make a very special appearance to read Poems from Guantanamo: The Detainees Speak, a collection of poems written by detainees held in the US detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Marc Falkoff, attorney and editor of Poems from Guantanamo, will also be with us.
Monday, December 10 7:00 p.m. Article IV: Warrantless Surveillance. Participants include former Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman, attorney Joshua Dratel, attorney Shayana Kadidal of the Center for Constitutional Rights, Aziz Huq of NYU's Brennan Center for Justice, and journalist Richard Valeriani. Performers include Kristen Johnston, Michael Mastro, Nana Mensah, Gerry Bamman, Chris McKinney, and Sarah-Doe Osborne.
Sunday, December 16 CLOSING DAY 2:00 p.m. Article V: Expansion of Executive Power. Participants include Harper's contributor and human rights attorney Scott Horton, author David Lindorff, and attorney Marjorie Cohn. Performers include Josh Hamilton, Tracie Thoms, Ned Eisenberg, Grace Zandarski, and Tom Bower.
7:30 p.m. Closing celebration includes performance and commentary from John Nichols, author of The Genius of Impeachment, Jackson Browne, Jorie Graham, Naomi Wolf, Duncan Sheik and Steven Sater, Peter Matthiessen, Kathleen Chalfant, Aasif Mandvi, and others.
Perchance, after each performance you, dear reader will reflect and realize, the time is now. You may be encouraged to dream what some think absurd. I invite you to explore. Before you venture out on Election Day certain January 2009 is your last hope. Please consider there are possibilities more profound and perhaps, if we are to preserve the Constitution, necessary.
Sources and Censure . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on November 28, 2007 at 09:00 AM in 'Regime Change' , Bush 43 Administration, Congress and Bush, Impeach GW Bush, Lawbreakers, Lies, United States Constitution | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack