CALL NOW SIT IN IN PROGRESS AT CONYER'S OFFICE - IMPEACH!!

[proud2BlibKansan]

202 224 3121

CALL NOW SIT IN IN PROGRESS AT CONYER'S OFFICE

We're Sitting In at the House Judiciary Committee Office Right Now
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/32442

By David Swanson

A dozen of us have begun a sit-in at the House Judiciary Committee office. Come join us at Rayburn 2138. Leslie Angeline and Ellen Taylor of Code Pink are the leaders here. Laurel Jensen is here, and Michael Heaney, Thalia Doukas, Darryl Love, Ed Dickau, Michael Beer, Jes Richardson, Mike Marceau, Dan... People are joining us every few minutes. We're sitting around in the main room of the office. We have two video cameras going, and we're discussing...

10:40 Actually, a staffer just came out and said that everyone could go back to another room to meet with Chairman John Conyers "except for David Swanson."

10:45 A few of us are talking in the big room while everyone else is in a back room with Chairman Conyers and some staffers. Staffers with whom I worked two-and-a-half years ago and who are mad at me for disagreeing with their turn against impeachment are all here: Perry Applebaum, Ted Kalo, Jonathan Godfrey. Back then they were working with us on impeachment and did not tell us that only elections mattered. Back then, the voters wanted impeachment and justice demanded it, so we didn't ask which was the motivation. In 2006, when the RNC demanded a ban and Pelosi complied, everything changed. The Judiciary Committee now acts on a pair of false beliefs: Elections are more important, and impeachment would be bad for elections. One is immoral, the other just uninformed.
You can let the House Judiciary Committee know your opinion at [phone]. Please do so right now. They're good people. I know they are. But something is blocking them. Help break the logjam!

UPDATES COMING AT:
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/32442

[goclark]

1. Just called ,keep it kick and call

call now~

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. Thank you!!

I wonder what's up with not letting David in? :wtf:

[proud2BlibKansan]

3. update:

UPDATE 11:10 a.m.: More people have arrived. The meeting just ended. We're discussing what happened. Chairman Conyers argued that there would be blowback in the form of a McCain victory. Our gang replied that the comparison to Clinton was bogus, that the comparison that's more apt is to Nixon and all the other impeachments, and that Congress' unpopularity is the result of their inaction. Conyers also claimed impeachment would take too long and would be slow because of White House stonewalling, which is of course nonsense - when Nixon refused a subpoena the HJC passed an article of impeachment against him for it.

Conyers agreed to meet with Zoe Lofgren re her proposal for a hearing on the impeachment process, and he agreed to meet with Marcus Raskin and to meet with others we choose (except me).

Ellen gave them the argument that impeachment hearings would force McCain to defend Bush and Cheney's offenses, and Conyers and Ted Kalo both liked that idea. So, we should bring in people who can speak to that point (Rep. Robert Wexler comes to mind!).

Also, Conyers said that he has drafted and is circulating to his colleagues a letter to Bush that says that if he attacks Iran impeachment hearings will begin.

Everyone came out of this meeting agreed that for Conyers it all comes down to electoral politics, and the only argument that seemed to gain ground was the one regarding putting McCain on the defensive through Cheney impeachment hearings.

Our folks videotaped the whole meeting and will make it public here.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/32442

[rateyes]

4. I called. I hope all you at the sit-in have a sign that reads:

Congressman Conyers,
We'll get off our asses when you get off yours. Impeach NOW!

[proud2BlibKansan]

6. That's good!!

[seemslikeadream]

8. I called

I said in a slow calm voice if george bush is not impeached our elected officials will be complicit in the crimes that have been committed

[proud2BlibKansan]

10. How very true

Thanks for calling! :hug:

[babylonsister]

5. Rec'd! And will call. That stinks about David, BTW. nt

[proud2BlibKansan]

16. Thanks

I don't know what the deal is with David. He knows these people pretty well.

[Bonobo]

7. I just called. Staffer asked me to email links giving impeachment rationale. PLEASE SEND PLENTY!!!

<[e-mail] >

I sent them this:

Bush Administration Memo Says Fourth Amendment Does Not Apply To Military Operations Within U.S.

ACLU Calls For Immediate Release Of Withheld Legal Memo
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

April 2, 2008

CONTACT: James Freedland, [phone] or [phone]; [e-mail]

NEW YORK - A newly disclosed secret memo authored by the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) in March 2003 that asserts President Bush has unlimited power to order brutal interrogations of detainees also reveals a radical interpretation of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure. The memo, declassified yesterday as the result of an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit, cites a still-secret DOJ memo from 2001 that found that the "Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations."

The October 2001 memo was almost certainly meant to provide a legal basis for the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping program, which President Bush launched the same month the memo was issued. As a component of the Department of Defense, the NSA is a military agency.

"The recent disclosures underscore the Bush administration's extraordinarily sweeping conception of executive power," said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU's National Security Project. "The administration's lawyers believe the president should be permitted to violate statutory law, to violate international treaties, and even to violate the Fourth Amendment inside the U.S. They believe that the president should be above the law."

The Bush administration has never argued publicly that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to military operations within the nation's borders. The memo released yesterday publicizes this argument for the first time.

The ACLU has been aware of the Justice Department's October 2001 memo since last year, but until now, its contents were unknown. The Justice Department informed the ACLU of the memo's existence as a result of a FOIA lawsuit seeking information concerning the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program. The Justice Department acknowledged the existence of "a 37-page memorandum, dated October 23, 2001, from a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in OLC, and a Special Counsel, OLC, to the Counsel to the President, prepared in response to a request from the White House for OLC's views concerning the legality of potential responses to terrorist activity." Until now, however, almost nothing was known about the memo's contents - except that it was related to a request for information about the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program. The ACLU has challenged the withholding of the October 2001 memo and the issue is pending before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.


The memo released to the ACLU yesterday cites the October 2001 memo but takes its argument even further. Relying on the earlier memo, the March 2003 memo argues that the president has authority as Commander-in-Chief to bypass not only the Fourth Amendment but the central due process guarantee of the Fifth Amendment as well.

"This memo makes a mockery of the Constitution and the rule of law," said Amrit Singh, a staff attorney with the ACLU. "That it was issued by the Justice Department, whose job it is to uphold the law, makes it even more unconscionable."

The March 2003 memo was declassified in response to a lawsuit filed by the ACLU, the New York Civil Liberties Union, and other organizations in June 2004 to enforce Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for records concerning the treatment of prisoners in U.S. custody abroad. The ACLU has been fighting for the release of the March 2003 Yoo memo since filing the lawsuit. A few weeks ago, after the court ordered additional briefing on whether the Defense Department could continue to withhold the memo, the government reluctantly agreed to conduct a declassification review by March 31. The Defense Department released this memo after conducting the review.

The 2003 Department of Justice memo can be found online at: www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/34745res20030314.html

Documents relating to the ACLU's NSA FOIA lawsuit are available online at: www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/30022res20060207.html

To date, more than 100,000 pages of government documents have been released in response to the ACLU's FOIA lawsuit related the abuse of prisoner in U.S. custody abroad. These documents are available online at: www.aclu.org/torturefoia "

[proud2BlibKansan]

9. Excellent!!

[Bonobo]

12. Thanks for the great thread. Let's keep kicked.

[Hissyspit]

17. Ugh. Like there hasn't been BILLIONS of words written on this over the past six or so years.

But good that they are inquiring, I think, so please do email everyone.

[EFerrari]

11. Obama doesn't have Clinton's impeachment problem.

That he's the likely nom changes the landscape. I hadn't thought of that.

[proud2BlibKansan]

14. I hadn't either

Puts a little different spin on it, eh?

[EFerrari]

15. It could change everything.

We'll find out.

[John Kerry VonErich]

13. Good luck with it.

:)

[goclark]

18. kick

[slipslidingaway]

19. Called and asked why Conyers changed his position....

and reminded the staffer of this quote two years ago. Conyers was willing to stand up when the Dems did not control Congress and now he is sitting down.

:(


http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/48/18010

Monday 27 February 2006

"On December 18 of last year, Congressman John Conyers Jr. (D., Mich.) introduced into the House of Representatives a resolution inviting it to form "a select committee to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment."


The nearly complete silence raised the question as to what it was the congressman had in mind, and to whom did he think he was speaking? In time of war few propositions would seem as futile as the attempt to impeach a president whose political party controls the Congress; as the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee stationed on Capitol Hill for the last forty years, Representative Conyers presumably knew that to expect the Republican caucus in the House to take note of his invitation, much less arm it with the power of subpoena, was to expect a miracle of democratic transformation and rebirth not unlike the one looked for by President Bush under the prayer rugs in Baghdad. Unless the congressman intended some sort of symbolic gesture, self-serving and harmless, what did he hope to prove or to gain? He answered the question in early January, on the phone from Detroit during the congressional winter recess.

"To take away the excuse," he said, "that we didn't know." So that two or four or ten years from now, if somebody should ask, "Where were you, Conyers, and where was the United States Congress?" when the Bush Administration declared the Constitution inoperative and revoked the license of parliamentary government, none of the company now present can plead ignorance or temporary insanity, can say that "somehow it escaped our notice" that the President was setting himself up as a supreme leader exempt from the rule of law.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

30. I sent this via email to his office yesterday.

[slipslidingaway]

32. Wonderful and thanks. n/t

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

33. Thank you for posting it in the first place! Perfect to send to

Conyers. You have no idea how truly disappointed I am with him since he became Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. It's like he made a deal with the devil (figuratively speaking). He has not followed up on Impeachment. He never followed-up on voter caging. He should have firmly placed a Contempt of Congress charge on Harriet Miers and Josh Bolton. I just hope that he stands firm on no immunity for telecomms.

[slipslidingaway]

34. YW, I guess it is easy to be impassioned when your party is not

in power and there is an excuse as to why issues are not being advanced, the real test comes when you have the power and do not use it wisely.

In addition to the items you mentioned, I am also reminded of Harry Reid closing down the Senate because investigations on Iraq intelligence were being delayed.

Now Conyers will ask others to sign a letter threatening impeachment if Iran is attacked, surely the Iranian people must be so pleased.

:sarcasm:

The one in five Iraqi's who are displaced...sorry we need to move forward and win an election.

:(

If nothing else these make for good Saturday afternoon rants.


http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/01/video-closed-session/

"Minority Leader Harry Reid today forced the Senate into a rare, secret closed door session, threatening to delay legislative action until the Intelligence Committee followed through on its planned investigation of prewar Iraq intelligence failures.

Transcript below:

SEN. HARRY REID: America deserves better than this. They also deserve a searching and comprehensive investigation into how the Bush administration brought this country to war. Key questions that need to be answered include:

– How did the Bush administration assemble its case for war against Iraq? We heard what Colonel Wilkerson said.

– Who did the Bush administration officials listen to and who did they ignore?

– How did the senior administration officials manipulate or manufacture intelligence presented to the Congress and the American people?

– What was the role of the White House Iraq Group, or WHIG, a group of senior White House officials tasked with marketing the war and taking down its critics? We know what Colonel Wilkerson says.

– How did the administration coordinate its efforts to attack individuals who dared to challenge the administration’s assertions? We know what happened to them — I listed a few.

– Why has this administration failed to provide Congress with the documents that would shed light on their misconduct and the misstatements?"

[cascadiance]

20. I called...

I told them that even a Democratic administration and Democratic Congress won't have the world's respect until we return to the rule of law and hold these criminals accountable for their acts.

[pleah]

21. Kick!

Good luck to them.:)

[EFerrari]

22. ANOTHER BRUTAL RAPE BY KBR. Send the link to Conyers

They want links, here's a link for them. What a CROCK.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3100762&mesg_id=3100762

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080421/houppert

Motherfuckers, all of them.

[spanone]

23. kicked and recommended....

[spanone]

24. k&R

[librechik]

25. What! Did Conyers not keep his impeach promise again?

I am so shocked!


:sarcasm:

[proud2BlibKansan]

26. What promise?

LOL

[librechik]

27. before Nancy said it was not on the table

Conyers said it would be the first thing on his agenda.He even wrote a book with all the articles and evidence. A lot of us believed him. Maybe even he believed it.

After the "not on the table" remark and the Dems were in office, suddenly it was just too difficult.

A bunch of people showed up at his office and insisted he keep his promise anyway.

A few people got arrested, I think Cindy Sheehan was among them. Conyers played hardball.

Ever since then he has held out the promise "if only" this or that happened he would bring it up.

Yeah, right.

[Freddie Stubbs]

31. Conyers: 3 More Congress Members and I'll Impeach

David Swanson

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers has said that if three more Congress Members get behind impeachment he will start the impeachment proceedings.

I was a guest today on Bree Walker's radio show. She's the progressive radio host from California who purchased Cindy Sheehan's land from her in Crawford, Texas.

Bree attended an event on Friday in San Diego at which Congressman Conyers spoke about impeachment. Her report was extremely interesting. I had already heard reports that Conyers had said: "What are we waiting for? Let's take these two guys out!" But, of course, what we're waiting for is John Conyers. Is he ready to act? It was hard to tell from that comment. In January, Conyers spoke at a huge rally on the National Mall and declared "We can fire them!" but later explained that what he meant was that we could wait for two years and Bush and Cheney's terms would end. Was this week's remark just more empty rhetoric?

It appears to be more than that. Bree Walker told me, on the air, that Conyers said that all he needs is three more Congress Members backing impeachment, and he'll move on it, even without Pelosi. I asked whether that meant specifically moving from 14 cosponsors of H Res 333 to 17, or adding 3 to the larger number of Congress Members who have spoken favorably of impeachment but not all signed onto bills. Bree said she didn't know and that Conyers had declined to take any questions.

more: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/24962

[Senator]

28. Everyone: "It's The Torture, Stupid!"

Only impeachment can stop the torture. Forget all the "other impeachable offenses."

If they mention elections to you, demand to know "Why Our Side Gets To Benefit From Torture?". Who told them it was impossible to win an election by opposing torture instead of defending torturers?

If they say it's impossible, tell them "only because you refuse to act."

Impeachment remains our ONLY moral, patriotic option.

---

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

29. I emailed. :)