Powerful, swelling and echoing stuff. I guess "haunting" might be the back-of-the-book-jacket word for the first song.
The second, "Roll Out the Drums of War," is punchier, almost like Tool-meets-Neil Young. "Let's not talk about it anymore," might be the most sickeningly right-feeling line. "Who are the profits for?" Or is it "Who are the prophets for?" Either way, good question. "Who makes a fortune?" Word, I can tell you a few names that might fit... This guy's writing is great. Dylan but updated. Never too much, but always incantatory and gripping. The crowd loves it.
Going into over-time, but nobody's cutting the music. He flew in from L.A. just to play tonight. Rock-rock, Jackson.
"I ain't no communist, but I ain't no capitalist. And I ain't no socialist... I only know one party, and it is freedom. I am a patriot," he sings. People clap along. Ends too soon. And it all ends. The question might not have been answered, but it at least has been thoroughly asked.
Showing posts with label Impeachment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Impeachment. Show all posts
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Holly Hunter and Frank Bidart
...reads a poem, shortish, involving a beer. I'll find it (I hope) and post in a sec.
Frank Bidart reads "To the Republic," a poem about the Civil War read on AQoI's first night.
Frank Bidart reads "To the Republic," a poem about the Civil War read on AQoI's first night.
Kathleen Chalfant and Darryl Larson
...takes the stage, dressed in black, to read "Pity the Nation." Found a book by that title in addition to the poem.
Larson reads a Peter Matheson piece about the impact Bush and Cheney have had on our environment: They've cut programs to find alternatives to oil; they've invaded countries for oil; they've not enforced environmental regulations. These crimes, like those committed to steal the elections in 2000 and 2004, are not included in our articles of impeachment, nor those of Wexler nor Kucinich. But That doesn't make them less grave, just less easy to prosecute.
Larson points out that all the money in the world won't save the Bushes and Cheneys of two hundred years from now from the scorching sun and the undrinkable water. Booyakah, future-Bushes. Sadly. Booyakah.
Larson reads a Peter Matheson piece about the impact Bush and Cheney have had on our environment: They've cut programs to find alternatives to oil; they've invaded countries for oil; they've not enforced environmental regulations. These crimes, like those committed to steal the elections in 2000 and 2004, are not included in our articles of impeachment, nor those of Wexler nor Kucinich. But That doesn't make them less grave, just less easy to prosecute.
Larson points out that all the money in the world won't save the Bushes and Cheneys of two hundred years from now from the scorching sun and the undrinkable water. Booyakah, future-Bushes. Sadly. Booyakah.
The Last Impeachment Panel
A panel on stage, Allan Buchman chatting up its members.
Amy Goodman moderates. She opens by noting that the media is the most powerful tool for awareness, a sort of kitchen table that stretches across the country and globe. And is not covering impeachment.
On the panel, Marjorie Cohn, John Nichols, and Naomi Wolf.
To Nichols, Goodman asks why the Dems want to wait for another pres. election to get rid of Bush. Nichols points out that elections are easy. Impeachment is important on its own. We can't just wait for an election; we have to send a message to all future presidents about what how is not okay to govern.
To Cohn, Goodman asks about the reasons for going to Iraq and potentially Iran. The real reason, Cohn says, Bush went to Iraq became clear just recently when we made agreements with Iraq to have troops there indefinitely - to stay in Iraq and move on to Iran. Notwithstanding the new evidence that Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons, Bush says he has not taken military action against Iran off the table.
Cohn notes that Congress does not have legal authority to start a "war of aggression," one that breaks a treaty, a war whose causes are falsified or blown out of proportion.
Cohn breaks down how impeachment works: The House votes to impeach the president; the Senate acts a court, presiding over the impeachment itself.
Nichols explains that Congress can impeach Cheney and Bush at once (I wrote "Nixon" instead of Cheney first, took a second to see it - Freud at work). But Nichols says to start with Cheney, then move up, exposing the dual criminality of the Dick and the Bush.
Naomi Wolf describes the step by which would-be dictators do their thing: They create vague internal and external threats; they create secret prisons; they create military not answerable to the people; they spy on their own citizens; they harass citizen's groups; they arbitrarily detain and release individuals (TSA for travelers, environmentalists, progressives); they target individuals (Bill Maher, Dixie Chicks, CEOs getting fire); they--oh--here it is--
I think this is so important I'm going to paste in the Wikipedia version, to reiterate:
The Ten Steps to Dictatorship
1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy.
2. Create secret prisons where torture takes place.
3. Develop a thug caste or paramilitary force not answerable to citizens.
4. Set up an internal surveillance system.
5. Harass citizens' groups.
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release.
7. Target key individuals.
8. Control the press.
9. Declare all dissent to be treason.
10. Suspend the rule of law.
Wolf points out that there was still a parliament in Italy when Mussolini took over. He talked to parliament, then he stopped talking. Then at some point later, there was no point even pretending. Bush could declare an emergency tomorrow and boot out Congress. The state is legalizing torture. We could lose democracy, de jure, at any moment. We already have, de facto (the stolen election, torture, crazy war).
Goodman reads from Wolf's The End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot, which begins with an anecdote of a government worker blogging (!) against torture and being fired for her morals.
Cohn says Mukase won't stop waterboarding because to do so would be to admit that Bush had broken the law. Waterboarding is so obviously torture, there'd be little point admitting it had anything to do with Bush or that torture shouldn't be legal. The only option Mukase et cronies have is to stay the course.
Cohn describes how lawyers are fighting back, protesting, making some headway against the Justice Department by not backing down on Gitmo cases.
Nichols suggests the Democratic candidates should have to debate Naomi Wolf on each point - not Wolf Blitzer and Tim Russert and those who ignore the issue of impeachment.
Wolf points out that Bush terrifies so many - libertarians, anarchists, Green Party people. "On paper," Wolf says, "it's over, it's already over. The coup is over." A bill just passed criminalizing anything against Bush as terrorism. You don't need the Long Knives, says Wolf, just these scary laws. This impeachment theater could be criminal. Her book could be criminal.
Nichols is asking Congresspeople to read his book and Wolf's, to just read the articles of impeachment.
Cohn talks about the new bill again - I'm going to look this one up in a sec - and how it criminalizes thought that "advocates force," not only violence, but, say, a protest.
Wolf compares Bush & co. to the Nazis and Stalin, but conservatively, at evidence, at facts. "No one who's read my book," she says, criticizes her comparisons. She tells Cohn, who brought up the Unamerican Activities Committee in the Fifties, that Bush's plan is much more akin to Stalin's than to McCarthy's.
Goodman asks, in closing, what we can do now.
Nichols reiterates that Wexler and others have called for impeachment hearings; write and call and go visit your Congresspeople to ask them to impeach Bush and Cheney. And write and call your local media. We have to get the media involved on a much bigger level. Forget the election for one second. Impeachment is dramatically more important. The presidency had become a pack of lies.
Cohn calls for ending the war, in addition to constantly calling on our leaders to impeach Bush and Dick.
Wolf calls for impeaching and prosecuting B&C. "The only way to save this country." Word up.
Goodman talks about the FCC ending regulations that restrain a few big companies from owning all the major media. Upside, DemocracyNow! has grown quite a bit. And the internet. Don't forget the internet. Please post and repost our videos and articles; comment; send us new leads. Contact your Congresspeople. Show them the videos.
Oh, we're not done. Buchman comes on to remind us that we're going to pursue this issue all year. I think Jackon Browne is going to sing...
Amy Goodman moderates. She opens by noting that the media is the most powerful tool for awareness, a sort of kitchen table that stretches across the country and globe. And is not covering impeachment.
On the panel, Marjorie Cohn, John Nichols, and Naomi Wolf.
To Nichols, Goodman asks why the Dems want to wait for another pres. election to get rid of Bush. Nichols points out that elections are easy. Impeachment is important on its own. We can't just wait for an election; we have to send a message to all future presidents about what how is not okay to govern.
To Cohn, Goodman asks about the reasons for going to Iraq and potentially Iran. The real reason, Cohn says, Bush went to Iraq became clear just recently when we made agreements with Iraq to have troops there indefinitely - to stay in Iraq and move on to Iran. Notwithstanding the new evidence that Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons, Bush says he has not taken military action against Iran off the table.
Cohn notes that Congress does not have legal authority to start a "war of aggression," one that breaks a treaty, a war whose causes are falsified or blown out of proportion.
Cohn breaks down how impeachment works: The House votes to impeach the president; the Senate acts a court, presiding over the impeachment itself.
Nichols explains that Congress can impeach Cheney and Bush at once (I wrote "Nixon" instead of Cheney first, took a second to see it - Freud at work). But Nichols says to start with Cheney, then move up, exposing the dual criminality of the Dick and the Bush.
Naomi Wolf describes the step by which would-be dictators do their thing: They create vague internal and external threats; they create secret prisons; they create military not answerable to the people; they spy on their own citizens; they harass citizen's groups; they arbitrarily detain and release individuals (TSA for travelers, environmentalists, progressives); they target individuals (Bill Maher, Dixie Chicks, CEOs getting fire); they--oh--here it is--
I think this is so important I'm going to paste in the Wikipedia version, to reiterate:
The Ten Steps to Dictatorship
1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy.
2. Create secret prisons where torture takes place.
3. Develop a thug caste or paramilitary force not answerable to citizens.
4. Set up an internal surveillance system.
5. Harass citizens' groups.
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release.
7. Target key individuals.
8. Control the press.
9. Declare all dissent to be treason.
10. Suspend the rule of law.
Wolf points out that there was still a parliament in Italy when Mussolini took over. He talked to parliament, then he stopped talking. Then at some point later, there was no point even pretending. Bush could declare an emergency tomorrow and boot out Congress. The state is legalizing torture. We could lose democracy, de jure, at any moment. We already have, de facto (the stolen election, torture, crazy war).
Goodman reads from Wolf's The End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot, which begins with an anecdote of a government worker blogging (!) against torture and being fired for her morals.
Cohn says Mukase won't stop waterboarding because to do so would be to admit that Bush had broken the law. Waterboarding is so obviously torture, there'd be little point admitting it had anything to do with Bush or that torture shouldn't be legal. The only option Mukase et cronies have is to stay the course.
Cohn describes how lawyers are fighting back, protesting, making some headway against the Justice Department by not backing down on Gitmo cases.
Nichols suggests the Democratic candidates should have to debate Naomi Wolf on each point - not Wolf Blitzer and Tim Russert and those who ignore the issue of impeachment.
Wolf points out that Bush terrifies so many - libertarians, anarchists, Green Party people. "On paper," Wolf says, "it's over, it's already over. The coup is over." A bill just passed criminalizing anything against Bush as terrorism. You don't need the Long Knives, says Wolf, just these scary laws. This impeachment theater could be criminal. Her book could be criminal.
Nichols is asking Congresspeople to read his book and Wolf's, to just read the articles of impeachment.
Cohn talks about the new bill again - I'm going to look this one up in a sec - and how it criminalizes thought that "advocates force," not only violence, but, say, a protest.
Wolf compares Bush & co. to the Nazis and Stalin, but conservatively, at evidence, at facts. "No one who's read my book," she says, criticizes her comparisons. She tells Cohn, who brought up the Unamerican Activities Committee in the Fifties, that Bush's plan is much more akin to Stalin's than to McCarthy's.
Goodman asks, in closing, what we can do now.
Nichols reiterates that Wexler and others have called for impeachment hearings; write and call and go visit your Congresspeople to ask them to impeach Bush and Cheney. And write and call your local media. We have to get the media involved on a much bigger level. Forget the election for one second. Impeachment is dramatically more important. The presidency had become a pack of lies.
Cohn calls for ending the war, in addition to constantly calling on our leaders to impeach Bush and Dick.
Wolf calls for impeaching and prosecuting B&C. "The only way to save this country." Word up.
Goodman talks about the FCC ending regulations that restrain a few big companies from owning all the major media. Upside, DemocracyNow! has grown quite a bit. And the internet. Don't forget the internet. Please post and repost our videos and articles; comment; send us new leads. Contact your Congresspeople. Show them the videos.
Oh, we're not done. Buchman comes on to remind us that we're going to pursue this issue all year. I think Jackon Browne is going to sing...
David Lindorff
...from earlier today, sings with his daughter about Iraq. "It's one, two, three - what are we fighting for? ... Five, six, seven - open up the pearly gates..." A charming ditty, I suppose.
[I'm told the song is a version of a Country Joe McDonald song with the refrain, "Don't give a damn, / next stop is Vietnam."
And then a short intermission. The technical director appears on the live-feed, moving mic stands around. The house is almost too packed to move through.
[I'm told the song is a version of a Country Joe McDonald song with the refrain, "Don't give a damn, / next stop is Vietnam."
And then a short intermission. The technical director appears on the live-feed, moving mic stands around. The house is almost too packed to move through.
Ned Eisenberg and J.T.
Ned Eisenberg reads "Bounden Duty," one of my favorite poems by the maestro of weird, James Tate.
Basically, the president asks the narrator, a farmer, to act normal. It's hard to act normal. The narrator's thought process devolves into paranoia. Abrupt, mysterious ending.
Basically, the president asks the narrator, a farmer, to act normal. It's hard to act normal. The narrator's thought process devolves into paranoia. Abrupt, mysterious ending.
Aasif Mandvi
"I wrote this poem," Daily Show alum Mandvi says, "because I'm afraid of Americans."
The poem begins with the image of a handsome white man on TV telling a young Aasif Mandvi all that he knows about the world. They're best buddies.
Then the white man yells, "Jiiiiihaaad!" "His mouth is open now like a whale..."
"What is this word?" The poem is a fable. The man and Mandvi are friends until the white man yells "jihad."
The poem is frenetic, hypnotizing. The white man eats everything. Mandvi and his mother crouch and hide from him as his mouth engulfs everything. What did his grandfather do to make the white man mad? "It's not your dada, it's not your grandpa," she tells him. He's happy, for a moment. Suffice to stay, it doesn't stay happy.
The poem begins with the image of a handsome white man on TV telling a young Aasif Mandvi all that he knows about the world. They're best buddies.
Then the white man yells, "Jiiiiihaaad!" "His mouth is open now like a whale..."
"What is this word?" The poem is a fable. The man and Mandvi are friends until the white man yells "jihad."
The poem is frenetic, hypnotizing. The white man eats everything. Mandvi and his mother crouch and hide from him as his mouth engulfs everything. What did his grandfather do to make the white man mad? "It's not your dada, it's not your grandpa," she tells him. He's happy, for a moment. Suffice to stay, it doesn't stay happy.
Duncan Sheik and Nero
Dunk reads the words of Nero (the first known leader to use a speechwriter) as a woman in a white dress sings and his band plays beautifully behind him.
The speech is chilling. Nero orates about his plan for Rome, his consternations - how can so great an empire have let its poor grow so many? A great song, a creepy Orwellian rant, taking its time.
The next song is a Dunk solo, a light number, years later, as Nero takes "endless long vacations" with his cronies, slits the blood of those who oppose him. "Crowned with Love," I think the piece is. It has a speedy, snowballing, fast-talking power. A "Let Them Eat Cake" nonchalance.
Then Rome burns. "What a night it was, back in 64... (It really was just 64)," says the narrator. Nero quickly lays the blame on others. "Such a photo-op," Nero with the victims, looking like a leader who cares. But he says the people are better off homeless - if only you'd seen their homes before.
A song, beginning with the female lead, "The towers fallen, without an answer, ashes on the wind..." Dunk backs her up. A somber song.
The stage darkens.
The speech is chilling. Nero orates about his plan for Rome, his consternations - how can so great an empire have let its poor grow so many? A great song, a creepy Orwellian rant, taking its time.
The next song is a Dunk solo, a light number, years later, as Nero takes "endless long vacations" with his cronies, slits the blood of those who oppose him. "Crowned with Love," I think the piece is. It has a speedy, snowballing, fast-talking power. A "Let Them Eat Cake" nonchalance.
Then Rome burns. "What a night it was, back in 64... (It really was just 64)," says the narrator. Nero quickly lays the blame on others. "Such a photo-op," Nero with the victims, looking like a leader who cares. But he says the people are better off homeless - if only you'd seen their homes before.
A song, beginning with the female lead, "The towers fallen, without an answer, ashes on the wind..." Dunk backs her up. A somber song.
The stage darkens.
John Nichols, Thomas Jefferson, and a Poem
...gives a rousing call-to-arms regarding impeachment - a perfect way to enter back into the subject. Possibly the best speech of the series (yet).
Bower, as T.Jeff., takes the stage and reads some dry but appropriately deep material, from the (former) T.Jeff.
Then a long poem written from the perspective of a literal fly on the wall during a Senate Armed Services Committee meeting.
Bower, as T.Jeff., takes the stage and reads some dry but appropriately deep material, from the (former) T.Jeff.
Then a long poem written from the perspective of a literal fly on the wall during a Senate Armed Services Committee meeting.
Closing Night - Songs, Poems, Impeachment Proceedings
Duncan Sheik and Jackson Browne in the hizzy. And a harp. A big ole harp. Soundcheckin.
Found out about tricorner hat-guy. He's Thomas Jefferson, as reincarnated by/into performer Tom Bower. He's with a camera-guy. Doc on Thomas Jefferson? Google's no help here. Maybe it's a secret, shh...
The lobby's absolutely full. It's cold outside. Not the Noreaster predicted, but chilly. The sound quality's great in the theater, but lots of checkin left to be done. I'm not exactly in the way, in the corner of the booth, but I'm not exactly useful.
Action movie previews playing on the wall in the lobby as some doc moves forward, un-fasted. They switch to live feed. House opens.
Duncan Sheik sitting in the house, mingling. Very amiable atmosphere, plus a big harp. Former intern in the house, representin.
Sittin on the steps. Allan Buchman tells us about restoring a piano for Duncan Sheik.
Found out about tricorner hat-guy. He's Thomas Jefferson, as reincarnated by/into performer Tom Bower. He's with a camera-guy. Doc on Thomas Jefferson? Google's no help here. Maybe it's a secret, shh...
The lobby's absolutely full. It's cold outside. Not the Noreaster predicted, but chilly. The sound quality's great in the theater, but lots of checkin left to be done. I'm not exactly in the way, in the corner of the booth, but I'm not exactly useful.
Action movie previews playing on the wall in the lobby as some doc moves forward, un-fasted. They switch to live feed. House opens.
Duncan Sheik sitting in the house, mingling. Very amiable atmosphere, plus a big harp. Former intern in the house, representin.
Sittin on the steps. Allan Buchman tells us about restoring a piano for Duncan Sheik.
Article V Panel
Denis Moynihan again moderates. Nation writer John Nichols runs on stage, fields an immediately Moynihan question: Where are we, on impeachment, right now?
Nichols said things are as good as they've ever been, and as bad. He notes that Congress is finally moving: Florida rep. Bob Wexler is holding hearings for the impeachment of Dick Cheney. GO TO HIS WEBSITE, http://wexlerwantshearings.com/, and sing up. This is the best way to get the ball rolling, right now.
Holtzman puts the brakes on Nichols' and Wexler's vision by noting that, if the vision is partisan - if it consists of "Democrats hate Bush" - then it will fail. We need a bipartisan approach. "Let's go back to Watergate," she says. I wince. But her point is we don't need hearings. Watergate started with evidence. Bipartisan call for evidence.
Seems to me that we need something to happen, whether it's thanks to Wexler or not.
Cohn points out we need an independent prosecutor, a special investigator.
Nichols says Wexler and others have just now given us the opening to impeach Bush.
Holtzman and Nichols are getting into it a bit over the procedural differences between special prosecution and Congressional hearings. (Everyone agrees Bush should be impeached somehow, ASAP.)
Lindorff says that Republicans need to be shown that it was dumb and dangerous not to impeach Bush - that the next president probably will be a Democrat and almost definitely will not give up any power whatsoever that Bush gave the presidency.
Horton agrees. "This can only be checked effectively by the impeachment process."
Nichols: Impeachment, seriously pursued, usually succeeds in forcing leaders to step back from the brink. I love this idea. We need to impeach the sons of donkeys not simply because Hillary might win and continue to use the powers d'Bush, but because Bush and Hillary and the Republicans and Democrats need to be told, by the American people, by the voices of reason in Congress, that it is illegal to spy on Americans, to torture prisoners, to utterly ignore the poor of the South in times of crisis, to ignore laws, to start wars.
Holtzman calls it "inertia." We have to press [the Congress]. (She goes back to Watergate with each answer, each time losing some clarity on the matter: Bushiraqtorturegate simply isn't Watergate. This is a new era. Bush is a new terror. I'm sure Holtzman's suggestions are apt and her ideas useful as to how we can oust Bush. But if Bob Wexler gets it done his own way, props to Bob Wexler.)
Nichols tells us to contact our local Congresspeople and tell them to impeach Bush. Particularly Jerrold Nadler. Please do this.
Question from the audience that becomes an angry litany of Buhs's crimes.
New question asks what else we can do.
Nichols says the public is just as angry at Bush as they were at Nixon; the media has changed, however, and we have seen virtually nothing about impeachment on TV.
Cohn notes that Bush is lying about Iran, aggressive against Iran, and not going to be phased by news that Iran doesn't necessarily have nukes. Cohn says getting out of Iraq and stopping Bush before he can go into Iran should be our number one priorities.
Audience member asks/tells something amounting to, "people all over New York want to impeach Bush." Panel agrees; people everywhere want to impeach him.
Holtzman goes back to Watergate. General discussion of lack of media attention to impeachment. Where's the New York Times on this?
Horton (notice his sweet blog) says polls show people, when asked if Bush has committed serious crimes, over 60% of those polled say yes. In Jackson, Mississippi, prosperous white businessmen asked Horton why nobody was impeaching Bush's ass?
Nichols says now is the time to talk to Republicans about impeachment; they are ready; they are either sick of Bush or afraid of giving Bush-powers to Hillary.
Nichols says we can't let the upcoming election become any excuse for not holding Bush accountable.
Horton says for the last several years, the Republicans have been velociraptors; the Democrats, invertebrates. Democracts aren't challenging bad Republican laws. (Well, this has a lot to do with our two-party/arguably-one-class-based-party system. I yearn for a multi-party system.)
Lindorff tells us how Bush took over science programs to manufacture evidence for war against Iraq.
Holtzman reminds us that impeachment is a democratic process envisioned by the framers to be used in circumstances just such as these. We have the time. This will not divide the country; this will unify the country. Rule of law is more important than any one president or party.
Cohn says we have to elect a Democrat in 2008. Bush has done the most dangerous thing, aside from Iraq, by stacking the Supreme Court. Please vote for the Democrat.
And we're done with the articles of impeachment. I for one am convinced - my suspicions confirmed - that we need to get Bush and Cheney out.
Rebel Voices up next, then the big closing concert at 7:30.
Nichols said things are as good as they've ever been, and as bad. He notes that Congress is finally moving: Florida rep. Bob Wexler is holding hearings for the impeachment of Dick Cheney. GO TO HIS WEBSITE, http://wexlerwantshearings.com/, and sing up. This is the best way to get the ball rolling, right now.
Holtzman puts the brakes on Nichols' and Wexler's vision by noting that, if the vision is partisan - if it consists of "Democrats hate Bush" - then it will fail. We need a bipartisan approach. "Let's go back to Watergate," she says. I wince. But her point is we don't need hearings. Watergate started with evidence. Bipartisan call for evidence.
Seems to me that we need something to happen, whether it's thanks to Wexler or not.
Cohn points out we need an independent prosecutor, a special investigator.
Nichols says Wexler and others have just now given us the opening to impeach Bush.
Holtzman and Nichols are getting into it a bit over the procedural differences between special prosecution and Congressional hearings. (Everyone agrees Bush should be impeached somehow, ASAP.)
Lindorff says that Republicans need to be shown that it was dumb and dangerous not to impeach Bush - that the next president probably will be a Democrat and almost definitely will not give up any power whatsoever that Bush gave the presidency.
Horton agrees. "This can only be checked effectively by the impeachment process."
Nichols: Impeachment, seriously pursued, usually succeeds in forcing leaders to step back from the brink. I love this idea. We need to impeach the sons of donkeys not simply because Hillary might win and continue to use the powers d'Bush, but because Bush and Hillary and the Republicans and Democrats need to be told, by the American people, by the voices of reason in Congress, that it is illegal to spy on Americans, to torture prisoners, to utterly ignore the poor of the South in times of crisis, to ignore laws, to start wars.
Holtzman calls it "inertia." We have to press [the Congress]. (She goes back to Watergate with each answer, each time losing some clarity on the matter: Bushiraqtorturegate simply isn't Watergate. This is a new era. Bush is a new terror. I'm sure Holtzman's suggestions are apt and her ideas useful as to how we can oust Bush. But if Bob Wexler gets it done his own way, props to Bob Wexler.)
Nichols tells us to contact our local Congresspeople and tell them to impeach Bush. Particularly Jerrold Nadler. Please do this.
Question from the audience that becomes an angry litany of Buhs's crimes.
New question asks what else we can do.
Nichols says the public is just as angry at Bush as they were at Nixon; the media has changed, however, and we have seen virtually nothing about impeachment on TV.
Cohn notes that Bush is lying about Iran, aggressive against Iran, and not going to be phased by news that Iran doesn't necessarily have nukes. Cohn says getting out of Iraq and stopping Bush before he can go into Iran should be our number one priorities.
Audience member asks/tells something amounting to, "people all over New York want to impeach Bush." Panel agrees; people everywhere want to impeach him.
Holtzman goes back to Watergate. General discussion of lack of media attention to impeachment. Where's the New York Times on this?
Horton (notice his sweet blog) says polls show people, when asked if Bush has committed serious crimes, over 60% of those polled say yes. In Jackson, Mississippi, prosperous white businessmen asked Horton why nobody was impeaching Bush's ass?
Nichols says now is the time to talk to Republicans about impeachment; they are ready; they are either sick of Bush or afraid of giving Bush-powers to Hillary.
Nichols says we can't let the upcoming election become any excuse for not holding Bush accountable.
Horton says for the last several years, the Republicans have been velociraptors; the Democrats, invertebrates. Democracts aren't challenging bad Republican laws. (Well, this has a lot to do with our two-party/arguably-one-class-based-party system. I yearn for a multi-party system.)
Lindorff tells us how Bush took over science programs to manufacture evidence for war against Iraq.
Holtzman reminds us that impeachment is a democratic process envisioned by the framers to be used in circumstances just such as these. We have the time. This will not divide the country; this will unify the country. Rule of law is more important than any one president or party.
Cohn says we have to elect a Democrat in 2008. Bush has done the most dangerous thing, aside from Iraq, by stacking the Supreme Court. Please vote for the Democrat.
And we're done with the articles of impeachment. I for one am convinced - my suspicions confirmed - that we need to get Bush and Cheney out.
Rebel Voices up next, then the big closing concert at 7:30.
More on the Bush Takeover
For more on signing statements, check out this book by Pulitzer Prize-winner Charlie Savage.
And Al Gore rocks the mic legti on this topic:
Also, read articles by tonight's Marjorie Cohn, CP Impeach-y alum Elizabeth De La Vega (and another one), and George F. Will.
And Al Gore rocks the mic legti on this topic:
A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government. Our Founding Fathers were adamant that they had established a government of laws and not men. Indeed, they recognized that the structure of government they had enshrined in our Constitution - our system of checks and balances - was designed with a central purpose of ensuring that it would govern through the rule of law. As John Adams said: "The executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them, to the end that it may be a government of laws and not of men."
An executive who arrogates to himself the power to ignore the legitimate legislative directives of the Congress or to act free of the check of the judiciary becomes the central threat that the Founders sought to nullify in the Constitution - an all-powerful executive too reminiscent of the King from whom they had broken free. In the words of James Madison, "the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
Also, read articles by tonight's Marjorie Cohn, CP Impeach-y alum Elizabeth De La Vega (and another one), and George F. Will.
David Lindorff and the Uni-Exec
Has an awesome white beard and speaks eloquently on the topic of the "unitary executive," the very scary idea that, because we are "at war with terror" (nonsense), the American executive should have legislative and judiciary power - over the world. After one of Bush's Justice Dept. cronies used the term, Bush started using it regularly in his signing statements.
Lindorff notes that Bush wants the president to be the person who can make war, instead of Congress. (Because of "terror," everywhere, invisible, visible, we are always at war; Bush never gives up power...)
The signing statements are Bush's worst trespasses, according to Lindorff.
Lindorff notes that Bush wants the president to be the person who can make war, instead of Congress. (Because of "terror," everywhere, invisible, visible, we are always at war; Bush never gives up power...)
The signing statements are Bush's worst trespasses, according to Lindorff.
Closing Day - Article V: Expansion of Executive Power
What's going on:
2:00 p.m. Participants include Harper's contributor and human rights attorney Scott Horton, former Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman, author David Lindorff, National Lawyers Guild President Marjorie Cohn, and Denis Moynihan of DemocracyNow!.
Performers include Josh Hamilton, Tracie Thoms, Ned Eisenberg, Grace Zandarski, and Tom Bower. (One of these performers is wearing a Revolutionary War-style tricorner hat. I'll have to investigate this.)
7:30 p.m. Closing celebration includes performance and commentary from John Nichols, Jackson Browne, Naomi Wolf, Duncan Sheik, Steven Sater, Holly Hunter, Amy Goodman of DemocracyNow!, Peter Matthiessen, Kathleen Chalfant, Aasif Mandvi, and others.
***
Right now, Marjorie Cohn (author of Cowboy Republic) and Elizabeth Holtzman (MVP from Article IV) are recapping why Nixon was impeached and what signing statements are. In Holtzman's view, Bush's signing statements are unprecedented, and his not following the law is an impeachable offense. She gets big claps (one standing).
***
Scott Horton takes the stand. Horton explains what certain of Bush's signing statements mean ("flagrant affronts to the Constitution"). The problem is, the statements - little codas that say "Well, as George Bush, I don't have to obey this law I'm signing - are supposed to be used to clarify, not change laws and how laws are executed. Congress makes laws; the executive must enforce them. Cohn asks what Congress could do to challenge Bush. Horton says there aren't many tools available - besides impeachment.
We hear a laundry list of Bush statements. Wow. Bush has pretty much exempted himself from having to tell anyone anything. Horton adds that Bush exempted himself from having to ask permission to use torture techniques like waterboarding on Gitmo detainees. Signing statements give Bush the power to override U.S. law and just torture mothertruckers.
We hear CIA torture-master John Kiriakou in his own words: The CIA didn't torture anyone "willy-nilly;" the orders came from Bush. Period.
Horton points out that even kings have been tried successfully for allowing torture. And we don't like no stinkin kings, right?
2:00 p.m. Participants include Harper's contributor and human rights attorney Scott Horton, former Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman, author David Lindorff, National Lawyers Guild President Marjorie Cohn, and Denis Moynihan of DemocracyNow!.
Performers include Josh Hamilton, Tracie Thoms, Ned Eisenberg, Grace Zandarski, and Tom Bower. (One of these performers is wearing a Revolutionary War-style tricorner hat. I'll have to investigate this.)
7:30 p.m. Closing celebration includes performance and commentary from John Nichols, Jackson Browne, Naomi Wolf, Duncan Sheik, Steven Sater, Holly Hunter, Amy Goodman of DemocracyNow!, Peter Matthiessen, Kathleen Chalfant, Aasif Mandvi, and others.
***
Right now, Marjorie Cohn (author of Cowboy Republic) and Elizabeth Holtzman (MVP from Article IV) are recapping why Nixon was impeached and what signing statements are. In Holtzman's view, Bush's signing statements are unprecedented, and his not following the law is an impeachable offense. She gets big claps (one standing).
***
Scott Horton takes the stand. Horton explains what certain of Bush's signing statements mean ("flagrant affronts to the Constitution"). The problem is, the statements - little codas that say "Well, as George Bush, I don't have to obey this law I'm signing - are supposed to be used to clarify, not change laws and how laws are executed. Congress makes laws; the executive must enforce them. Cohn asks what Congress could do to challenge Bush. Horton says there aren't many tools available - besides impeachment.
We hear a laundry list of Bush statements. Wow. Bush has pretty much exempted himself from having to tell anyone anything. Horton adds that Bush exempted himself from having to ask permission to use torture techniques like waterboarding on Gitmo detainees. Signing statements give Bush the power to override U.S. law and just torture mothertruckers.
We hear CIA torture-master John Kiriakou in his own words: The CIA didn't torture anyone "willy-nilly;" the orders came from Bush. Period.
Horton points out that even kings have been tried successfully for allowing torture. And we don't like no stinkin kings, right?
Monday, December 10, 2007
Surveillance Panel
Okay, Denis Moynihan of Democracy Now(!) is filling in for Amy Goodman as moderator; that's fine, we'll roll with it.
Holtzman fields a question about the nature/balance/ease of impeachment. Nixon's was bipartisan, Clinton's partisan.
Kadidal fields a question... (I miss most of it, reading about Moynihan and Goodman and Hustler magazine. Interesting but sort of psycho. Seems like Moynihan and Goodman are against exploitation, so, go them.)
Now we go to Valeriani, who says Nixon, if alive, would ask, regarding Bush's surveillance and its extraordinary success, "Why the hell didn't I do it?"
(Some thoughts on this very humorous older fellow - Valeriani in a Huffington Post blog post: "Bin Laden tape rants against capitalism. Yo, Osama, where did you get your millions? Tape also urges Americans to convert to Islam. No thanks, we prefer the 21st Century."
Huq quite ably defends Muslim-Americans in another H.F. post.
But don't worry, V. skewers everybody: "Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego announces $198 million settlement with plaintiffs who claimed they were sexually abused by priests. Big Bucks for Buggery.")
Valeriani is a journalist. He contacted Russians and worked in Cuba, back in the Cold War days, and had his phones tapped. The FBI called him routinely to ask him to help get Russians to give away sensitive information. When he didn't respond to FBI phone messages for two days, they showed up in front of buildings where he was headed. He had his records with the FBI checked - he was listed as "turned," a friendly informant. Lol.
Holtzman gets a round of vigorous applause for defending the impeachment of Bush and Cheney, no matter how hard such a process would be. (She's responding to V. and his assertion that - because, in the event of a successful B&C impeachment, Nancy Pelosi would become president - some might see an impeachment as an attempt at a "Democrat coup," which does sound silly, typing it.
She points out that a successful impeachment must be bipartisan; if Republicans don't want to impeach Bush, Democrats won't be able to do it alone.
Huq very smartly brings the whole question around to what will happen with the next president, regardless of her party? Will the next president not only abandon but help dismantle and prevent from being reinstated the illegal, warrantless surveillance programs? The extraordinary renditions to secret jails in Syria and Egypt? He defines the "Cheney version of the Constitution," which is that whenever the executive feels it needs to extend its powers in the name of national security, it simply can, no questions.
Don't think, Huq counsels, that a Pres. Obama or a Pres. Hillary won't use the Republican programs of domestic terror that Culture Project, Democracy Now(!), the CCR, the ACLU, and so many others are fighting against.
Valeriani speaks on "scar tissue," how we're no longer shocked by Bush's evils.
Audience Q1: Pressures on the election...
Holtzman says we need the president to be brought to justice, to show that Congress can do its thing(s) - pass laws and remove tyrants from office.
Audience Q2: If Pelosi hadn't taken impeachment off the table...
Kadidal, Holtzman, and Valeriani note that the American people and Dennis Kucinich want to impeach Bush; keep the pressure on, Pelosi will have to. It wasn't a problem (for the Speaker of the House - third in line for pres. after pres. and VP - to bring the pres. to justice) during Watergate.
Audience Q3: Cheney = brains of operation...
Valeriani: He lied about WMDs.
Huq: There's a great deal of public evidence about Cheney's aide's roles in setting aside FISA, torture laws, and the Geneva Conventions. You'd subpoena [Cheney's aides].
Audience Q4: How would ordinary people get Congress to listen, seriously...?
Holtzman: When was the last time you contacted your Congressperson? Get a meeting. Email. Get your block to sign a petition.
Moynihan has a show of hands for who gets the "Saturday Night Massacre" reference. (The audience, educated and in many cases old enough, gets it.)
Holtzman: The tapes were critical. Elliot Richardson appointed a special prosecutor, Archibald Cox, who looked for the tapes. The tapes got Nixon impeached. (People got fired, hence the massacre.) "We would have seen a similar event" - Ashcroft would have resigned. It's not clear what they changed to make their program compliant with FISA.
Audience Q5: 200,000 phone calls, that night, Saturday Night Massacre, to the Congress. We had 200,000 phone calls. You heard from us.
Audience Q6: Should we impeach Cheney first, because people seem to favor that, in polls? Then impeach Bush?
Holtzman (again): It will take a while to do two. It took a while for us to do one. We had to hire lawyers. The Democrats hired a Republican lawyer, and the Republicans hired a Republican lawyer. It hadn't been done in a hundred years - these things had to be studied. It took about nine months. So there's really enough time, to do it still. But there's not enough time to do Cheney and Bush. We have Bush's fingerprints on it. My whole view is to start the proceedings against Bush; we will accumulate evidence against Cheney.
One of the articles against Nixon was that he stonewalled us for information, and that was voted on by a bipartisan base. So there's a precedent. There's a lot of sentiment around the country for impeachment.
(Have any Congresspeople - Dems or Reps, candidates or not - seen our videos, site, blog? Do they know about this event? Shouldn't we, CP, tell them? Shouldn't we all?)
Huq: The Congress can hold court on its own. (Holtzman: We have our own jail!) The Congress can specifically subpoena the president and hold him in contempt if he doesn't show.
Qs-Final, there's a short storm of them.
Kadidal notes that other forms of government have Justice Departments that can go after corrupt executives. We do not have this. Certainly not in Mukasey...
Holtzman: What happened not only to Congress, but to the ACLU? I still believe it can be done, has to be done. With all the defects in the impeachment process, this is what the framers had exactly in mind. They were freaked about the misuse of power. They knew there was gonna be a Richard Nixon, a George Bush. There's too much misunderstanding about it. Even Obama said it's not democratic - it's in our Constitution, it's exactly democratic. What's the shape of our country going to be? No one else can make that decision for us?
***
This has been live blogging on surveillance; I'm back for one more live-blog-impeachy event on Sunday... (And, yes, for those who have read some of my earlier posts, I still like Obama but disagree with Obama on impeachment and wish Kucinich was as popular.)
Holtzman fields a question about the nature/balance/ease of impeachment. Nixon's was bipartisan, Clinton's partisan.
Kadidal fields a question... (I miss most of it, reading about Moynihan and Goodman and Hustler magazine. Interesting but sort of psycho. Seems like Moynihan and Goodman are against exploitation, so, go them.)
Now we go to Valeriani, who says Nixon, if alive, would ask, regarding Bush's surveillance and its extraordinary success, "Why the hell didn't I do it?"
(Some thoughts on this very humorous older fellow - Valeriani in a Huffington Post blog post: "Bin Laden tape rants against capitalism. Yo, Osama, where did you get your millions? Tape also urges Americans to convert to Islam. No thanks, we prefer the 21st Century."
Huq quite ably defends Muslim-Americans in another H.F. post.
But don't worry, V. skewers everybody: "Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego announces $198 million settlement with plaintiffs who claimed they were sexually abused by priests. Big Bucks for Buggery.")
Valeriani is a journalist. He contacted Russians and worked in Cuba, back in the Cold War days, and had his phones tapped. The FBI called him routinely to ask him to help get Russians to give away sensitive information. When he didn't respond to FBI phone messages for two days, they showed up in front of buildings where he was headed. He had his records with the FBI checked - he was listed as "turned," a friendly informant. Lol.
Holtzman gets a round of vigorous applause for defending the impeachment of Bush and Cheney, no matter how hard such a process would be. (She's responding to V. and his assertion that - because, in the event of a successful B&C impeachment, Nancy Pelosi would become president - some might see an impeachment as an attempt at a "Democrat coup," which does sound silly, typing it.
She points out that a successful impeachment must be bipartisan; if Republicans don't want to impeach Bush, Democrats won't be able to do it alone.
Huq very smartly brings the whole question around to what will happen with the next president, regardless of her party? Will the next president not only abandon but help dismantle and prevent from being reinstated the illegal, warrantless surveillance programs? The extraordinary renditions to secret jails in Syria and Egypt? He defines the "Cheney version of the Constitution," which is that whenever the executive feels it needs to extend its powers in the name of national security, it simply can, no questions.
Don't think, Huq counsels, that a Pres. Obama or a Pres. Hillary won't use the Republican programs of domestic terror that Culture Project, Democracy Now(!), the CCR, the ACLU, and so many others are fighting against.
Valeriani speaks on "scar tissue," how we're no longer shocked by Bush's evils.
Audience Q1: Pressures on the election...
Holtzman says we need the president to be brought to justice, to show that Congress can do its thing(s) - pass laws and remove tyrants from office.
Audience Q2: If Pelosi hadn't taken impeachment off the table...
Kadidal, Holtzman, and Valeriani note that the American people and Dennis Kucinich want to impeach Bush; keep the pressure on, Pelosi will have to. It wasn't a problem (for the Speaker of the House - third in line for pres. after pres. and VP - to bring the pres. to justice) during Watergate.
Audience Q3: Cheney = brains of operation...
Valeriani: He lied about WMDs.
Huq: There's a great deal of public evidence about Cheney's aide's roles in setting aside FISA, torture laws, and the Geneva Conventions. You'd subpoena [Cheney's aides].
Audience Q4: How would ordinary people get Congress to listen, seriously...?
Holtzman: When was the last time you contacted your Congressperson? Get a meeting. Email. Get your block to sign a petition.
Moynihan has a show of hands for who gets the "Saturday Night Massacre" reference. (The audience, educated and in many cases old enough, gets it.)
Holtzman: The tapes were critical. Elliot Richardson appointed a special prosecutor, Archibald Cox, who looked for the tapes. The tapes got Nixon impeached. (People got fired, hence the massacre.) "We would have seen a similar event" - Ashcroft would have resigned. It's not clear what they changed to make their program compliant with FISA.
Audience Q5: 200,000 phone calls, that night, Saturday Night Massacre, to the Congress. We had 200,000 phone calls. You heard from us.
Audience Q6: Should we impeach Cheney first, because people seem to favor that, in polls? Then impeach Bush?
Holtzman (again): It will take a while to do two. It took a while for us to do one. We had to hire lawyers. The Democrats hired a Republican lawyer, and the Republicans hired a Republican lawyer. It hadn't been done in a hundred years - these things had to be studied. It took about nine months. So there's really enough time, to do it still. But there's not enough time to do Cheney and Bush. We have Bush's fingerprints on it. My whole view is to start the proceedings against Bush; we will accumulate evidence against Cheney.
One of the articles against Nixon was that he stonewalled us for information, and that was voted on by a bipartisan base. So there's a precedent. There's a lot of sentiment around the country for impeachment.
(Have any Congresspeople - Dems or Reps, candidates or not - seen our videos, site, blog? Do they know about this event? Shouldn't we, CP, tell them? Shouldn't we all?)
Huq: The Congress can hold court on its own. (Holtzman: We have our own jail!) The Congress can specifically subpoena the president and hold him in contempt if he doesn't show.
Qs-Final, there's a short storm of them.
Kadidal notes that other forms of government have Justice Departments that can go after corrupt executives. We do not have this. Certainly not in Mukasey...
Holtzman: What happened not only to Congress, but to the ACLU? I still believe it can be done, has to be done. With all the defects in the impeachment process, this is what the framers had exactly in mind. They were freaked about the misuse of power. They knew there was gonna be a Richard Nixon, a George Bush. There's too much misunderstanding about it. Even Obama said it's not democratic - it's in our Constitution, it's exactly democratic. What's the shape of our country going to be? No one else can make that decision for us?
***
This has been live blogging on surveillance; I'm back for one more live-blog-impeachy event on Sunday... (And, yes, for those who have read some of my earlier posts, I still like Obama but disagree with Obama on impeachment and wish Kucinich was as popular.)
Joshua Dratel and NSA Kids
After a brief reading of interview material shedding light on the weird episode of John Ashcroft and his revelation that Bush's domestic surveillance program was and is illegal, Mr. Dratel takes the stage.
Attorney-client privilege discussed at length.
So, one big problem with intercepting everybody's conversations, is that you intercept privileged conversations between attorneys and their clients, which is super-duper wrong (that's a legal term).
Dratel says that no Bush people complained about FISA, though they don't follow it. It's very easy to get FISA warrants, it sounds like.
Dratel testifies that Bush should indeed be impeached for wiretapping. Massive applause.
***
Now, before the panel, we go back to the court to hear about whether or not the illegal warrantless Bush NSA program is effective. Bush says it's saved "thousands of lives," but agents report that the vast majority most of their illegally garnered tips led to "dead ends or innocent Americans" (which are dead ends).
The IBM guy who invented modern ultra-precise data-mining says that the processes still aren't precise enough, and they couldn't possibly predicted terrorists (who, I'm guessing, are probably smart enough not to say, over a tapped phone, "Hey, let's BLOW STUFF UP" - meaning agents have to rely on bits and pieces that, according to some, usually lead "to Pizza Hut.").
***
CHECK OUT THIS NSA "KID'S PAGE." Wow. I mean, wow. As our tech points out, it's like Joe Camel. Neo-con militarism - now in eight MAD COOL fun cartoon morphing anime animal flavorz!
Maybe Amy Goodman, Mos Def, and I can bust out the ProgressivPoppers, a team of super-heroic delicious cheese-animated jalapeno- and nacho-based foods engineered by Dutch and South Korean scientists to help teach kids around the world about humanism, respect for life, science, democracy, the value of the arts, classlessness, etc.
Maybe not...
KIDZ, here's one "kewl" NSA-Lite character from whom you can learn how to install micro-cameras in your friends' Yu-Gi-Oh! lunchboxes:
Attorney-client privilege discussed at length.
So, one big problem with intercepting everybody's conversations, is that you intercept privileged conversations between attorneys and their clients, which is super-duper wrong (that's a legal term).
Dratel says that no Bush people complained about FISA, though they don't follow it. It's very easy to get FISA warrants, it sounds like.
Dratel testifies that Bush should indeed be impeached for wiretapping. Massive applause.
***
Now, before the panel, we go back to the court to hear about whether or not the illegal warrantless Bush NSA program is effective. Bush says it's saved "thousands of lives," but agents report that the vast majority most of their illegally garnered tips led to "dead ends or innocent Americans" (which are dead ends).
The IBM guy who invented modern ultra-precise data-mining says that the processes still aren't precise enough, and they couldn't possibly predicted terrorists (who, I'm guessing, are probably smart enough not to say, over a tapped phone, "Hey, let's BLOW STUFF UP" - meaning agents have to rely on bits and pieces that, according to some, usually lead "to Pizza Hut.").
***
CHECK OUT THIS NSA "KID'S PAGE." Wow. I mean, wow. As our tech points out, it's like Joe Camel. Neo-con militarism - now in eight MAD COOL fun cartoon morphing anime animal flavorz!
Maybe Amy Goodman, Mos Def, and I can bust out the ProgressivPoppers, a team of super-heroic delicious cheese-animated jalapeno- and nacho-based foods engineered by Dutch and South Korean scientists to help teach kids around the world about humanism, respect for life, science, democracy, the value of the arts, classlessness, etc.
Maybe not...
KIDZ, here's one "kewl" NSA-Lite character from whom you can learn how to install micro-cameras in your friends' Yu-Gi-Oh! lunchboxes:
Aziz Huq
...takes the stage. Discusses FISA, the big act that Holtzman, Kadidal, and the dapper Mr. Huq are speaking again and again about. Basically, FISA lets the executive ask a judge for permission to use electronic surveillance on a foreign power. President Carter signed it into law. It for the first time required a warrant for this surveillance. Huq points out the requirements are easy to meet, to get permission under FISA to use electronic surveillance.
Huq notes that FISA is a law; not even the president can get out of it. This sounds obvious, but it's worth thinking about: Most defenses of Bush, by Bush, by those of his supporters whom I've met, revolve around his just plain being the president.
Huq notes exceptions to FISA: If Congress declares war, the president gets fifteen days free of FISA; then he has to come back and ask for judicial permission for an extension. He can also, in an emergency (a "real" emergency, not just "the War on Terror," fought ad nauseam), the president can go ahead and spy, then come back and talk to the judiciary about it.
Discussion of the NSA - the president ordered the NSA to start surveillance without warrants. Pretty clear here. That's a big no-no, laws-wise. Bien fait!, if only we could get this dude into courts... I mean, into courts he hasn't already packed with his judges... So, I guess, into courts in another country. Darn.
Huq calls Alberto Gonzales an obfuscator (we concur, insofar as our non-attorney minds can understand the former Attorney General's mis-speeches).
Gray area of data-mining: Is it legal to use phone-company data to find "suspicious patterns of activity," paths, webs of calls linking terrorists, suspects, funders, etc.? Well, the next step after identifying paths is to trace those paths to individuals and spy on them. For which you need warrants.
Also, you can be "affiliated to Al-Qaeda" even if you're a cabbie and you pick up a suspect as a fare, or if you give money to any major Muslim charity. Then Bush can spy on you - you might be a suspect.
Also, also, the Pres. went against Congress and used the NSA to spy on U.S. citizens even after having been told not to. Huq says Bush has clearly committed high crimes. Nuff said (for our purposes).
Huq notes that FISA is a law; not even the president can get out of it. This sounds obvious, but it's worth thinking about: Most defenses of Bush, by Bush, by those of his supporters whom I've met, revolve around his just plain being the president.
Huq notes exceptions to FISA: If Congress declares war, the president gets fifteen days free of FISA; then he has to come back and ask for judicial permission for an extension. He can also, in an emergency (a "real" emergency, not just "the War on Terror," fought ad nauseam), the president can go ahead and spy, then come back and talk to the judiciary about it.
Discussion of the NSA - the president ordered the NSA to start surveillance without warrants. Pretty clear here. That's a big no-no, laws-wise. Bien fait!, if only we could get this dude into courts... I mean, into courts he hasn't already packed with his judges... So, I guess, into courts in another country. Darn.
Huq calls Alberto Gonzales an obfuscator (we concur, insofar as our non-attorney minds can understand the former Attorney General's mis-speeches).
Gray area of data-mining: Is it legal to use phone-company data to find "suspicious patterns of activity," paths, webs of calls linking terrorists, suspects, funders, etc.? Well, the next step after identifying paths is to trace those paths to individuals and spy on them. For which you need warrants.
Also, you can be "affiliated to Al-Qaeda" even if you're a cabbie and you pick up a suspect as a fare, or if you give money to any major Muslim charity. Then Bush can spy on you - you might be a suspect.
Also, also, the Pres. went against Congress and used the NSA to spy on U.S. citizens even after having been told not to. Huq says Bush has clearly committed high crimes. Nuff said (for our purposes).
Shayana Kadidal and Elizabeth Holtzman
...introduces the evening: We'll hear a history of surveillance law. He will act as prosecutor.
The court calls E. Holtzman (served in Congress 1972 - 1981) to the stand. She helped git Nixon ("git" in the "git-R-dun" sense as well as the typical one). She is now a private lawyer and writer. She also wrote The Impeachment of George W. Bush. (All of our friendly impeachment books have "impeachment" in their titles, no?)
The court (the performers) read the First and Fourth Amendments.
Kadidal and Holtzman discuss the legalities between wiretapping; the short version is, a court must, must approve wiretapping - all wiretapping. Not only the D.A.'s office, but an independent arbiter must approve wiretapping. "The mere fact of having a judicial review of wiretapping applications, is a restraint on wiretapping."
Kadidal asks why our Constitution's framers made a point to have the executive ask the judiciary for permission to search the citizens; Holtzman answers that the framers had experienced first-hand how illegal searches by the British had plagued the American people. Holtzman notes that no D.A. has complained about the theory behind the process by which wiretapping applications are approved (though they may gripe, one supposes, about individual processes).
The court quotes from the impeachment articles against Nixon, about wiretapping. You might mistake the words for ones about Bush, except that so far only a tiny minority of Democrats and we at Culture Project have taken the steps to try to impeach Bush.
The court notes that the government is now really good at "collecting information," meaning Google-good (in part, thanks to Google). What do "they" (who are they?) know about "us" (which grouping probably includes some of "they"/them)? They can know practically whatever they want. Doesn't mean the CIA will share the info with the FBI, or that the information will lead to any useful military info about, say, one homeless Arab guy on dialysis. But "they" can know a ton.
(Is/are Google/the government's linked servers artificially intelligent? That's my question. I mean, are we being used not only by a self-serving neo-con leadership, but also by an omni-computer addicted to knowin' stuff? It sounds silly to ask, I realize, but given the amount of sheer data in the world today, we're not necessarily far off from an era of a data-organism...)
We hear about the FBI taking on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., via surveillance. Holtzman points out that the FBI and the government in general worked very hard to collect info on, blackmail, discredit, and track the movements of various anti-Vietnam leaders.
The court calls E. Holtzman (served in Congress 1972 - 1981) to the stand. She helped git Nixon ("git" in the "git-R-dun" sense as well as the typical one). She is now a private lawyer and writer. She also wrote The Impeachment of George W. Bush. (All of our friendly impeachment books have "impeachment" in their titles, no?)
The court (the performers) read the First and Fourth Amendments.
Kadidal and Holtzman discuss the legalities between wiretapping; the short version is, a court must, must approve wiretapping - all wiretapping. Not only the D.A.'s office, but an independent arbiter must approve wiretapping. "The mere fact of having a judicial review of wiretapping applications, is a restraint on wiretapping."
Kadidal asks why our Constitution's framers made a point to have the executive ask the judiciary for permission to search the citizens; Holtzman answers that the framers had experienced first-hand how illegal searches by the British had plagued the American people. Holtzman notes that no D.A. has complained about the theory behind the process by which wiretapping applications are approved (though they may gripe, one supposes, about individual processes).
The court quotes from the impeachment articles against Nixon, about wiretapping. You might mistake the words for ones about Bush, except that so far only a tiny minority of Democrats and we at Culture Project have taken the steps to try to impeach Bush.
The court notes that the government is now really good at "collecting information," meaning Google-good (in part, thanks to Google). What do "they" (who are they?) know about "us" (which grouping probably includes some of "they"/them)? They can know practically whatever they want. Doesn't mean the CIA will share the info with the FBI, or that the information will lead to any useful military info about, say, one homeless Arab guy on dialysis. But "they" can know a ton.
(Is/are Google/the government's linked servers artificially intelligent? That's my question. I mean, are we being used not only by a self-serving neo-con leadership, but also by an omni-computer addicted to knowin' stuff? It sounds silly to ask, I realize, but given the amount of sheer data in the world today, we're not necessarily far off from an era of a data-organism...)
We hear about the FBI taking on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., via surveillance. Holtzman points out that the FBI and the government in general worked very hard to collect info on, blackmail, discredit, and track the movements of various anti-Vietnam leaders.
Article IV: Warrantless Surveillance
Monday, December 10, 7:00 p.m.
Participants include DemocracyNow! host Amy Goodman, 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.
(Kadidal, Huq, and Valeriani all appear on the Huffington Post, and you might have seen Huq speak with Lawrence Wright after our Town Hall performance of My Trip to Al-Qaeda.)
Performers include Michael Mastro, Nana Mensah, Gerry Bamman, Chris McKinney, and Sarah-Doe Osborne.
***
[Wythe's computer finally decides to connect to the internet - even for a "professional" internet-user, the connection process is still mysterious in the way that, oh, say, gravity is mysterious.]
We move briskly through the opening incantatory readings. The history of impeachment - check. Poetry - check. Barbara Jordan, Teddy Roosevelt, and others defending the use of impeachment against tyrants - check.
Now some new stuff on secret police. Quotes from Bush about saying he'll allow wiretapping for as long as he feels it necessary. Back to Nixon saying dumb shit about executive privilege: "There have been and there will be in the future..." times when the president can do whatever (literally whatever) he wants. Laughter. A great reading.
Participants include DemocracyNow! host Amy Goodman, 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.
(Kadidal, Huq, and Valeriani all appear on the Huffington Post, and you might have seen Huq speak with Lawrence Wright after our Town Hall performance of My Trip to Al-Qaeda.)
Performers include Michael Mastro, Nana Mensah, Gerry Bamman, Chris McKinney, and Sarah-Doe Osborne.
***
[Wythe's computer finally decides to connect to the internet - even for a "professional" internet-user, the connection process is still mysterious in the way that, oh, say, gravity is mysterious.]
We move briskly through the opening incantatory readings. The history of impeachment - check. Poetry - check. Barbara Jordan, Teddy Roosevelt, and others defending the use of impeachment against tyrants - check.
Now some new stuff on secret police. Quotes from Bush about saying he'll allow wiretapping for as long as he feels it necessary. Back to Nixon saying dumb shit about executive privilege: "There have been and there will be in the future..." times when the president can do whatever (literally whatever) he wants. Laughter. A great reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
