Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Change for the better may be coming on Durham Library room fees

There are signs that the recently imposed Durham County Library meeting room fees will soon be modified or reduced.  
 
The County Commissioners asked the Library administration to develop a plan for fees in May.  Apparently this was initially done to make up for reduced income from overdue book fines, which have also been changed, without any increase in County budgeting.  The actual policy was approved by the Commissioners at the September 10th meeting, apparently unanimously.  The fees were going to be $50 dollars for non-profit use for up to 4 hours and $100 dollars for more than 4 hours, and double these fees for for-profit use.  For-profit use has actually been allowed all along, but it had to be open to the public and I think non-commercial.  Some small rooms would stay free, and now there is free space at all of the libraries save Southwest.  The new fees do not seem to be popular in the system and, after public complaints, the fees for non-profits were halved.  Initially the Library expected to make $30,000 dollars a year from the fees, but now they expect half that, and I think the figure for lost overdue books income was around $240,000 dollars (last year's figure), so the administration is not very concerned about getting extra funds from the fees.  The rationale for the fees is now room maintenance.  I still think the rooms are pretty clean, but there have been some cleaning issues and recent (and short-lived) floor replacements.  The administration doesn't actually know the statistics for room usage, but is in the process of finding out for some short period.        
 
The Durham People's Alliance (www.durhampa.org) has been lobbying against the fees and sent letters to the County Commissioners and Library Board of Trustees a few weeks ago, requesting a public forum on the fees.  As a result there was a meeting between PA representatives and "Skip" Auld and Ken Berger Monday afternoon, and the PA is planning to speak at the Board of Trustees meeting on the 11th.  Anyone can request to speak at a Board meeting, but the agenda is not posted online.  The Board has been asked to make new recommendations to the Commissioners, and the administration seems to want to reduce or eliminate the fees.  The sliding scale, based on an organization's budget, which the Library came up with earlier, is considered too much of a hassle to administer.  The old refreshments fee might be restored, instead of the fees.  It would help if organizations could solicit donations at the meetings, to pay the room fee, which is not currently allowed.  The administration seems to be sympathetic, believing that the libraries should be centers in the community and means to increase the availability of information.
 
Some other issues came up, like future plans and how decisions are made about removing worn or little used books.  Apparently the various libraries are behind in going through their collections, and there is more change in the collections than I thought, but that is because these are not academic research libraries.                  

Thursday, November 22, 2007

Two NC impeachment updates

Bruce Fein vs. Michael Tomasky: A Debate On the Question of Impeachment

When: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 7pm

Where: Chapel Hill Town Hall

Who: Bruce Fein versus Michael Tomasky; moderated by Hodding Carter III

Sponsored by the Coalition for the Constitution and the Grassroots Impeachment Movement. Co-Sponsorships available

++++++

We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.

—Edward R. Murrow
 
 
Rep. Price's reply on impeachment
 
Below is the reply I received to an email I sent in support of HR 799.  I don't have a copy of my message to post, but it was a short email stating some of the crimes I think Cheney and Bush are guilty of committing and my worry that they have set in motion the end of what real democracy we have left, asking what else can be done short of impeachment, and saying that how Price voted on the bill will be at the front of my mind when he is next up for re-election. 
 
Price seems to acknowledge that Cheney most likely has committed impeachable offenses, but he says impeachment would be a diversion and would fail.  I can't believe that everything that has turned up since Bush and Cheney gained power is not "an accumulation of evidence of impeachable offenses."  Impeachment proceedings should be supported, even if there aren't enough votes, in my opinion.  And since the offenses relate to Iraq, national defense, energy policy, etc., I would think impeachment proceedings would support the Democrats' push for reforms, by showing what our current situation really is. Possibly it would severely divide those who don't support Bush and Cheney, but if crimes were committed, and nothing else will resolve them, and prevent the next president from continuing them, what choice is there?  I think the idea that impeachment proceedings are intractably slow is a lie, and impeachment is necessary to reveal the Administration's crimes and prevent following administrations from repeating them, so impeachment is very necessary, despite the increasingly late hour.  If the Democratic Party as a whole won't do its duty as the opposition, what should be done to pressure them or create an alternative that will act?     
 
November 20, 2007 
 
Dear Mr. [ ]:
 
Thank you for contacting me in support of impeaching Vice President Cheney.
 
On November 6, 2007, Rep. Dennis Kucinich offered a privileged resolution on the House floor to impeach Vice President Cheney, H. Res. 799. I voted against a motion to table the resolution, which would have prevented any further activity related to it. After the tabling motion failed by a vote of 162-251, the House approved a motion to refer the resolution to the Judiciary Committee for further consideration, which I supported.
 
No one is more frustrated with Bush Administration abuses of power than I, and Vice President Cheney has played a significant role in nearly all of them. I continue to adamantly work to shine a bright light on such abuses, and I believe the Democratic Congress has begun to turn the tide on several issues. For instance, the resignation of former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez was a direct result of congressional investigations into the politically-motivated firings of U.S. Attorneys.
 
While I understand the reasoning of impeachment advocates, I do not view impeachment as the right course to pursue at present. The machinations of the impeachment process take a significant amount of time, and it is uncertain if they could even be completed before a new administration is inaugurated in January 2009. In addition, impeachment proceedings should only be initiated after the accumulation of significant evidence of impeachable offenses. While I believe the Vice President likely engaged in behavior that could be considered impeachable, such evidence will only be brought to light through the investigations and oversight activities in which House and Senate committees are currently engaged.
 
Even if articles of impeachment were passed by the House - a questionable assumption - there is currently no chance that the Senate could reach the two-thirds threshold needed to convict and remove. The tradeoffs are therefore enormous. This all-consuming process would prevent nearly all other legislative initiatives from proceeding. It would consume media attention, which we are already struggling to get for our battles on Iraq, children's health coverage, and a progressive energy policy. And it would also have serious political and social consequences, needlessly creating greater national division just as large majorities of the population are forming in support of a new direction abroad and at home.
 
I will continue to fight against the abuses of the Bush Administration, and to closely monitor the progress of congressional investigations regarding the actions of Administration officials, keeping your concerns in mind. Again, thank you for contacting me, and please continue to keep in touch.


Sincerely,
DAVID PRICE
Member of Congress
PS: Please sign up for periodic updates on issues, events and town hall meetings at http://price.house.gov/contact/email_updates.shtml .
*** MY OFFICE IS USING AN ELECTRONIC MAIL RESPONSE SYSTEM THAT WILL FACILITATE EMAIL COMMUNICATION WITH CONSTITUENTS. PLEASE NOTE, HOWEVER, THAT I CANNOT GUARANTEE THE INTEGRITY OF THE TEXT OF THIS MESSAGE UNLESS IT HAS BEEN SENT TO YOU DIRECTLY FROM MY CONGRESSIONAL EMAIL ACCOUNT: nc04ima at MAIL dot HOUSE dot GOV ***
***PLEASE NOTE - THIS IS A SEND ONLY ACCOUNT. DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE. IF YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, PLEASE VISIT MY WEB SITE AT http://price.house.gov/contact/contact_form.shtml ***

Thursday, November 15, 2007

Update on HR 799 - call Watt!

I called Mel Watts' Washington office today. The two staffers I spoke to seemed to listen well, but staffers are like that.  I was told that the bill will probably be voted on after Thanksgiving.  Let's inundate the House Judiciary Committee with comments!  I'll have to think about whether to recommend that we should thank Price for his votes.  He opposed immediately tabling the bill in the House, but is sending it to the Judiciary Committee anything other than a way to bury it without holding the shovel?

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

There's still time for the impeachment bill

Judging by past experience, the impeachment bill is dead, but there is still hope, and there is a local Democrat (Watt) who can be pressured to support it.  This message is from the NC Progressive Democrats of America 
 
Impeachment back on the table:  The House Judiciary Committee now has the bill introduced by Rep. Kucinich.  Impeachment activists are asked to call all members of this committee and ask them to sign on to impeachment and investigate the crimes of Dick Cheney.  The bill has been re-introduced as H.R. 799.  One member of the Judiciary Committee is Representative Mel Watt from NC Congressional District 12. He is a Democrat.   His number is 202-225-1510 – please call and ask him to sign on and investigate HR 799.

Congressional Democrats again bury impeachment legislation

Last Tuesday, the Democrats in Congress (and of course the Republicans) again attempted to bury impeachment legislation.  Are we ready to say yet that most of them are as guilty as Bush, since they have not stopped the War, and Bush-Cheney's other criminal policies, but also do not support impeachment?  I might consider something short of impeachment, but they have done little and I don't hear them loudly denoucing Bush-Cheney's crimes, and the media won't clearly say they are criminal.  The original bill was H.R. 333, but the vote was on bill House Resolution 799. 
 
The summary of actions, from thomas.loc.gov:
 
ALL ACTIONS:
11/6/2007 2:35pm:
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H12783-12786, H12786-12788 ; text of measure as introduced: CR H12783-12785)
11/6/2007 2:54pm:
Mr. Hoyer moved to table the measure.
11/6/2007 4:02pm:
On motion to table the measure Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 162 - 251 (Roll no. 1037). (consideration: CR H12785-12786)
11/6/2007 4:02pm:
Mr. Hoyer moved to refer to Judiciary.
11/6/2007 4:22pm:
The previous question on the motion was agreed to by recorded vote: 218 - 194 (Roll No. 1038). (consideration: CR H12787)
11/6/2007 4:31pm:
On motion to refer Agreed to by recorded vote: 218 - 194 (Roll no. 1039).
11/6/2007:
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

TITLE(S):  (italics indicate a title for a portion of a bill)

    ***NONE***


COSPONSOR(S):

***NONE***


COMMITTEE(S):

 
To understand this, see this USA Today article, reprinted on www.commondreams.org.  I am amazed that Price and other NC Democrats were against Hoyer's motion to prevent a vote on the bill, if I am understanding the procedures and votes correctly.  Yet then Price voted to bury it in the Judiciary Committee, where chair Rep. Conyers has stopped advocating impeachment, now that the Democrats have Congress.  As it says below, the bill is not dead, but I assume it is unlikely to come out again, barring something drastic like the occupation of the Capitol steps until they do.   
 

House Tied In Knots Over Resolution To Impeach Cheney

Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, is trying to impeach Vice President Cheney for what he describes as "high crimes and misdemeanors" before the invasion of Iraq. 1106 10 1

Right after the proposal was read on the House floor this afternoon, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer stepped forwarded and tried to convince lawmakers to table the bill.

"Impeachment is not on our agenda. We have some major priorities. We need to focus on those," Hoyer told Fox News.

Update at 3:39 p.m. ET: We thought that the vote to table was over — the clock said 0:00 — but lawmakers are still switching things around and Kucinich is within a few votes of getting his bill to come up for a vote.

Update at 3:43 p.m. ET: At least 149 Republicans have voted in favor of considering the impeachment resolution. Hoyer's motion, which would have blocked a vote, looks like its going to fail by at least 31 votes.

Update at 3:53 p.m. ET: The 15-minute vote began at 2:53 p.m. ET. It's been an hour, and they're still voting. The tally stands at 170-242 right now. Hoyer needed 218 votes to push the bill off the agenda. He's 72 votes short.

Update at 4:02 p.m. ET: Hoyer's motion failed 251-162. (Roll Call) The House is now voting on whether to vote on whether the resolution should be sent to the Judiciary Committee.

Update at 4:25 p.m. ET: The vote to decide to vote (yes, you read that correctly) just ended. By a 218-194 margin, the House has to vote on whether to send the resolution to the Judiciary Committee. That's happening right now.

Update at 4:30 p.m. ET: Perhaps we should pause to explain. When most Republicans unexpectedly — and on orders of GOP leadership, the AP is reporting — switched sides and voted against tabling the measure, they essentially forced Democrats to keep talking about it on the floor. Tabling the measure would have killed it.

Debate over Cheney's impeachment is in direct opposition to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's wishes. She has repeatedly said an impeachment of Cheney or President Bush is off the table. Thus, failing to table this measure is a essentially a jab in Pelosi's ribs.

"We're going to help them out, to explain themselves," Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, told the AP of the impeachment's supporters. "We're going to give them their day in court."

Update at 4:32 p.m. ET: The House just voted, 218-194, to send the resolution to the Judiciary Committee. That should end today's debate — but it does keep the resolution at least technically alive.

© 2007 USA Today

 
The text of the bill, laying out the charges against Cheney:
 
Resolved, That Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to... (Introduced in House)

HRES 799 IH

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. RES. 799

Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

November 6, 2007

Mr. KUCINICH submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


RESOLUTION

Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors.

    Resolved, That Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:

    Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Article I

    In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests, to wit:

      (1) Despite all evidence to the contrary, the Vice President actively and systematically sought to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction:

        (A) `We know they have biological and chemical weapons.' March 17, 2002, Press Conference by Vice President Dick Cheney and His Highness Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa, Crown Prince of Bahrain at Shaikh Hamad Palace.

        (B) `. . . and we know they are pursuing nuclear weapons.' March 19, 2002, Press Briefing by Vice President Dick Cheney and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in Jerusalem.

        (C) `And he is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time . . .' March 24, 2002, CNN Late Edition interview with Vice President Cheney.

        (D) `We know he's got chemicals and biological and we know he's working on nuclear.' May 19, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.

        (E) `But we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons . . . Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.' August 26, 2002, Speech of Vice President Cheney at VFW 103rd National Convention.

        (F) `Based on intelligence that's becoming available, some of it has been made public, more of it hopefully will be, that he has indeed stepped up his capacity to produce and deliver biological weapons, that he has reconstituted his nuclear program to develop a nuclear weapon, that there are efforts under way inside Iraq to significantly expand his capability.' September 8, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.

        (G) `He is, in fact, actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.' September 8, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.

        (H) `And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.' March 16, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.

      (2) Preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq the Vice President was fully informed that no legitimate evidence existed of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The Vice President pressured the intelligence community to change their findings to enable the deception of the citizens and Congress of the United States.

        (A) Vice President Cheney and his Chief of Staff, Lewis Libby, made multiple trips to the CIA in 2002 to question analysts studying Iraq's weapons programs and alleged links to al Qaeda, creating an environment in which analysts felt they were being pressured to make their assessments fit with the Bush administration's policy objectives accounts.

        (B) Vice President Cheney sought out unverified and ultimately inaccurate raw intelligence to prove his preconceived beliefs. This strategy of cherry picking was employed to influence the interpretation of the intelligence.

      (3) The Vice President's actions corrupted or attempted to corrupt the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, an intelligence document issued on October 1, 2002, and carefully considered by Congress prior to the October 10, 2002, vote to authorize the use of force. The Vice President's actions prevented the necessary reconciliation of facts for the National Intelligence Estimate which resulted in a high number of dissenting opinions from technical experts in two Federal agencies.

        (A) The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate stated `Lacking persuasive evidence that Baghdad has launched a coherent effort to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program INR is unwilling to speculate that such an effort began soon after the departure of UN inspectors or to project a timeline for the completion of activities it does not now see happening. As a result INR is unable to predict that Iraq could acquire a nuclear device or weapon.'.

        (B) The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate also stated that `Finally, the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious.'.

        (C) The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate references a Department of Energy opinion by stating that `INR accepts the judgment of technical experts at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) who have concluded that the tubes Iraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment and finds unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the case that they are intended for that purpose.'.

    The Vice President subverted the national security interests of the United States by setting the stage for the loss of more than 3,800 United States service members; the loss of more than 1 million innocent Iraqi citizens since the United States invasion; the loss of approximately $500 billion in war costs which has increased our Federal debt; the loss of military readiness within the United States Armed Services due to overextension, lack of training and lack of equipment; the loss of United States credibility in world affairs; and the decades of likely blowback created by the invasion of Iraq.

    In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

Article II

    In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda in order to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests, to wit:

      (1) Despite all evidence to the contrary, the Vice President actively and systematically sought to deceive the citizens and the Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda:

        (A) `His regime has had high-level contacts with Al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to Al Qaeda terrorists.' December 2, 2002, Speech of Vice President Cheney at the Air National Guard Senior Leadership Conference.

        (B) `His regime aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda. He could decide secretly to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against us.' January 30, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney to 30th Political Action Conference in Arlington, Virginia.

        (C) `We know he's out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the Al Qaeda organization.' March 16, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.

        (D) `We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on biological weapons and chemical weapons . . .' September 14, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.

        (E) `Al Qaeda had a base of operation there up in Northeastern Iraq where they ran a large poisons factory for attacks against Europeans and U.S. forces.' October 3, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney at Bush-Cheney '04 Fundraiser in Iowa.

        (F) `He also had an established relationship with Al Qaeda providing training to Al Qaeda members in areas of poisons, gases, and conventional bombs.' October 10, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney to the Heritage Foundation.

        (G) `Al Qaeda and the Iraqi intelligence services have worked together on a number of occasions.' January 9, 2004, Rocky Mountain News interview with Vice President Cheney.

        (H) `I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi Government.' January 22, 2004, NPR: Morning Edition interview with Vice President Cheney.

        (I) `First of all, on the question of--of whether or not there was any kind of relationship, there clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to; the evidence is overwhelming.' June 17, 2004, CNBC: Capital Report interview with Vice President Cheney.

      (2) Preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq the Vice President was fully informed that no credible evidence existed of a working relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, a fact articulated in several official documents, including:

        (A) A classified Presidential Daily Briefing ten days after the September 11, 2001, attacks indicating that the United States intelligence community had no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11th attacks and that there was `scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda'.

        (B) Defense Intelligence Terrorism Summary No. 044-02, issued in February 2002 by the United States Defense Intelligence Agency, which challenged the credibility of information gleaned from captured al Qaeda leader al-Libi. The DIA report also cast significant doubt on the possibility of a Saddam Hussein-al-Qaeda conspiracy: `Saddam's regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control.'.

        (C) A January 2003 British intelligence classified report on Iraq that concluded that `there are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaeda network'.

    The Vice President subverted the national security interests of the United States by setting the stage for the loss of more than 3,800 United States service members; the loss of more than 1 million innocent Iraqi citizens since the United States invasion; the loss of approximately $500 billion in war costs which has increased our Federal debt; the loss of military readiness within the United States Armed Services due to overextension, lack of training and lack of equipment; the loss of United States credibility in world affairs; and the decades of likely blowback created by the invasion of Iraq.

    In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

    Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

Article III

    In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran absent any real threat to the United States, and done so with the United States proven capability to carry out such threats, thus undermining the national security of the United States, to wit:

      (1) Despite no evidence that Iran has the intention or the capability of attacking the United States and despite the turmoil created by United States invasion of Iraq, the Vice President has openly threatened aggression against Iran as evidenced by the following:

        (A) `For our part, the United States is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime. And we join other nations in sending that regime a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.' March 7, 2006, Speech of Vice President Cheney to American Israel Public Affairs Committee 2006 Policy Conference.

        (B) `But we've also made it clear that all options are on the table.' January 24, 2007, CNN Situation Room interview with Vice President Cheney.

        (C) `When we--as the President did, for example, recently--deploy another aircraft carrier task force to the Gulf, that sends a very strong signal to everybody in the region that the United States is here to stay, that we clearly have significant capabilities, and that we are working with friends and allies as well as the international organizations to deal with the Iranian threat.' January 29, 2007, Newsweek interview with Vice President Cheney.

        (D) `But I've also made the point and the President has made the point that all options are still on the table.' February 24, 2007, Vice President Cheney at Press Briefing with Australian Prime Minister in Sydney, Australia.

      (2) The Vice President, who repeatedly and falsely claimed to have had specific, detailed knowledge of Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction capabilities, is no doubt fully aware of evidence that demonstrates Iran poses no real threat to the United States as evidenced by the following:

        (A) `I know that what we see in Iran right now is not the industrial capacity you can [use to develop a] bomb.' Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency, February 19, 2007.

        (B) Iran indicated its `full readiness and willingness to negotiate on the modality for the resolution of the outstanding issues with the IAEA, subject to the assurances for dealing with the issues in the framework of the Agency, without the interference of the United Nations Security Council'. IAEA Board Report, February 22, 2007.

        (C) `. . . so whatever they have, what we have seen today, is not the kind of capacity that would enable them to make bombs.' Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency, February 19, 2007.

      (3) The Vice President is fully aware of the actions taken by the United States towards Iran that are further destabilizing the world as evidenced by the following:

        (A) The United States has refused to engage in meaningful diplomatic relations with Iran since 2002, rebuffing both bilateral and multilateral offers to dialogue.

        (B) The United States is currently engaged in a military buildup in the Middle East that includes the increased presence of the United States Navy in the waters near Iran, significant United States Armed Forces in two nations neighboring to Iran, and the installation of anti-missile technology in the region.

        (C) News accounts have indicated that military planners have considered the B61-11, a tactical nuclear weapon, as one of the options to strike underground bunkers in Iran.

        (D) The United States has been linked to anti-Iranian organizations that are attempting to destabilize the Iranian Government, in particular the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), even though the State Department has branded it a terrorist organization.

        (E) News accounts indicate that United States troops have been ordered into Iran to collect data and establish contact with anti-government groups.

      (4) In the last three years the Vice President has repeatedly threatened Iran. However, the Vice President is legally bound by the U.S. Constitution's adherence to international law that prohibits threats of use of force.

        (A) Article VI of the United States Constitution states, `This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.' Any provision of an international treaty ratified by the United States becomes the law of the United States.

        (B) The United States is a signatory to the United Nations Charter, a treaty among the nations of the world. Article II, section 4 of the United Nations Charter states, `All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.' The threat of force is illegal.

        (C) Article 51 lays out the only exception, `Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.' Iran has not attacked the United States; therefore any threat against Iran by the United States is illegal.

    The Vice President's deception upon the citizens and Congress of the United States that enabled the failed United States invasion of Iraq forcibly altered the rules of diplomacy such that the Vice President's recent belligerent actions towards Iran are destabilizing and counterproductive to the national security of the United States.

    In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

    Wherefore Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.
      And this article from the Chicago Tribune provides some insight into why the Democratic leadership doesn't want to enforce US laws that Bush and Cheney are violating: 

        Cheney Impeachment Ready For A Vote: To Table It

        by Matthew Hay Brown

        It now looks as if Rep. Dennis Kucinich's effort to impeace Vice President Dick Cheney will finally come to a vote today - but not the vote for which supporters have been hoping.

        With Democrats averse to opening an intramural debate on an issue that divides their base, party leaders are expected to nip the measure in the bud this afternoon. Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told reporters this morning that he would move to table the measure when Kucinich introduces it.

        "[House Speaker Nancy Pelosi] and I have both said impeachment is not on our agenda," Hoyer told reporters. "That does not make a judgment on that issue."

        Hoyer's motion appears likely to pass - an outcome that would further alienate an antiwar left already frustrated with a lack of progress by congressional Democrats on changing U.S. policy on Iraq.

        "We are in a serious Constitutional crisis," Joseph A. Palermo, a professor of history at California State University, Sacramento, wrote this morning on the Huffington Post. "Democrats were elected to Congress to put the brakes on the Bush-Cheney juggernaut. … [Kucinich's bill] is a long overdue measure coming from a Democrat who has the guts to stand up for the United States Constitution."

        Kucinich, who is running for the Democratic presidential nomination, has gathered 21 co-sponsors for the articles of impeachment that he first introduced in April. Seeing war with Iran on the horizon, the Ohio congressman now plans to reintroduce the measure this afternoon as a privileged resolution.

        Kucinich alleges that Cheney misled Congress and the American public into the war in Iraq, and is trying now to mislead lawmakers and voters into a war with Iran.

        "The Vice President is cherry-picking intelligence and selectively using facts in a manner that does not portray the complete picture," Kucinich said today in a statement. "The best option to prevent an unnecessary war with Iran is to impeach the Vice President, the lead cheerleader of the war."

        Hoyer did not address the substance of the measure.

        "This administration has approximately 12 months, 14 months to go," the Maryland Democrat said. "We have very important issues that we are focusing on: Change of policy in Iraq. Children's health care. Energy independence. Educational access. Investing in health care. Securing our borders and our ports. We have some major priorities. We believe that we need to pursue those policies, focusing on those policies."

        House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, whose panel has jurisdiction over impeachment proceedings, has described the impeachment effort as a potential disruption.

        "If the speaker were to let this thing out of the box, considering the number of legislative issues we have pending," the Michigan Democrat told Fox News, "it could create a split that could affect our productivity for the rest of the Congress."

        © 2007 The Chicago Tribune

        Of course this is a judgement on the issue, or will be taken that way (which the Republicans want, but I am not bothered by, because the Democratic Party got itself into the mess of betraying its base), and, while the Democrats have made some progress since last year's election, I don't see very much progress on Iraq, etc., and so we need impeachment.  I await Price's explanation in response to an email I sent last week. 

      Monday, November 12, 2007

      Loose Change - the Final Cut screening Tuesday

      The third, final, and "substantially different" version of Loose
      Change, a documentary on why the official story of 9/11 is fatally
      flawed and what may have happened in reality, will be shown at Duke
      Tuesday evening, the date having been moved from tonight.

      When: Tuesday, November 13, 2007
      Time: 8:00pm - 11:00pm
      Location: Duke Coffee House & online at LooseChange911.com
      Street: Duke's East Campus, Crowell Building, behind Wilson and next to Epworth
      City/Town: Durham, NC

      Sunday, November 04, 2007

      Impeachment up for vote this week!

      Below is a summary of Ohio Congressman (and Democratic presidential candidate) Dennis Kucinich's bill in the House of Representatives to begin an impeachment trial of Cheney.  I have heard that Tuesday the House will either take the next step, or kill the bill, like the earlier proposals.  Contact your representative and show your support for this bill if you agree that Cheney (and Bush) are criminals and cannot be allowed to continue to subvert the rule of law and the Constitution, not to mention possibly start a war with Iran before they leave office, and leave US soldiers to die for imperialist geopolitics and corporate greed in Iraq and elsewhere.  The Progressive Democrats of America have a set of flyers about this bill, and there should be lots of updates at  www.afterdowningstreet.org.  
       
      For those in the 4th Congressional District of NC, you can contact Rep. David Price online at price.house.gov and by phone and mail at:
       

      Washington, D.C.
      U.S. House of Representatives
      2162 Rayburn Building
      Washington, DC 20515
      Phone: 202.225.1784
      Fax: 202.225.2014

      Chapel Hill
      88 Vilcom Center
      Suite 140
      Chapel Hill, NC 27514
      Phone: 919.967.7924
      Fax: 919.967.8324

       
      Durham
      411 W. Chapel Hill Street
      NC Mutual Building, 6th Floor
      Durham, NC 27701
      Phone: 919.688.3004
      Fax: 919.688.0940
       
      Raleigh
      5400 Trinity Road
      Suite 205
      Raleigh, NC 27607
      Phone: 919.859.5999
      Fax: 919.859.5998
       
      In the last primary, I voted for pro-impeachment candidate Kent Kanoy instead of Price.  At the moment I can't recall if I voted for someone other than Price in the election.  Price is probably the most liberal congressman in North Carolina, for example authoring a bill to bring contractors under control in Iraq, but then he does anti-progressive things like defend Israel's aggression against Lebanon and not even support censuring Bush for his crimes, if I recall his vote correctly.  I think I will say his vote on this bill is going to be very influential when I decide who to vote for the next time his seat is open.  A few years ago I told John Edwards that he was a warmonger I could not and did not vote for, and I have doubts that he has changed enough that I could vote for him if he is the Democratic candidate for president in '08.     
       
      H.RES.333
      Title: Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
      Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10] (introduced 4/24/2007)      Cosponsors (21)
      Latest Major Action: 5/4/2007 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.

      Jump to: Summary, Major Actions, All Actions, Titles, Cosponsors, Committees, Related Bill Details, Amendments

      SUMMARY AS OF:
      4/24/2007--Introduced.

      Impeaches Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

      Sets forth articles of impeachment stating that Vice President Cheney: (1) has purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, and about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, to justify the use of the U.S. Armed Forces against Iraq in a manner damaging to U.S. national security interests; and (2) has openly threatened aggression against Iran absent any real threat to the United States, and has done so with the U.S. proven capability to carry out such threats, thus undermining U.S. national security.


      MAJOR ACTIONS:

        ***NONE***


      ALL ACTIONS:
      4/24/2007:
      Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
      5/4/2007:
      Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.

      TITLE(S):  (italics indicate a title for a portion of a bill)

        ***NONE***


      COSPONSORS(21), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]:     (Sort: by date)

      Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2] - 8/1/2007 Rep Brady, Robert A. [PA-1] - 7/24/2007
      Rep Clarke, Yvette D. [NY-11] - 6/6/2007 Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] - 5/1/2007
      Rep Cohen, Steve [TN-9] - 8/4/2007 Rep Ellison, Keith [MN-5] - 6/28/2007
      Rep Farr, Sam [CA-17] - 7/12/2007 Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] - 7/12/2007
      Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18] - 8/4/2007 Rep Johnson, Henry C. "Hank," Jr. [GA-4] - 6/28/2007
      Rep Kilpatrick, Carolyn C. [MI-13] - 9/7/2007 Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9] - 6/7/2007
      Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 7/10/2007 Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8] - 7/10/2007
      Rep Payne, Donald M. [NJ-10] - 8/1/2007 Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] - 5/1/2007
      Rep Towns, Edolphus [NY-10] - 9/27/2007 Rep Waters, Maxine [CA-35] - 6/12/2007
      Rep Watson, Diane E. [CA-33] - 10/16/2007 Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] - 6/7/2007
      Rep Wynn, Albert Russell [MD-4] - 5/10/2007

      COMMITTEE(S):
      RELATED BILL DETAILS:

        ***NONE***

      AMENDMENT(S):

      ***NONE***