Court Of Impeachment And War Crimes: Impeach, Bush, Cheney, End The War, Citizens Unite!

Click for a full report.

Imbush Peach

An interview with Naomi Wolf about the 10 steps from democracy to dictatorship!

Stop The Spying Now

Stop the Spying!

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Impeach, Bush, Cheney, End The War, Citizens Unite!

Impeach, Bush, Cheney, End The War, Citizens Unite!


Join In Acts Of Creative Non-Violent Civil Resistance!

1:30 p.m. in Lafayette Square Park join World Can't Wait and a sea of orange jumpsuits in solidarity with and representing those being tortured in Guantanamo Bay Prison, Abu Ghraib, Bagram in Afghanistan, and CIA black sites around the globe. A demonstration showing that waterboarding IS TORTURE, is planned directly in front of the residence of our biggest war criminal other than Dick Cheney.

The Park will become a rallying center for all those who are determined to put an end to this illegitimate and immoral occupation and demand justice by driving the war criminals from office now, not waiting for 2009! We are done with secret renditions, warrantless spying, lying to the public, using signing statements to disobey laws, rounding up immigrants and detaining them.

Veterans for Peace and Iraq Veterans Against the War will congregate at approximately 3:30 PM at the White House and we will be there to join and support their actions at the scene of the crime. At sundown prepare to witness the film exposing the ultimate crimes committed by this regime at Lafayette Square Park: The Bush Crimes Commission film! View Larger Map

Tent Cities Springing Up In America Already! Thanks George!

A message from Ramsey Clark on the fifth anniversary of the Iraq invasion


A message from Ramsey Clark on the fifth anniversary of the Iraq invasion

Dear Sir

Impeachment is not a political question. It is a constitutional duty. It is the means by which the people, through their elected representatives, can protect their country from a lawless "President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States" by removing them from office. A failure to act in the face of a persistent, systemic and proudly proclaimed course of criminal conduct can bring the country to ruin.

Ramsey Clark speaking at the March on the Pentagon, March 17, 2007 "We, The People must demand that the Congress do its duty and impeach President Bush before the Fourth of July.

Each of us should pledge to refuse to vote for any candidate for, or Member of, the House of Representatives who fails to actively support a bill of impeachment of President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other high officers who have participated in their High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

To make an urgently needed donation to help build the important work of ImpeachBush in the coming year, click on this link." -- Ramsey Clark

We have come to the fifth anniversary of the Bush Administrations war of aggression and violent occupation of Iraq a chosen course of criminal conduct that has brought death, destruction, division, alienation and staggering costs predicted to reach into the trillions of dollars.

Ten long months remain in a failed Presidency that promises to pursue its misbegotten policies to its last day, during which it can cause irreconcilable conflict and irreversible decline in U.S. global influence for better or for worse.

A million Americans, as of this date, have cast their vote to impeach the Bush cabal on this single website and easily 99 million more share that concern, but have not found the opportunity, or motivation to act. Yet impeachment now will have far greater effect on the conduct
of the next Presidency than the November elections, whatever party and candidate wins.

Impeachment now will end the Bush Presidency and inform the next several, at least, that the American people will not tolerate lawless wars on foreign peoples and American Principles.

Impeachment now will stop the continuing course of criminal conduct of the Bush Administration, which becomes more dangerous each day. President Bush is working at a frenetic pace to prove in the face of all the facts that his policies are right and heroic. Consider this.

1. The April 2008 issue of Vanity Fair magazine contains an investigative report entitled The Gaza Bombshell supported by "confidential documents, corroborated by outraged former and current U.S. officials," which shows that after the Bush Administration pushed for Palestinian elections in January 2006, then, having failed to anticipate a Hamas victory, urged President Abbas to remove the fairly elected Hamas officials.

Thereafter, President Bush, Condoleezza Rice and Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams backed an "action plan" to provide the means to develop an armed force under Fatah strongman Muhammad Dahlan, "to crush the inevitable resistance", which failed, touching off a bloody civil war in Gaza and the violent consequences since with Hamas rockets striking Israel and Israeli assaults killing hundreds of Palestinians in both Gaza and the West Bank.

Congress was told only non-lethal aid as required by law, was being supplied to Fatah, while Secretary of State Rice raised cash to buy weapons for Fatah from which "at least 20 million of such lethal assistance got through." The entire enterprise involved a conspiracy to commit impeachable offenses.

Far more dangerous than the Iran-Contra escapade of the Reagan Administration, in which Elliot Abrams himself was convicted, the Bush Administration has destroyed any chance for a united Palestine in the near future and peace in the Middle East. For his legacy Bush now hopes to impose a peace agreement between Israel and a Palestinian government without Hamas, both parties still reeling from the consequences of Bush's planned violence. But a divided and traumatized

Palestine is not capable of achieving a peace agreement that can win the support of the Palestinian people and secure peace. The U.S. has never denied the factual accuracy of this devastating report. Its only response was a self-righteous reiteration of US opposition to terrorism without addressing the statements in the story.

2. President Bush has vetoed Congressional legislation prohibiting torture by the CIA. Congress failed to override the veto by the required 60% of the voting members in the House, all in March 2008. This tells US intelligence agencies and military forces as well as the world at large that the US will continue its criminal practice of torture in violation of international and US law, a continuing impeachable offense.

3. President Bush is pressing the Government of Iraq that his policies created, for a binding bilateral treaty recognizing a permanent US military presence in Iraq and a major share of oil exploration, development, production, distribution and control rights in Iraq for US oil companies. The new $700 million US Embassy in the heart of Baghdad will be the center of power in Iraq. Both are continuing impeachable offenses.

4. President Bush continues to threaten, among others, North Korea, Sudan, Syria and most of all Iran with the use of force, a violation of the U.N. Charter equal to the actual use of force. The threats are impeachable offenses. Considering his history, it would be naive and negligent to fail to act to prevent President Bush from further military aggression. Impeachment is the only sure way.

5. On March 11, 2008, the early retirement, effective March 31, 2008, of Admiral William J. Fallon, the commander of all US forces in the Middle East was announced. Admiral Fallon replaced General John P. Abizaid, only last year, with great fanfare from the Bush Administration. Admiral Fallon failed to meet their expectations. He emphasized diplomacy over force in dealing with Iran, supported additional troop withdrawals from Iraq and expressed the view that the US had not given sufficient attention to Afghanistan.

Thomas P.M. Garnett, a respected military analyst wrote a profile of Admiral Fallon for Esquire magazine earlier this year entitled The Man Between War and Peace, in which he quoted the Admiral as saying the "constant drumbeat of conflict" from the Bush Administration, directed at Iran was neither helpful, nor useful.

The removal of Admiral Fallon to facilitate further aggression in Iraq and threats or assaults against Iran is an impeachable offense.

All of these activities of the Bush administration involve new impeachable offenses committed within the last few months. How many more impeachable acts will occur if we fail to achieve impeachment now?

The probability that President Bush will strike Iran with missiles before the end of his presidency is a high risk. Perhaps he will act in the fall to make military concerns dominate the November elections.

Then will he say "The decision to prevent a madman from possessing nuclear bombs was the right decision late in my Presidency ... and it will forever be the right decision"?

We need your help and your initiative to awaken the American people to action, to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. We must break the chains of self-perceived powerlessness and act. Political power is in the people. Vote to impeach on our website. .

We, The People must demand that the Congress do its duty and impeach President Bush before the Fourth of July.

Each of us should pledge to refuse to vote for any candidate for, or Member of, the House of Representatives who fails to actively support a bill of impeachment of President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other high officers who have participated in their High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Ramsey Clark
March 17, 2008

Will President Bush tell the world when the decision "early in his presidency" was made to remove Saddam Hussein? Was it before or after September 11, 2001? January 1, 2003? Why did he claim his "Shock and Awe" aggression was necessary because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and connections with Al Qaeda and not mention his purpose was to remove Saddam Hussein when he ordered that aggression? Does he believe as the "Decider" he had authority to remove Heads of Foreign Governments of his choice?

In the speech to Religious Broadcasters, President Bush frequently spoke of his desire to spread freedom and democracy, arguing, "The effects of a free Iraq and a free Afghanistan will reach beyond the borders of those two countries... It will show others what's possible." Does President Bush believe Iraq and Afghanistan are free and democratic? Does he believe any country in the world would want to trade its condition for the present condition of Iraq, or Afghanistan? Does he know of a village that wants to be destroyed so it can be saved?

"And we undertake this work because we believe every human being bears the image of our Maker. That's why we're doing this," he told the Religious Broadcasters. If President Bush believes every human being bears the image of our Maker why does he send young Americans and spend trillions of dollars to destroy the image of human beings across whole nations? Why do his policies seek always to empower the rich and impoverish the poor?

Do not the poor also bear the image of our Maker?

On March 14, 2008, three days after the federal reserve offered the biggest investment banks on Wall Street $200 billion in cash loans in exchange for hard to sell mortgages, backed securities as collateral, resulting in jubilant bankers and the greatest one day rise in the Dow Jones average in five years, President Bush appeared before grateful bankers on Wall Street to assure them there will be no recession, that his tax cuts for the rich early in his presidency were right and his economic policies will forever be right.

We need your help and your initiative to awaken the American people to action, to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. We must break the chains of self-perceived powerlessness and act. Political power is in the people. Vote to impeach on our website. Contribute generously toward our organizational expenses and newspapers ads for impeachment. Organize in your congressional district to persuade your Member of Congress to act for impeachment NOW.

WINTER SOLDIER BLACKOUT CONTINUES: Look in the Mirror America!!!!!

Iraq Winter Soldier Hearings: Victory for Independent Media

IRAQ: Five Years, And Counting

After Five Years, Cheney Flies to Iraq to Say: GIVE ME THE OIL

FISA Fight: Another day, another new wrinkle

House Again Defies Bush, Upholds Constitution on Wiretaps

The Iraq War Is Killing Our Economy


Join “Revo the Rabbit” and Recreate 68 as we search downtown Denver for hidden spy cameras that have been installed by the City to keep an eye on activists! Come with a group or join-up with one and see if you can win the Great Camera Hunt! To win, your team needs to locate the most spy cameras in your designated area. Meet back with R-68 at Civic Center Park for a potluck picnic. Celebrate the resurrection of a revolutionary spirit.






All intelligence gathered will be used to develop an interactive map for the community.




US/IRAQ: "I Saw the Interrogator Waterboarding Him"

POLITICS-US: We Don't Do Torture - Especially in Debates

Does the Constitution Mean Anything Anymore? (Political Cortex)

Does the Constitution Mean Anything Anymore?
Political Cortex - New York,NY,USA
Congressman Wexler was saluted by the Deerfield Beach Democratic Club with a Backbone Award. Yes, they used the word "Backbone" and in this rare instance it ...
By Bill Hare
03/13/2008 09:25:15 PM EST

Does the U.S. Constitution hold any meaning at all in today's Bush-Cheney neoconservative Washington?

The answer that the politically alert are well aware of is that the answer is a loud and highly resounding "No"!

Why does the Constitution hold no current meaning? That answer is simple to those who have been paying attention. The Constitution holds no meaning because it has been replaced by Washington's speedy new way of doing business.

For those who have not been paying attention the Constitution has been scrapped for executive decrees, so many of which are imposed by George W. Bush signing statements. Who cares what the letter and the spirit of legislation involves.

In the true spirit of "the King can do no wrong" all that is necessary is to provide a signing statement in determining what the neoconservative realm seeks to accomplish.

It was the right that used to accuse the left of moving too fast when it came to engineering government. Now things are super swift and decisive.

Take the case of Admiral William J. Fallon. Offer one piece of advice that runs against the neoconservative grain and, as they said in so many of those westerns Hollywood used to crank out, "You will be out of town by sundown!"

One of the few pieces of good news I have read recently is that the Deerfield Beach Democratic Club delivered an award this week to someone who has taken the Constitution to heart, Congressman Robert Wexler of Florida, a beacon of light in the Sunshine State amid Darth Vader-like creatures of darkness such as Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris.

Last night Newt Gingrich declared that he would love to see Jeb as John McCain's running mate, calling him "one of the nicest and sincerest" people he knew. Naturally such a profound declaration was made on Fox News. Where else?

So we have super philanderer Newt, who sought to remove Bill Clinton from office for philandering while married, which Newt later admitted he was doing himself at the time.

So ethically conscious Newt salutes Jeb, known for cheating thousands of African American citizens of Florida, the state he governed at the time, out of voting for president in 2000.

The fact that Jeb's wayward brother, the former heavy drinker who suddenly found religion, was running on a party label that Afro American voters did not fancy might have had something to do with Jeb along with Florida's Secretary of State Katherine Harris engaging in this shameful act of vote deprivation.

Could they have been politically motivated? These church going civil servants?

Congressman Wexler was saluted by the Deerfield Beach Democratic Club with a Backbone Award.

Yes, they used the word "Backbone" and in this rare instance it actually applied to a Democratic Member of Congress who believes in following the Constitution. Wexler is one of a rare handful to challenge the Bush-Cheney Criminal Enterprise in open hearings. Tune in on his website and you can see and hear him fight to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

Robert Wexler does not believe in letting stand without resistance a neoconservative dictatorship ruled by a military industrial complex that dictates to a glassy-eyed, severely retarded chief executive in name who, while over a million died in Iraq due to an invasion launched on a tissue of lies, tap dances and jokes, singing about his pardoning of Scooter Libby and "weapons of mass destruction."

Reed, Pelosi and the rest of you, and you know who you are. This pathetic retard has every reason to laugh at the rest of you. He laughs because you have shirked the duty that Wexler and Dennis Kucinich honored, that of defending the Constitution by bringing charges against those who have shattered that document so that it no longer exists except as a sad memory of what used to be.

Jefferson and Madison would be proud of you, Reed and Pelosi, wouldn't they? How proud they would be that you sat by and watched, doing nothing, while every semblance of representative government and the Constitution on which is was founded were summarily destroyed.

The toll is over a million dead in Iraq while the slap happy joker in chief tap dances in the same oblivious manner that Hitler once did after he conquered France.

The British Labor Party had the collective backbone to throw one of their own, Tony Blair, out of the prime minister's residence at 10 Downing Street after taking a long enough look at the wretched Downing Street Memos.

What about the Democratic Party in Washington? Ask Reid, Pelosi and their allies, who stood silently by while the Constitution was destroyed.

KEYWORDS: Robert Wexler, George W. Bush, Trashing the U.S. Constitution


DEPARTMENT No Comment BY Scott Horton PUBLISHED March 15, 2008

I don’t in the ordinary course review and recommend law review articles, but I’ve just come across one that is close to indispensable for public affairs junkies. On December 7, 2006—the anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor—at least eight U.S. attorneys received phone calls from Michael Battle, the executive director of the Office of U.S. Attorneys at the Justice Department. Each was essentially ordered to submit his or her resignation.

The Administration attempted to sell the event as a routine personnel turn-over. But Congress and the public weren’t buying. After a series of hearings at which senior members of the Administration committed acts of perjury, there was a public uproar. In its wake the entire senior echelon of political appointees at the Justice Department were forced to leave office under a cloud and subject to an investigation into potentially criminal misconduct, as were a number of senior White House figures, most prominently including Bush’s senior political advisor, Karl Rove.

The storm has died down a bit now as the Justice Department completes its own internal investigation of what happened. This has been led by Inspector General Glenn Fine and by the Office of Professional Responsibility. I understand that this investigation is approaching its conclusion now, and that a report is likely in the course of the spring. The report will almost certainly be explosive.

Of George W. Bush’s cohort of U.S. Attorneys, one of the most highly regarded—perhaps even the most highly regarded—was John McKay, who headed the office in Seattle. He was included in the December 7 massacre. McKay has now authored a law review article that examines the history of the scandal, reviews the legal issues that it raises, and provides some observations on the trajectory the matter is likely to take going forward. It’s called “Train Wreck at the Justice Department,” and it was published in volume 31 of Seattle University Law Review. Here are some key elements of the article, which really merits being read in its entirety.


The falsehoods presented, under oath, to Congressional committees were sweeping. They included varying and at points inconsistent accounts of the reasons for the dismissals—which internal documents from Justice reflect were often fabricated on the eve of hearings, sometimes after attempts to synch a false story with the White House.

This was largely part of an effort to disguise the obvious fact that the dismissals were the implementation of a political plan which had been formulated in the White House, largely under the guidance of Karl Rove. They were also designed to disguise the fact that an elaborate scheme had been concocted to circumvent the process through which candidates are reviewed and confirmed by the Senate using a secret amendment to the USA PATRIOT Act.

Participants in the conspiracy to misdirect Congress included Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty, Associate Attorney General Will Moschella—the top three figures at the Justice Department—and a stream of staffers led by Michael Elston, Kyle Sampson and Monica Goodling.

After a flurry of phone calls among the U.S. Attorneys who had been ordered to resign, many of those former U.S. Attorneys concluded that the Attorney General was lying to the Senate about the intent of the Justice Department to seek Senate confirmation of their prospective replacements. In Seattle, for example, no known efforts had been underway by either the White House or the Justice Department to recruit or interview candidates for my replacement.

In spite of my frequent requests for guidance, Justice officials had not revealed their plans, and no internal candidates had been contacted by the Justice Department or the White House. With only a few days remaining before our departures, it was clear the Justice Department planned to name their own interim U.S. Attorneys under the new powers granted them in the amendments to the USA PATRIOT Act. Other fired U.S. Attorneys confirmed similar patterns in San Francisco and San Diego, and we also knew that an interim U.S. Attorney had been serving in Kansas City for many months.

The article documents a series of further conscious falsehoods from Gonzales and other senior figures of the Justice Department related to similar issues.


Perhaps the hallmark of the administration of justice in the Bush era is its complete politicization. No aspect of the process of law enforcement seems beyond the reach of political meddling. This was dramatically demonstrated when Senator Sheldon Whitehouse disclosed early in the hearing process that virtually every political staffer in the White House had been authorized to meddle with criminal investigations and prosecutions.

But the reach of Karl Rove was most apparent, and his fingerprints are all about the December 7 scandal.

Moreover, when senior figures of the New Mexico G.O.P. decided they wanted to fire their U.S. attorney because he had refused to prostitute his office for electoral political purposes, they went straight to the man who could obviously make it happen: Karl Rove.

McKay reviews the politically motivated dismissal of Iglesias in some detail, and shows the focal role of Rove and the involvement of a number of further political operatives.

During 2006 in New Mexico, then-U.S. Attorney David Iglesias led an investigation which eventually resulted in the indictment and conviction of the Treasurer of the State of New Mexico, an elected Democrat.

Iglesias has testified that he received phone calls from Senator Pete Domenici and U.S. Representative Heather Wilson (R-N.M.), in which he was allegedly pressured to accelerate the indictment in order for it to occur before the November re-election campaign of Representative Wilson. Iglesias responded to questions before the Senate on March 6, 2007:

SENATOR SCHUMER: Please describe for the committee now, as best you can, your entire recollection of that communication. Please tell us what Senator Domenici said and what you said.

DAVID IGLESIAS: Thank you, Sir. I was at home. This was the only time I’d ever received a call from any member of Congress while at home during my tenure as United States attorney for New Mexico. Mr. Bell called me. I was in my bedroom. My wife was nearby. And he indicated that the senator wanted to speak with me. He indicated that there were some complaints by some citizens, so I said, “OK.” And he said, “Here’s the Senator.”

So he handed the phone over, and I recognized the voice as being Senator Pete Domenici. And he wanted to ask me about the matters of the corruption cases that had been widely reported in the local media. I said, “All right.” And he said, “Are these going to be filed before November?” And I said I didn’t think so, to which he replied, “I’m very sorry to hear that.” And then the line went dead.

SENATOR SCHUMER: So in other words, he hung up on you?

MR. IGLEGIAS: That’s how I took that. Yes, Sir.

The public record shows that Domenici, Heather Wilson and other figures of the New Mexico G.O.P. lobbied for Iglesias’s dismissal because he refused their demands that a high-profile Democrat be indicted on a schedule calculated to influence the 2006 elections. The demands made were arguably a felony: an attempt to corruptly influence a criminal investigation. They were ultimately implemented through Iglesias’s dismissal.

McKay calls this a process of obstruction of justice.

The elements of a prima facia case of obstruction of justice are (1) the existence of the judicial proceeding; (2) knowledge of or notice of the judicial proceeding; (3) acting “corruptly” with intent to influence, obstruct, or impede the proceeding in the due administration of justice; and (4) a nexus (although not necessarily one which is material) between the judicial proceeding sought to be corruptly influenced and the defendant’s efforts. The omnibus clause of Section 1503(a) is a “catchall” provision, which is broadly construed to include a wide variety of corrupt methods.

Facts surrounding the dismissal of Carol Lam in the Southern District of California, and the equally suspicious but more graceful edging out of the U.S. attorney in Los Angeles also point to obstruction of justice—in those cases for purposes of freezing or stopping in its tracks a series of criminal investigations involving Republican political officeholders and senior figures at the CIA.

This conduct probably runs afoul of several other statutes. One is the Hatch Act, which “limits the political activities of federal employees in the interests of promoting efficient, merit-based advancement, avoiding the appearance of politically-driven justice. . .”


At this point on the basis of the public record alone, no report by the Inspector General could credibly dismiss the serious charges which have been leveled against senior former Justice Department and White House figures connected to the December 7 events. Moreover, an examination of other cases points to rampant, likely criminal manipulation of prosecutions in a number of other cases involving U.S. attorneys in Birmingham, Jackson, Montgomery, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and Milwaukee.

The recent exposé by CBS News 60 Minutes links Karl Rove directly to the fabricated charges brought against former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.

And notwithstanding the exposure of the fraud through which he was prosecuted, Siegelman remains in prison in Louisiana today, cleaning latrines.

There are two clear steps which must follow the release of the Inspector General’s report:

  • Appointment of a special prosecutor with full authority to investigate and prosecute those involved in criminal conduct associated with this affair.

  • Commencement of hearings in the House Judiciary Committee to fully explore the role played by the White House in the misconduct identified in the Inspector General’s report.

The issues surrounding the appointment of a special prosecutor will be numerous. It will be a critical test for the independence and objectivity of Attorney General Mukasey. There are already grounds to suspect that he gave some form of assurance that he would not appoint a special prosecutor in the course of political meetings leading up to his nomination. That is disturbing and a disappointment. If Mukasey were to fail to act under circumstances as compelling as this, it would provide cause for his removal from office.

Any special prosecutor appointed must be a person of unquestioned integrity and professional acumen and not be a person who is or has been involved in partisan politics of any flavor. Moreover, the special prosecutor must be given authority to fully pursue charges relating to the politicization of the U.S. attorney’s office and his remit should not be limited to the U.S. attorney’s dismissed on December 7, 2006. (Note that among other things, Gonzales, McNulty and others continue to maintain their silence in the face of questioning under oath as to the actual number of U.S. attorneys dismissed in this political process).

Further, the special prosecutor must be in fact independent in his pursuit of these matters. Mukasey, his deputy and other senior figures in the Department of Justice are hopelessly politically conflicted and cannot credibly purport to exercise any authority over the process. The manner in which Deputy Attorney General James Comey authorized the investigation and work of Patrick Fitzgerald on the Plamegate matter continues to furnish an example of how this process can and should be handled.

But we should also keep in mind that the jurisdictional basis for the Inspector General’s review is formally limited to the Justice Department and its employees. Therefore the Judiciary Committee in the House of Representatives should convene its own hearings to follow up on the trail to the extent it goes into the White House. In particular the involvement of Karl Rove and Harriet Miers must be fully tested, using the subpoena power, and invoking the power of impeachment if necessary. No claims of Executive Privilege may be lawfully raised to obstruct these hearings, and they should proceed as a matter of urgency and priority.


Surveillance is an urgent issue. That isn't always obvious amid the constant blur of new technologies and one-day privacy stories, but when you step back it is clear we are at a crucial moment for the future of privacy and freedom, in danger of tipping into a genuine surveillance society completely alien to American values. That is why the ACLU has made this new Surveillance Clock – to dramatize the urgent situation we face.

Amazing new technologies enter our lives at such a steady pace that we have gotten used to constant change – change that often comes to us wrapped in the promise (and often the reality) of pleasing new conveniences and efficiencies. Yet the dark side of new technologies is usually slower to emerge – and often builds in the shadows, without an advertising budget or corporate cheerleader to thrust it into public view.

It doesn't require some apocalyptic vision of American democracy being replaced by dictatorship to worry about a surveillance society. There is a lot of room for the United States to become a meaner, less open and less just place without any radical change in government. All that's required is the continuation of trends that have continued unimpeded in recent years:

  • Powerful new technologies
  • Weakening privacy laws
  • The "War on Terror"
  • Courts that are letting privacy rights slip away
  • A president who thinks he can ignore laws against warrantless spying on citizens
  • Big corporations willing to become extensions of the surveillance state

The Surveillance Clock symbolizes the potential for a dark future where our every move, our every transaction, our every communication, and eventually our every thought, is recorded, compiled, and stored away, ready to be examined and used against us by the authorities whenever they want.

The Surveillance Society Clock was inspired by the "Doomsday Clock" created in 1947 by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists to warn about the potential for nuclear war. Today we face the prospect of the complete loss of our privacy. In that way, the Surveillance Society Clock is a fitting sign of the times we're now living in.

But, as dire as things have gotten, it's not too late - there is still time to save our privacy. Doomsayers who say "it doesn't matter, we've already lost all our privacy" are wrong. In America we still enjoy many protections despite everything that is happening – a reflection of the wisdom of our founders and the strength of our traditions. But to keep those traditions alive, our generation will have to work harder. We need modern privacy laws and new technologies that enhance our privacy rather than destroy it.

We hope that our clock will help to remind people of the emergency we face, and spur them to take action on our Web page.

Go to


The United States has now reached the point where a total "surveillance society" has become a realistic possibility, the American Civil Liberties Union warns in a new report.

"Many people still do not grasp that Big Brother surveillance is no longer the stuff of books and movies," said Barry Steinhardt, Director of the ACLU's Technology and Liberty Program and a co-author of the report.

"Given the capabilities of today's technology, the only thing protecting us from a full-fledged surveillance society are the legal and political institutions we have inherited as Americans," he added. "Unfortunately, the September 11 attacks have led some to embrace the fallacy that weakening the Constitution will strengthen America."

The ACLU said that its report, Bigger Monster, Weaker Chains: The Growth of an American Surveillance Society, is an attempt to step back from the daily march of stories about new surveillance programs and technologies and survey the bigger picture. The report argues that even as surveillance capacity grows like a "monster" in our midst, the legal "chains" needed to restrain that monster are being weakened.

The report cites not only new technology but also erosions in protections against government spying, the increasing amount of tracking being carried out by the private sector, and the growing intersection between the two.

"From government watch lists to secret wiretaps -- Americans are unknowingly becoming targets of government surveillance," said Dorothy Ehrlich, executive director of the ACLU of Northern California. "It is dangerous for a democracy that government power goes unchecked and for this reason it is imperative that our government be made accountable."

A recent illustration of the danger, according to the ACLU report, is the Pentagon's Total Information Awareness (TIA) program, which seeks to sift through a vast array of databases full of personal information in the hunt for terrorism. "Even if TIA never materializes in its current form," Steinhardt said, "what this report shows is that the underlying trends are much bigger than any one program or any one controversial figure like John Poindexter."

Steinhardt said that Americans haven't yet felt the full potential of the new technology for invading privacy because of latent inefficiencies in how government and businesses handle information. "Database inefficiencies can't be expected to protect our privacy forever," said Steinhardt.

"Eventually businesses and government agencies will settle on standards for tying together information, and gain the ability to monitor many of our activities -- either directly through surveillance cameras, or indirectly by analyzing the information trails we leave behind us as we go through life."

The report was authored by Steinhardt and Jay Stanley, Public Education Director of the Technology and Liberty Program.

Stunning New Report on Domestic NSA Dragnet Spying Confirms ACLU Surveillance Warnings (03/12/2008)
WASHINGTON – The American Civil Liberties Union responded today to a stunning new report that the NSA has effectively revived the Orwellian "Total Information Awareness" domestic-spying program that was banned by Congress in 2003. In response, the ACLU said that it was filing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for more information about the spying. And, the group announced that it was moving its "Surveillance Clock" one minute closer to midnight.

ACLU Calls for True Oversight of DHS Failures (03/05/2008)
Washington, DC – The American Civil Liberties Union today responded to the House Judiciary Committee’s questioning of Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff with a question of its own: After five years of mistakes, why is an agency that consistently overlooks civil liberties and privacy concerns be still allowed to violate the law?

U.S. Terror List Now Exceeds 900,000 Names (02/27/2008)
WASHINGTON – With the size of U.S. terrorist watch lists growing to absurd proportions – now in excess of 900,000 names – the American Civil Liberties Union today unveiled a new “ACLU Watch List Counter” intended to make vivid just how bloated and dysfunctional those lists have become.

Funding for Invasive Real ID Cons States in Exchange for Their Privacy (02/06/2008)
Washington, DC – After releasing regulations last month that failed to fix the manifold privacy and civil liberties violations of the Real ID Act, the federal government has left state governments to shoulder most of the cost of the onerous, invasive national ID program. The President’s budget proposal requests only $110 million in federal grant money toward the states for Real ID implementation, and even that money, if actually appropriated by Congress, will be split among Real ID and other programs.

NYPD Releases Stop-and-Frisk Database in Face of NYCLU Lawsuit (01/24/2008)
NEW YORK – The New York City Police Department has secretly released its electronic database detailing police stops of hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers to a Midwestern university in the face of a New York Civil Liberties Union lawsuit seeking to make that information public.


A new institution is emerging in American life: Fusion Centers. These state, local and regional institutions were originally created to improve the sharing of anti-terrorism intelligence among different state, local and federal law enforcement agencies. Though they developed independently and remain quite different from one another, for many the scope of their mission has quickly expanded—with the support and encouragement of the federal government—to cover "all crimes and all hazards." The types of information they seek for analysis has also broadened over time to include not just criminal intelligence, but public and private sector data, and participation in these centers has grown to include not just law enforcement, but other government entities, the military and even select members of the private sector.

These new fusion centers, over 40 of which have been established around the country, raise very serious privacy issues at a time when new technology, government powers and zeal in the "war on terrorism" are combining to threaten Americans' privacy at an unprecedented level.

Moreover, there are serious questions about whether data fusion is an effective means of preventing terrorism in the first place, and whether funding the development of these centers is a wise investment of finite public safety resources. Yet federal, state and local governments are increasing their investment in fusion centers without properly assessing whether they serve a necessary purpose.

There's nothing wrong with the government seeking to do a better job of properly sharing legitimately acquired information about law enforcement investigations—indeed, that is one of the things that 9/11 tragically showed is very much needed.

But in a democracy, the collection and sharing of intelligence information—especially information about American citizens and other residents—need to be carried out with the utmost care. That is because more and more, the amount of information available on each one of us is enough to assemble a very detailed portrait of our lives. And because security agencies are moving toward using such portraits to profile how "suspicious" we look.1

New institutions like fusion centers must be planned in a public, open manner, and their implications for privacy and other key values carefully thought out and debated. And like any powerful institution in a democracy, they must be constructed in a carefully bounded and limited manner with sufficient checks and balances to prevent abuse.

Unfortunately, the new fusion centers have not conformed to these vital requirements.

Since no two fusion centers are alike, it is difficult to make generalized statements about them. Clearly not all fusion centers are engaging in improper intelligence activities and not all fusion center operations raise civil liberties or privacy concerns. But some do, and the lack of a proper legal framework to regulate their activities is troublesome. This report is intended to serve as a primer that explains what fusion centers are, and how and why they were created. It details potential problems fusion centers present to the privacy and civil liberties of ordinary Americans, including:

  • Ambiguous Lines of Authority. The participation of agencies from multiple jurisdictions in fusion centers allows the authorities to manipulate differences in federal, state and local laws to maximize information collection while evading accountability and oversight through the practice of "policy shopping."

  • Private Sector Participation. Fusion centers are incorporating private-sector corporations into the intelligence process, breaking down the arm's length relationship that protects the privacy of innocent Americans who are employees or customers of these companies, and increasing the risk of a data breach.

  • Military Participation. Fusion centers are involving military personnel in law enforcement activities in troubling ways.

  • Data Fusion = Data Mining. Federal fusion center guidelines encourage whole sale data collection and manipulation processes that threaten privacy.

  • Excessive Secrecy. Fusion centers are hobbled by excessive secrecy, which limits public oversight, impairs their ability to acquire essential information and impedes their ability to fulfill their stated mission, bringing their ultimate value into doubt.

The lack of proper legal limits on the new fusion centers not only threatens to undermine fundamental American values, but also threatens to turn them into wasteful and misdirected bureaucracies that, like our federal security agencies before 9/11, won't succeed in their ultimate mission of stopping terrorism and other crime.

The information in this report provides a starting point from which individuals can begin to ask informed questions about the nature and scope of intelligence programs being conducted in their communities. The report concludes with a list of recommendations for Congress and state legislatures.





Spitzer Resigns, Bush Remains
By Nelson M.(Nelson M.)
No other member of Congress has moved toward his impeachment. To the contrary, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Dem. Calif.), Rep. Steny Hoyer (Dem. MD) and House Judiciary Committee Chairman, John Conyers publicly took "impeachment off the table" ...

Bush - Cheney Wanted in Vermont and in a Court of Law
By Betsy L. Angert
March 5, 2008; Why Pelosi Opposes Impeachment, By Ari Berman. The Nation. July 31, 2007; Gaming the California Electricity Market, Firm with Ties to Cheney's Task Force Faces Criminal Indictment. By Jason Leopold. Counterpunch. ...
BeThink - Front Page -

At the End of the Day
By --Blue Girl(--WTWC Administrators)
The power of pardon conferred by the Constitution upon the President is unlimited except in cases of impeachment. It extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal ...
Watching Those We Chose -

Nancy Pelosi Wants to Be VP for Obama; Warns Superdelegates - Boston,MA,USA (OH SHIT!)
You know, Nancy Pelosi has been silent about the Democratic race until last week. What did she talk about? 1. Twice she said there would never be a ...See all stories on this topic

Pingree joins liberal delegation in DC
Kennebec Journal - Augusta,ME,USA
The Iraq war and impeachment proceedings against Vice President Cheney have become flashpoints in the Democratic race. Brennan and Pingree have said they ...
See all stories on this topic

Worries of a Liberal Conservative
California Literary Review - Carlsbad,CA,USA
My view now is that George W. Bush and Richard Cheney have done more harm to our country than any previous President and Vice President. ...
See all stories on this topic

The Wages of Peace
By emiwest
by ROBERT POLLIN & HEIDI GARRETT-PELTIER. March 15, 2008. There is no longer any doubt that the Iraq War is a moral and strategic disaster for the United States. But what has not yet been fully recognized is that it has also been an ...
Massachusetts Impeachment Coalition -

From today's inbox: The greater wrong -- war or prostitution?, IA - 1 hour ago
This is not a letter in support of adultery or prostitution. Yet I have to ask why it is that a politician who cheats on his wife or pays for sex faces ...

Impeach this sneaky bastard already!
By --Blue Girl(--WTWC Administrators)
It is imperative that we impeach these bastards, before he takes out the pardon pen and blanket-pardons the whole lot of them. Justice demands public accountability, not weary resignation. What's not to get?
Watching Those We Chose -

Can we impeach him before he does anymore lasting damage to America?
By Hume's Ghost(Hume's Ghost)
President Bush, despite unprecedented low levels of popularity and despite having had his party suffer an historic defeat in the '06 election continues to do his best to unravel American democracy. From the Washington Post ...
The Daily Doubter -

The Upcoming War on Iran, The “Short” Version
By davidjoseph
election, unless they are stopped first by impeachment. We have one and only one hope. Congress must immediately commence impeachment proceedings against. both Dick Cheney and George Bush, THE SHADOW EMPEROR AND HIS ...
Davidjoseph's Weblog -

Ralph Nader: George Bush a 'recidivist war criminal'
Raw Story - Cambridge,MA,USA
... for invoking the impeachment provision of their carefully crafted checks and balances in the Constitution?" Nader mockingly says that Bush and Cheney ...
See all stories on this topic

a duck who is unable to keep up with its flock…
By Mickey
I don’t think of Bush and Cheney as "lame ducks." They are behaving as badly now as they did when they started. There’s nothing special about this period, other than the fact that now no one with a brain doesn’t realize how horrible ...
1 Boring Old Man -

Congresswoman Davis -- HR 3773
By mmrules(mmrules)
Remember,The Bush Administration started this Telecom spying Before 9/11 !! But also,just remember.. Just because Impeaching Bush & Cheney is not convenient time wise or 2008 election wise. It is Your Job to Uphold The Rule Of Law and, ...
marcmaronrules -

A message from Ramsey Clark on the fifth anniversary of the Iraq ...
By Cindy Blogger(Cindy Blogger)
Each of us should pledge to refuse to vote for any candidate for, or Member of, the House of Representatives who fails to actively support a bill of impeachment of President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other high officers who have ...
Iraq War -

Bush's incompetence and arrogance the root cause of our economic ...
By Charles Amico(Charles Amico)
This problem has been brought to you by the President Bush and Vice President Cheney and an Administration of incompetence. Here's what I wrote in January and remember Bush has an MBA supposedly. The only thing this President seems to ...
WeThePeople -

General William Odom Says Impeach and Stop the Funding
In a wide-ranging hour-long discussion on live radio, General William Odom said he sees two useful things Congress can do: cease funding the occupation of Iraq, and impeach Bush and Cheney.
Let's Try Democracy - Writings... -

AUDIO: General William Odom Says Congress Should Impeach and Stop ...
OpEdNews - Newtown,PA,USA
... General William Odom said he sees two useful things Congress can do: cease funding the occupation of Iraq, and impeach Bush and Cheney. ...
See all stories on this topic

Mercenaries Should Not Be Above the Law

The probability that President Bush will strike Iran with missiles before the end of his presidency is a high risk. Perhaps he will act in the fall to make military concerns dominate the November elections. Then will he say "The decision to prevent a madman from possessing nuclear bombs was the right decision late in my Presidency ... and it will forever be the right decision"?

Each of us should pledge to refuse to vote for any candidate for, or Member of, the House of Representatives who fails to actively support a bill of impeachment of President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other high officers who have participated in their High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Just A Touch Of Humor? Or Rumor...

No comments: